BOOK 42 Page 14951 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 21, 1997, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Jerome Dupree, Commissioners Mollie Cardamone, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, Deputy City Manager V. Peter Schneider, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: City Manager David Sollenberger PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:01 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0030) through (0042) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. III A-06, Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Lease Agreement with William Welch and Jim Strickland Ranch for Verna Wellfield Land Lease, (Bid #97-77) for a three-year period with a two-year negotiable option to renew. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 2. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, JUNE 1997, FRANCES H. SCARBROUGH, COMPUTER OPERATOR II, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, UTILITIES DIVISION #1 (0042) through (0201) Deputy City Manager Schneider requested that William Hallisey, Acting Director, and Frances Scarbrough, Computer Operator II, Public Works Department, come before the Commission. Mr. Hallisey stated that Ms. Scarbrough utilizes exceptional computer skills and an understanding of mechanical operations to administer the Preventative Maintenance programs for all three of the City's treatment plants; that Ms. Scarbrough has a certificate. of completion from General Motors on "Diesel Engine Operation, " graduated from the Public Works Academy, and attended courses in Microsoft Excel; that Ms. Scarbrough's expertise has increased the effectiveness and efficiency of Public Works Department operations; that Ms. Scarbrough is courteous, professional, and cheerful towards both internal and external customers. Mr. Hallisey continued that Ms. Scarbrough is a team leader for the United Way Campaign and volunteers in Public Works Department events such as Christmas dinners; that Ms. Scarbrough is active in the Braden River Little League and was instrumental in starting the Myakka City Community Center after-school day care program; that Ms. Scarbrough is dedicated to serving the residents of the City with excellence and pride. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that Ms. Scarbrough is an excellent example of a City employee whose valuable service make the City work so well. Mayor Pillot stated that only 12 of the approximately 726 City employees are recognized each year; that Ms. Scarbrough represents the upper two percent of City personnel in ability as well as dedication. Mayor Pillot presented Ms. Scarbrough with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the June 1997 Employee of the Month in appreciation of her unique pertormance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 10, 1997 AND REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 1997 = APPROVED AS MODIFIED (AGENDA ITEM I-1) #1 (0202) through (0253) Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the following changes are necessary in the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of July 7, 1997: Page 61: Delete the phrase "Tourist Development Tax dollars" from the third sentence in Paragraph "A" so that the sentence reads "that the County Commission voted to contribute $150,000 to fund a model and study of Little Sarasota Bay." Commissioner Patterson stated that Page 3 of the special City Commission meeting of June 10, 1997, reflects only three Commissioners voting for an appointment to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); that the City Auditor and BOOK 42 Page 14952 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14953 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. Clerk should be authorized to revise the minutes to indicate the vote cast by a Commissioner for another candidate. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, the minutes of the special City Commission meeting of June 10, 1997, and regular meeting of July 7, 1997, as modified, are approved by unanimous consent. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES ADVISORY BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1997 (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0265) through (0989) Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, Patrick Calhoon, Sports Facilities Manager, and Pamela Dorwarth, Chairman of the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory (CDA) Board, came before the Commission. Ms. Dorwarth presented the following items from the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board's regular meeting of June 20, 1997: A. Ed Smith Sports Stadium Ms. Dorwarth stated that the Commission is requested to allocate $30,000 in funds from the Handicapped Parking Fines to provide covered seating for the handicapped at the Ed Smith Sports Stadium; that other improvements include relocation of handicapped restrooms and enlargement of the stalls, adjustments to the walkway ramp, and installation of railing webbing, and an elevator providing disabled persons access to the press box. Mr. Calhoon distributed an architectural drawing of the proposed improvements to the Ed Smith Sports Stadium and stated that the Mayor's Committee for the Handicapped and the Administration designed the Stadium to accommodate physically challenged individuals; however, the handicapped do not have direct access to the players on the field; that covered seating areas for the handicapped do not currently exist; that George Palermo, George Palermo Architect, Inc., designed a $58,000 plan designating improvements to two areas of the Stadium; that Staff is requesting up to $30,000 in funding to improve one of the two areas. Mr. Calhoon continued that improving the seating at the right field side near first base, the home side of the Cincinnati Reds, will accommodate the needs of handicapped people; that the lower box area on the right field side will be extended and fourteen new general admission seats installed; that currently, $10 is charged for box seats behind home plate, $8 for the reserve sections behind the dugouts, and $5 for the three handicapped seats at the end of the two walkways; that the seats in the new section will be designated as general admission seats for spring training games; that the seating areas will be accessed by a ramp; that the lower seats will be located directly behind the fence and enable players to stop and sign autographs; that handicapped patrons could maneuver wheelchairs down the ramp to the fence on the field to request autographs from the baseball players; that the autograph seekers would have to clear the area 45 minutes before the start of a game to enable ticketholders to occupy their seats. Mr. Calhoon stated that a covered awning unobstructing the view of the audience in the bleacher or regular general admission seats will be constructed to cover only the four seats in the back row of the handicapped section; that the shade from the awning will come forward towards the field as the afternoon progresses and cover the entire section by the end of a game. Ms. Dorwarth stated that she visited the Ed Smith Sports Stadium in a wheelchair; that the ramp will allow easy access to the field as the incline is not difficult to maneuver. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the handicapped seating area is protected from foul balls by a screen? Mr. Calhoon stated no; that the new section is located directly down the right field line; that seats closer to the play behind first base are not protected either; that screened protection is provided only in the $10 box seats. Ms. Dorwarth stated that the opportunity to catch a ball will be provided. Commissioner Patterson asked for a status report on the County's proposed sidewalk project on Lockwood Ridge Road? Ms. Dorwarth stated that Sarah Blanchard, Planner for Sarasota County, advised the sidewalk project on Lockwood Ridge Road has been advertised for bids; that a contractor will be selected in August and the work will begin in September 1997. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends approving the allocation of up to $30,000 in funds from the Handicapped Parking Fines for renovations at the Ed Smith Sports Stadium including relocation of the handicapped restrooms and enlargement of the stalls, adjustments to the walkway ramp and railing webbing to prevent disabled persons from losing their grip, and an elevator providing disabled persons access to the press box. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. BOOK 42 Page 14954 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14955 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. B. Hollywood 20 Cobb Theatre Complex Ms. Dorwarth stated that 50 citizens' complaints regarding the inaccessibility of seating for disabled persons at the new Hollywood 20 Cobb Theatre Complex have been received; that the theater is in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations; however, the seating is too close to the screen for anyone confined permanently in a wheelchair to view the film comfortably as a wheelchair cannot be tilted back; that the problem exists in each of the 20 theaters; that Timothy Litchet, Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement, suggested to the Board that the theater owners may not be aware of the problem; that moving the handicapped seating one or two rows back may solve the problem; that the Commission is requested to authorize the City Manager, Mr. Litchet, and her to meet with the theater owners to develop a solution. Mayor Pillot stated that viewing a film from the front row of the stadium seating installed in the new theater complex could be uncomfortable. Commissioner Patterson stated that the problem was addressed in a letter to the editor of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune; that the architect and builders of the theater must be familiar with ADA regulations. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to refer the matter of handicapped seating in the Hollywood 20 Cobb Theatre Complex to the Administration with the expectation that the theater owners will be included in any meeting addressing a solution to the problem. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the location of the viewing area for the handicapped is a problem; that the theater owners are in compliance with ADA requirements. Commissioner Merrill asked if the complaints have been received by the owners or management of the Hollywood 20 Cobb Theatre Complex? Ms. Dorwarth stated that she does not know if the theater owners or management received any calls; that she received the complaints due to her public posture as representing persons with disabilities. Commissioner Merrill stated that developers are sensitive to government interference; that the City's recommending a property owner make improvements which are not legally required could result in a negative response. Ms. Dorwarth stated that her attendance at a meeting with the theater owners to resolve the problem was recommended by Mr. Litchet. Commissioner Merrill asked if she could inform the theater owners regarding the number of complaints received? Ms. Dorwarth stated that Mr. Litchet and the City Manager recommended she not contact the theater owners absent the City's participation. Commissioner Merrill asked if any other group exists which represents the physically challenged and is unaffiliated with City government? Ms. Dorwarth stated that the existence of a group other than the Citizens With Disabilities Advisory Board is unknown; that the Board's presentation to the theater owners would immediately clarify that the legal requirements of the ADA have been met; that the City should be represented as well. Commissioner Merrill stated that the matter should be referred with no explicit direction to the Administration which should consider the implications of aggressive action towards private property owners who have complied with legal requirements; that the matter should be addressed diplomatically as the owners' assistance will be required to resolve the problem. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the City Manager will determine whether or not to become personally involved or if the Citizens With Disabilities Advisory Board should approach the theater owners absent the Administration's participation. City Attorney Taylor stated that the matter should be referred to the Administration which is aware of and will properly address the urisdictional aspects of the matter. Commissioner Patterson stated that the theater owners should be present at the meeting; that the Citizens With Disabilities Advisory Board should request a solution to the problem directly from the operators of the theater rather than presenting the problem to the City Manager for an administrative solution; that the theater owners, whose good will is required to solve the problem, should be requested for assistance directly by the Board rather than the Administration. Ms. Dorwarth asked if the problem should be presented to and a solution requested from the theater owners by the Board without any support from the Administration? Commissioner Patterson stated that the theater owners have complied with the legal requirements of the ADA; that a gracious BOOK 42 Page 14956 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14957 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. request can be made; that the motion implies discretion on the part of the City Manager. Timothy Litchet, Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that Ms. Dorwarth had been advised that Staff would facilitate a meeting between the Board and the theater owners; however, the owners have met ADA requirements; that negotiating a compromise with the theater owners is recommended; that mutual cooperation is the goal; that the realistic problems of the handicapped should be presented to the theater owners; that the City cannot impose alterations the law does not require. Mayor Pillot stated that he is optimistic the theater owners will be cooperative and willing to do what is feasible. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to refer to the Administration the scheduling of a meeting with the theater owners of the Hollywood 20 Cobb Theatre Complex regarding seating for the physically challenged with the understanding that the matter be addressed in the most communicative and cooperative manner with the discretion of the Administration as to the participation of Staff. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, AND 12 - APPROVED; ITEM NO. 6 - REMOVED; ITEM NO. 7 - REFERRED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR A REPORT BACK (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0990) through (1760) Commissioner Cardamone requested that Item No. 7 be removed for discussion. Commissioner Patterson requested that Item No. 8 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the City Manager to grant a temporary parking permit under Section 12-6(b) of the Zoning Code to Marian C. Rutkowski 2. Approval Re: Lease Agreement for the Florida House Foundation 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County for the distribution of Local Option Gas Tax Revenues for the period September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998 4. Approval Re: Authorize the City Attorney to draft an amendment and set for public hearing proposed Ordinance No. 97-3971, Section 11-159, to lower the fee to $25 for failure of a keyholder to respond to an alarm activation 5. Approval Re: Award of Contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract with Frederick's Construction Co., Inc., Sarasota, Florida, (Bid #97-80) for wastewater treatment facility buildings refurbishing 9. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Interagency Agreement between the University of Florida, Sea Grant College and the City of Sarasota for preparation of Sarasota Bay Heritage Trail (Blueways) nature/tourism based materials 10. Approval Re: Application for Federal Assistance (Cooperative Agreement) between the City of Sarasota and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program 11. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Agreement between the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the City of Sarasota for the Hog Creek Restoration Project (P808), in the amount of $50,000 12. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Agreement between the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the City of Sarasota for Assessments of Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition (W603), Identification of Toxic Loads (W602), and Habitat Restoration in the Sarasota Bay Watershed (W605) for the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program, in the amount of $116,960 On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County providing for the cooperative administration of City and County Housing and Community Development Programs Commissioner Cardamone stated that the extension of the existing interlocal agreement with the County regarding the City and BOOK 42 Page 14958 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14959 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. County Housing and Community Development Program requires further discussion. Commissioner Patterson stated that the language of the interlocal agreement has been revised according to the July 16, 1997, memorandum from Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development; that Mr. Hadsell, who currently reports to the City Manager will, in the future, follow the instructions of the County Administrator as to all projects funded by the County; that some projects within City limits are funded by the County; that the language revisions presented in the memorandum should be addressed. Commissioner Merrill stated that the County is attempting to provide affordable housing in the City; that many media articles indicate affordable housing should be built closer to the job market in the suburbs; that affordable housing south of Beneva Road near Sarasota Square Mall is scarce; that a plan determining the best way the City and County can work together to administer the Housing and Community Development Department should be developed; that the Director, who reports to the City Manager and the County Administrator, cannot freely promote the City's position that affordable housing should be equitably distributed throughout the County. Commissioner Patterson stated that the consolidation of the Fire Department with the County did not include a stipulation that the Fire Department Chief would report to the City Manager in areas funded by or located in the city; that the Housing and Community Development Program is a combined unit with the City acting as the lead agency; that the interlocal agreement could stipulate that the City Manager will consult with the County Administrator or allow the County Administrator to act in an advisory capacity; that direction from the City Administration is not included as a requirement when the County is the lead agency as in the consolidation of the Fire Department; however, the Director of the Housing and Community Development Program, for which the City is the lead agency, is required to take direction from the County. Commissioner Patterson continued that the County is reluctant to supply affordable housing within County borders; that the City is attempting to upgrade the plentiful, existing affordable housing located within the City limits; that one agency rather than the existing, complex, consolidated program should be developed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that consolidating the Housing and Community Development Program with the County has not been satisfactory to all parties; that the newly written extension of the interlocal agreement should be studied and the advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation presented to the City Commission. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that affordable housing for middle- and upper-income residents in the City has been provided; however, affordable housing for people making a minimum wage should be developed. Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, came before the Commission and stated that the language revision presented in the July 16, 1997, memorandum addresses the County's concerns; that the original interlocal agreement indicated that the Director of the City and County Housing and Community Development Program reported solely to the City Manager; that the County Administrator had no ability to direct or provide input regarding County projects outside the City limits; that the language revision ensures the Housing and Community Development Program will receive input and direction from the County Administrator on projects funded by the County. Mr. Hadsell continued that all employees of the City Fire Department were transferred to the County when the Fire Department was consolidated; that the Director of Housing and Community Development administers programs funded by and located in the County which are unrelated to the City. Mr. Hadsell further stated that the lack of affordable housing in South County and the perception that all available funds are spent in the City concerns the Countyi however, recent studies indicate that funds have been equitably distributed to low-income residents both in the City and in North and South County. Commissioner Patterson stated that the language revision to the interlocal agreement indicates the Director of Housing and Community Development shall follow the instructions of the County Administrator or his designee as to all projects funded by the County; that approving the County Administrator's authority to direct projects funded by the County within the City limits is a concern. Mr. Hadsell stated that the language was revised during a negotiation process; that negotiating between the City and the County as a City employee is difficult. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City Manager and the County Administrator could meet and devise language more appropriate and less dogmatic. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that language should be devised which provides the City Manager discretion over projects within City limits and the County Administrator discretion over projects in the County. BOOK 42 Page 14960 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14961 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill asked if the County has any intention of providing low-income housing near the Sarasota Square Mall or on Clark Road near I-75? Mr. Hadsell stated that Habitat for Humanity is scheduled to construct 13 new houses in unincorporated Newtown; that in September, the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners will be requested to approve construction of four new houses in the Laurel District in South County. Commissioner Merrill stated that the proposed projects will result in the incremental growth of existing low-income areas; and asked if low-income housing is proposed in locations close to jobs such as Sarasota Square Mall? Mr. Hadsell stated that the Housing and Community Development Department cannot spend more than $104,000 on a house; that land costs and impact fees in suburban areas hinder the construction of low-priced housing. Commissioner Merrill asked if the County has demonstrated any inclination to construct low-income housing in the suburban areas? Mr. Hadsell stated no. Commissioner Merrill asked if a study to determine the feasibility of locating low-income housing in the suburbs has been performed? Mr. Hadsell stated no. Mayor Pillot asked if a problem is foreseen if the City Commission takes no action on the interlocal agreement with the County at this meeting? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that postponing approval until September will still provide sufficient time to finalize the interlocal agreement to the satisfaction of all parties. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to refer Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 7, addressing the interlocal agreement with the County regarding the City and County Housing and Community Development Program, to the Administration with the comments of the Commission for a report back indicating how the joint program accrues to the City's benefit. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the report should include the advantages and disadvantages of the 1991 consolidation of the Housing and Development Program; that the opinions of builders of affordable housing should be solicited to determine the advantages or disadvantages of doing business with a consolidated agency and why low-income housing is not being built; that reports indicating builders must wait longer for payment from the County than the City should be investigated; that a comparison between low-income and affordable housing prices should be provided; that a comprehensive report regarding the City and County Housing and Community Development Program should be provided to the Commission. Mr. Hadsell stated that the problem of the County's slow payment to builders has been eliminated to a great extent. Commissioner Patterson stated that the administration of funding is a concern; however, the City is benefited by the joint administration of the Program; that salary expenses are saved; that the City receives County funds because the County is reluctant to create affordable housing outside City limits. Mr. Hadsell stated that the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds would be required for housing rehabilitation if the Housing and Development Program were administered absent the County's participation, that the City did not have a down-payment assistance program prior to the consolidation of the Program. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to refer Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 7, regarding the interlocal agreement with the County regarding the City and County Housing and Community Development Program to the Administration with the comments of the Commission for a comprehensive report back including the advantages and disadvantages to the City of the 1991 consolidation, responses from builders of affordable housing regarding the advantages or disadvantages of doing business with a consolidated agency, the reasons builders wait longer for payment from the County than the City; a comparison between low-income and affordable housing, and the administration of the funding. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Fourth Amendment to the Agreement with Gary B. Hoyt, AIA, PA, Architects & Planners, Sarasota, Florida, (Bid #90-215) for the restoration of the Municipal Auditorium, formerly known as Exhibition Hall Commissioner Patterson stated that the language in the amendment appears to indicate that $30,000 is requested for an architectural contract for the Municipal Auditorium for design services to renovate the existing dressing rooms, install new handicapped access toilet stalls and plumbing fixtures, new dressing counters/mirrors, new flooring in toilet stalls, toilet accessories, toilet stall partitions and ceilings, exhaust fans, and electrical lighting upgrades; that $30,000 should be sufficient to complete the entire construction project rather than to fund the architectural fee; and asked for clarification? BOOK 42 Page 14962 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14963 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. Deputy City Manager stated that the architect's proposal attached to the documentation shows the design fees are $3,000; that the entire project including construction will not exceed $30,000. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Administration's recommendation indicates the Commission should authorize the amendment to the agreement with Gary B. Hoyt, AIA, PA, Architects and Planners; that the funding amount is indicated as not to exceed $30,000; that allocating $30,000 to construct the entire project is not a problem. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the $30,000 will include Mr. Hoyt's fee as the construction manager of the project. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 8, with the clarifications provided by the Administration. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-994) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (1774) through (1830) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 97R-994) in its entirety. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 97R-994, appropriating $10,000 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to fund the training expenses for two lieutenants to attend the Southern Police Institute, etc. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 97R-994. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 97R-991, DETERMINING TO ADOPT THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE HUDSON BAYOU MAINTENANCE DREDGING IMPROVEMENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; AMENDING THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL TO INCLUDE THEREIN THE COLLECTION OF THE CENTRAL PARK CONDOMINIUMS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS THROUGH THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION; SPECIFYING THE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT AS REGARDING THE CENTRAL PARK CONDOMINIUMS; DIRECTING THAT THE MAYOR SHALL CERTIFY THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL RELATING TO THE CENTRAL PARK CONDOMINIUMS TO THE TAX COLLECTOR; DIRECTING THAT THE CERTIFICATION TO THE TAX COLLECTOR SHALL SPECIFY THAT THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT IS TO BE COLLECTED FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR OR IS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS; DIRECTING THAT THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT FOR EACH PARCEL WITHIN THE CENTRAL PARK CONDOMINIUMS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1831) through (1999) Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that on August 5, 1996, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 96R-900, levying a special assessment for the Hudson Bayou Maintenance Dredging Improvement Special Assessment District; that the Central Park Condominiums had been excluded from the assessment roll by error; that on December 2, 1997, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 97R-939, amending the Uniform Method of Collecting a special assessment for dredging of the Hudson Bayou by collecting the annual installments for the Central Park Condominiums through the tax collector pursuant to the annual tax bill. Mr. Mitchell continued that Resolution No. 97R-991 amends the non-ad valorem assessment roll for the Hudson Bayou Maintenance Dredging Improvement Special Assessment District to include the Central Park Condominiums; that in 1996, the City entered into an agreement with the Central Park Home Owners Association to levy the $5,700 special assessment on the 90 individual condominium owners with the understanding that the condominiums would be included on the assessment roll after the first year. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. BOOK 42 Page 14964 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14965 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. Deputy city Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Resolution No. 97R-991 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 97R-991 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Resolution No. 97R-991 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 8. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-4003, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING AND ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL WIRELESS ELECONAUNICATION FACILITIES FOR SIX (6) MONTHS FROM JUNE 16, 1997 TO DECEMBER 16, 1997; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO THE NEED FOR AND PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY SUCH A MORATORIUM: PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTIONS; DEFINING TERMS; PROVIDING FOR A STUDY: PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. = ADOPTED ON SECOND READING (TITLE ONLY) (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (2001) through (3018) Mayor Pillot asked for clarification of the requirement to conduct a public hearing for the second reading of a proposed ordinance? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that under Florida law, two public hearings at first and second reading are required when an item affects more than five percent of the total land area in a city; that this item as well as the item scheduled later in the agenda restricting gambling boats within the City limits require two public hearings. City Attorney Taylor stated that this is the second of two required public hearings on Ordinance No. 97-4003, to establish a moratorium on the process and issuance of development permits for the construction of commercial wireless telecommunication facilities; that the moratorium will take effect from June 16, 1997, through December 16, 1997, and allow the City the opportunity to study and enact applicable zoning regulations; that the proposed ordinance was passed on first reading at the July 7, 1997, regular Commission meeting, with the understanding that the term "antenna" would be defined prior to second reading and that the Zoning Code amendment process is to proceed expeditiously. City Attorney Taylor continued that public input at the first public hearing disclosed the need to address antennas located at homes or commercial businesses which receive multichannel, multipoint distribution services (MMDS); that the City's consultant has provided copies of the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) indicating MMDS antennas which exceed one meter in diameter or diagonal measurement can be regulated; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4003 will exempt from the moratorium MMDS antennas which are one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement as per FCC regulations. Commissioner Patterson stated that the definition of antenna included in proposed Ordinance No. 97-4003 indicates an antenna can extend an additional 20 feet above the roof line of a structure or tower; that a satellite dish 20 feet in height and one meter in diameter used for commercial purposes could be installed on the roof of a single-family home some of which are 50 feet in height in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) areas. Paul Costanzo, Chief Planner, came before the Commission and stated that only new antennas installed on existing towers or structures rather than buildings are exempt. Commissioner Patterson asked if a satellite dish 20 feet in height and one meter in diameter for commercial purposes could be installed on the roof of a single-family home? Mr. Costanzo stated that a 20-foot-high satellite dish for commercial purposes could be installed on the roof of a single-family home located in an Industrial (I) or Industrial, Light, and Warehousing (ILW) Zone District; that installation of a wireless telecommunications facility in a residential zone district would require a special exception approved by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) and the Commission. Commissioner Patterson asked if special exceptions in single-family zone districts are required with or without the proposed ordinance? Mr. Costanzo stated yes; that the permitting requirements in the existing Zoning Code indicating radio and transmission facilities are to be regulated in the same way as microwave towers can be used to regulate all towers. Commissioner Patterson stated that wireless telecommunications facilities for commercial purposes cannot be built in a residential zone district without a special exception from the PBLP and the Commission; that residents may install a wireless telecommunications facility only for their own personal viewing pleasure. BOOK 42 Page 14966 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14967 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Costanzo stated that is correct. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that at the July 7, 1997, regular Commission meeting, the Commission requested a work program to study zoning regulations for wireless telecommunications facilities during the moratorium; that two schedules have been developed; that one work program, allowing the PBLP to make a finding of consistency, has a moratorium completion date of November 17, 1997; that the second work program, allowing the PBLP to hold a public hearing, would be completed on December 15, 1997; that a workshop with representatives of the telecommunications industry has been scheduled at 9 a.m., Wednesday, July 30, 1997; that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4003 on second reading with acceptance of the work program allowing the PBLP to make a finding of consistency and completing the moratorium on November 17, 1997. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Mark Fore, Attorney, Law Firm of Frank and Gramley, 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2500, Tampa (33602), representing AT&T Wireless Services, stated that AT&T objects to any form of moratorium; however, the City's moratorium has been enacted in reliance upon the decision of the Federal Court in Spring Spectrum, L.P. versus the City of Medina, Washington; that although the applications from the telecommunications industry during the moratorium in the City of Medina were accepted by that City's regulatory agencies, the City of Sarasota has prohibited acceptance of applications during the moratorium period. Mr. Fore continued that a six-month moratorium prohibits the industry's ability to provide service expeditiously; that although AT&T can currently provide the required service to the community, the number of wireless telecommunications facilities would have to be increased if the demand accelerates; that several new Personal Communications Services (PCS) providers in the local market exist; that PCS is a new technology which allows connection between a cellular telephone and a wireless telecommunications facility for facsimile and video transmissions; that a six-month moratorium will negatively impact the new PCS providers who have invested millions of dollars in FCC licenses; that the Commission is requested to consider implementing the moratorium for three rather than six months; that AT&T Wireless will provide the City assistance in completing the proposed ordinance; that Anthony Flores, Director of Construction Services, AT&T Wireless Services, has developed a presentation to educate governments in the process of regulating telecommunications services. Mayor Pillot stated that the proposed schedule for the work program will be completed in November 1997; that the moratorium will last only four months. Robert Kersteen, Manager, GTE Mobilnet, 5303 Commerce Park Boulevard (33610), stated that the Commission is requested to revise the language of the proposed ordinance to establish the moratorium for "up to" six months; that industry representatives will provide pertinent information to the Commission on a timely basis and cooperate to complete the study of zoning regulations addressing wireless telecommunications facilities. Mayor Pillot asked if the language in the proposed ordinance should be changed to indicate the moratorium will be established for "up to" six months? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City is not obligated to keep the moratorium in effect for six months; that the moratorium can be terminated early; that the title of the proposed ordinance as well as additional sections in the document would have to be revised; that acknowledging on the record that the moratorium can be terminated ahead of schedule rather than making language revisions is preferred. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends adopting proposed Ordinance No. 97-4003 on second reading with specification by the Commission as to the work program which should be scheduled. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97-4003 by title only. Commissioner Patterson asked if the schedule for the work program requiring a PBLP public hearing could be expedited to shorten the moratorium by one month? Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that advertising requirements and the additional Staff time to assemble the agenda materials require a longer time frame for the work program providing a PBLP public hearing rather than a finding of consistency; that allowing the PBLP to hold a public hearing and receive input from representatives of the telecommunications industry is an option. Commissioner Patterson stated that Staff would have to assemble the same material for a consistency finding by the PBLP with or without the public hearing. BOOK 42 Page 14968 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14969 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Costanzo stated that four additional weeks are required due to the fact that all items coming before the PBLP for a public hearing must be presented first to the Development Review Committee (DRC). Commissioner Patterson asked if a DRC review will be necessary if the PBLP is directed to reach a finding of consistency rather than hold a public hearing? Mr. Costanzo stated no. Commissioner Patterson asked if any proposed ordinance going before the PBLP must be reviewed by the DRC? Mr. Costanzo stated yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that an ordinance with zoning regulations suitable for recommendation to the Commission must be developed; that the time frame for the study of zoning regulations relating to wireless elecommunications facilities can be altered to any degree determined suitable by the Commission; that the DRC review can be incorporated as part of the Administrative review; that the extra time required to conduct a PBLP public hearing is the only consideration. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the first workshop will be held with representatives of the telecommunications industry on July 30, 1997, which Staff from departments represented in the DRC will attend; that the time frame may be accelerated at that time. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 97-4003 on second reading with acceptance of the work program schedule allowing the PBLP to hold a public hearing and with the stipulation that Staff expedite the time frame Commissioner Patterson asked if the City will be prohibited from regulating the height of any antenna less than one meter in diameter? Attorney Schenk stated that is correct; that FCC regulations exempt antennas less than one meter in diameter from City regulation. Commissioner Patterson stated that a substantial antenna 200 feet in height could be installed in a single-family residential zone district. Attorney Schenk stated that is correct. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 97-4003 on second reading with acceptance of the work program schedule allowing the PBLP to hold a public hearing and with the stipulation that Staff expedite the time frame. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes. 9. FIRST PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-3995, AMENDING THE MARINE PARK ZONE: CREATING SECTION 8-197 (C), ZONING CODE, TO PROHIBIT THE BOARDING OF PASSENGERS UPON, AND THE DOCKING OR MOORING OF, GAMBLING BOATS IN THE MARINE PARK ZONE DISTRICT; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. - PASSED ON FIRST READING (TITLE ONLY) (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) AND PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-4004, PERTAINING TO GAMBLING BOATS; CREATING SECTION 21-92, SARASOTA CITY CODE, PROHIBITING THE BOARDING OF PASSENGERS UPON, AND THE DOCKING OR MOORING OF, GAMBLING BOATS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #1 (3020) through #2 (0085) Mayor Pillot stated that Agenda Item IV-3, addressing proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995 which amends the Marine Park (MP) Zone District, and IV-4, addressing proposed Ordinance No. 97-4004 which amends the Sarasota City Code, both prohibit the boarding of passengers upon, and the docking or mooring of gambling boats within the City limits; and asked if both items can be addressed under one public hearing? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes. Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that this is the first of two required public hearings on proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995 will amend the Zoning Code by prohibiting gambling boats from boarding passengers and from docking or mooring in the Marine Park Zone District within the City limits except to take on fuel or to address an on-board emergencyi that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommended adoption; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4004, which amends the Sarasota City Code, contains the same prohibitions within the municipal limits of the City of Sarasota; that proposed Ordinance 97-4004 is enforceable as a City code violation. Attorney Schenk continued that two special reports cited on Page 1 in each proposed ordinance, "Casino Gambling: Is it a Good BOOK 42 Page 14970 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14971 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. Bet for Florida's Future?", published by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement dated August 19, 1996, and "You Bet Your Life, The Dangerous Repercussions of American's Gambling Addiction,' I published by an organization known as Focus on the Family, are entered as part of the record; Detective B.J. Sullivan, Police Department, came before the Commission and stated that in 1994, he traveled to Biloxi, Mississippi to attend a conference and review issues related to the legalization of gambling in that city; that several high officials who choose to remain anonymous indicated that road building, public safety, and other city services were negatively impacted by the legalization of gambling within the city limits of Biloxi; that crime increased substantially; that the Biloxi Police Department received an increased number of robbery calls due to the number of false reports submitted by people who gambled away their paychecks; that crimes such as prostitution, credit card fraud, and stolen property increased; that one high official reported that gambling helped Biloxi's economy which was on the verge of bankruptcy; however, gambling boats should not be permitted in the City of Sarasota unless the revenues are required as the quality of life will deteriorate and crime will increase. Detective Sullivan continued that a proliferation of boats looking for a place to moor would create docking and vehicle parking problems as 200 to 300 passengers disembark at one time; that environmental damage to the Bay could be expected; that the gambling industry is expected to continue efforts to persuade the public to support and increase gambling activities in the State; that Driving Under the Influence (DUI) crimes will increase dramatically as will bad checks, fraud, and prostitution. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Drs. Frederick and Marilyn Hauser, 1255 Gulf Stream Avenue (34236). Dr. Marilyn Hauser stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995 and 97-4004 are supported for the reasons presented by Detective Sullivan; that many places for gambling in the United States are available without bringing gambling to Sarasota. Dr. Frederick Hauser stated that proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995 and 97-4004 are supported for the reasons presented by Detective Sullivan and Dr. Marilyn Hauser; that the quality of life in the City will deteriorate if gambling boats are permitted to dock or moor within the City limits. Esther Rachwal, 4975 Southern Wood Drive (34241), stated that the Commission is commended for developing the proposed ordinances to prevent gambling boats from entering the city limits; that a December 1996, Sarasota Herald-Tribune article indicates that a company newly created by a Philadelphia entrepreneur established an office near the Wharf Seafood Restaurant in Venice with plans to begin a day cruise business; that soon after, Venice City officials discovered the business was intended as a gambling cruise; that another media article indicates organized crime families are well represented in gambling cities and have infiltrated virtually every segment of the community including political organizations; that Commission approval of proposed Ordinance Nos. 97-3995 and 97-4004 are supported. Jacqueline Phillips, 4891 Peregrine Point Circle East (34231), deferred from speaking. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 97-4004 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance 97-4004 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-4004 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the ordinances prohibiting gambling boats within City limits represent a significant event; that the Commission's unanimous vote reflects the community's support; that it is hoped the issue will never be visited again. BOOK 42 Page 14972 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14973 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-4011, AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, LICENSES, BY ADJUSTING THE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEE FOR ENGAGING OR MANAGING BUSINESSES, PROFESSIONS OR OCCUPATIONS WITHIN THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; PROVIDING FOR REPEALING OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) - PASSED ON FIRST READING #2 (0087) through (0454) Timothy Litchet, Manager of Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that State law allows an increase of up to five percent for occupational license fees every two years; that proposed Ordinance No. 97-4011 will increase occupational license fees by five percent with the exception of home-based occupations (Category 32), merchants (Category 37 A-I), and schools operating for a profit (Category 51 A-E); that the three exemptions were determined by a task team made up of himself, Finance Director Gibson Mitchell, and Deputy City Manager V. Peter Schneider convened to review the previous recommendations of the City's Equity Study Committee. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Paul Thorpe, Executive Director, Downtown Association of Sarasota, 47 South Palm Avenue (34236), stated that the Downtown Association of Sarasota opposes any increase in occupational license fees; that the Police Department charges a $25 fee for alarms; that a fee is charged to inspect fire extinguishers; that substantial City and County occupational license fees currently exist; that 28 to 30 percent of occupational license fees collected by the County are paid by businesses located in the city; that in the past, occupational license fees collected in the City by the County funded efforts to promote the City; however, the City no longer receives any benefits from the County's occupational license fees; that the County should be requested to distribute to the City the $17,000 in occupational license fees collected from business located in the City. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the proposed revised occupational license fee schedule has been studied? Mr. Thorpe stated that the list has been reviewed in general. Commissioner Cardamone stated that occupational licenses fees will increase from $8.75 to $9.19 per year for one category of business and from $25.00 to $26.25 for another; that owners of small shops in Downtown pay $400 per year; that one of the largest vehicle sales dealerships in the area pays only $171; that she supports the five percent increase from which specific categories of small businesses are exempted; that increasing the fees for businesses which generate large sales volumes and exempting smaller businesses currently paying more than a fair share should result in equitable distribution of the burden in the future. Mr. Thorpe stated that the Downtown Association of Sarasota supports the equitable levy of occupational license fees; that vehicle sales dealers do pay less than small shops on Main Street. Commissioner Cardamone stated that vehicle sales dealerships have a greater impact on services than Downtown galleries; that the occupational license fees levied on restaurants seating more than 100 people will increase from $195 to $204.75 per year; however, small Downtown retailers pay $400; that the City would not benefit by reducing fees; that the additional five percent levied on businesses generating a great deal of business will not sufficiently offset the loss of revenues from a reduction. Mr. Thorpe stated that Sarasota Ford and other large businesses as well as small stores are represented by the Downtown Association of Sarasota. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 97-4011 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97-4011 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-4011 on first reading. Commissioner Patterson stated that the five percent increase in occupational license fees funding police and other services for Downtown is supported; that police salaries and the cost of services to Downtown merchants has increased substantially; that ad valorem taxes have increased throughout the City; however, those collected in Downtown specifically fund extra services and infrastructure needs in Downtown; that the City has no control over occupational license fees or extra ad valorem taxes charged by the County; that the City will be unable to maintain the current level of services if occupational license fees are not increased; that the inequity between fees paid by small businesses and those paid by large businesses has been addressed by the adjustments made to the proposed revised occupational license fee schedule. BOOK 42 Page 14974 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14975 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill stated that the occupational license fees were last raised two years ago; that inflation has increased in excess of the recommended five percent increase; that the argument could be made that occupational license fees are being increased to equal the inflation factor if the tax were an essential tax; however, dual taxation is an issue each time the difference in the tax rate between the City and the County is increased, which provides an additional reason for people to live in the County; that some areas of the City are highly competitive and attractive such as Downtown; however, the areas east on Fruitville Road or on Tuttle Avenue are only a half mile from the City limits; that increasing the occupational license fees can negatively impact these areas of the City; that for example, two taxes must be paid for a home occupancy license, one in the City and one in the County; that he used to claim his residence for the home occupancy fee but no longer does so as do many other residents; that the dollars are not large but can affect decisions about where to live; that his support will be given to the recommendation as the increase is only to keep up with the inflation rate; however, the occupational license fee should be discontinued and the same tax imposed as in the County; that one of the Commission's goals should be to decrease the tax level to the same as in the County; otherwise, the City will continue to erode. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-4011 on first reading. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 11. PRESENTATION RE: REQUEST FOR THE COMMISSION TO REVISIT THE HOURS OF OPERATION IN THE COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS - NEWTOWN (CBN) ZONE DISTRICT = NO ACTION (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (0457) through (0747) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the presenter is allowed seven minutes to speak during a scheduled presentation; that a two-thirds majority of the Commission is required to take action. Clinton and Carrie Jones, owners of the property at 1958 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, and Frank Bristol, manager of the Newtown Social Club at the same address, came before the Commission. Mr. Jones stated that he and his wife have lived in District 1 since 1979 and started a business called Jones Bail Bonds on 27th Street in 1987; that over the years, investments were made in several Newtown properties which have since been sold; that in 1989, the property at 1958 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, the location of the Newtown Social Club, was purchased; that the Social Club has been negatively affected by the hours of operations enacted by Ordinance No. 97-3982, regulating the Commercial, Business - Newtown (CBN) Zone District. Mr. Jones continued that in August 1994, the City mailed objection forms to owners of property on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way; that property owners opposed to rezoning their property to the CBN Zone District were directed to fill out and return the form to the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk; that property owners wishing to remain in the Commercial, Neighborhood (CN) Zone District were led to believe that only property owners not objecting would be rezoned to the CBN Zone District and be impacted; that the problem may lie with the Newtown Task Force or other property owners; that he and his wife are making great progress despite personal illness; that he is a property owner and role model in the Newtown community. Mr. Jones further stated that the Commission is requested to redraft the CBN Zone District regulations and grant a special exception to the property at 1958 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way to prevent a foreclosure. Mr. Bristol stated that the hours of operation enacted by Ordinance No. 97-3982 have negatively affected the livelihood of the Newtown Social Club which has generated little revenue during the past two weeks; that the Social Club is available for use by students on Thursday evenings from 9 p.m. to 12 a.m.; that adults should be able to determine their own hours; that members of the Social Club do not cause problems; that the Social Club has closed at 1 a.m. to avoid potential problems by non-members; that prior to the restricted hours of operation, the Social Club was open on Friday and Saturday evenings until 3:30 a.m.; that the 2 a.m. closing time required by the ordinance has reduced the Social Club's income by more than 50 percent; that a special exception from the Commission is requested to prevent the Social Club from going out of business. Mayor Pillot requested clarification on Commission action following a scheduled presentation. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a two-thirds vote is required to take action. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that the item was agendaed in response to a request by Mr. Jones. Mayor Pillot stated that the presenters' position was well made and the issues clearly presented; that Commission action at this meeting would not be appropriate. BOOK 42 Page 14976 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14977 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. 12. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS: (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (0748) through (0975) The following people came before the Commission: Michael Paragon, 1751 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way (34234) member, Newtown Task Force, stated that the hours of operation enacted in Ordinance No. 97-3982 have been discussed with Clinton Jones, the property owner at 1958 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, and Frank Bristol, the manager of the Newtown Social Club located at the same address; that the Newtown Task Force was instrumental in enacting the 2 a.m. closing time; that he has acted independently to present a follow-up report. Mr. Paragon continued that the loss of income experienced bby the Newtown Social Club may not be caused by the 2 a.m. closing time enacted by Ordinance No. 97-3982 but by police interference with the members of the Club; that the Social Club is a private, members-only organization and should be exempted from the 2 a.m. closing time; that police records show that no incidents inside the Social Club have been reported; that police enforcement is mistakenly focusing against the members of the Social Club. Mr. Paragon displayed a 1993 photograph of an aerial view of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and stated that the Newtown Social Club will be added to the list of other closed businesses on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, many of which are closing due to the mandatory 2 a.m. closing time; that the Commission is requested to establish a 90-day moratorium on the issuance, acceptance, and processing of the ordinance to allow business owners time to reapply for business loans, relocate, or rezone their properties due to repercussions from the ordinance enacting the Commercial, Business - Newtown (CBN) Zone District. Mr. Paragon further stated that the Town Hall, the Jamaican Restaurant, and the Newtown Social Club, establishments which generated revenues from through-flow traffic, are suffering economic losses; that patrons who wish to continue the evening after leaving the Capricorn Lounge, which closes at 2 a.m., could patronize the Social Club which remained open until 3:30 a.m. prior to the enactment of Ordinance No. 97-3982; that the Newtown Task Force is focusing on deterring crime; however, the crime is actually occurring in areas unsupervised by the police; that individuals loitering on one corner of a building which has a "No Loitering" sign posted on the opposite corner continue their activities uninterrupted by the police; that the police should focus enforcement efforts towards violators rather than on a mandatory 2 a.m. closing time; that the Commission is requested to consider a 90-day moratorium on enforcement of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that only members can visit the Newtown Social Club after leaving the Capricorn Lounge. Mr. Paragon stated that is correct; that members of the Social Club are allowed to sponsor one or two invited guests. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Mr. Paragon is a designated representative of the Newtown Task Force. Mr. Paragon stated no. 13. NEW BUSINESS: RESCISSION RE: MOTION ADOPTED OF JUNE 2, 1997, TO APPROVE HOLDING A CITYWIDE, NON-BINDING REFERENDUM ON THE JOHN RINGLING CAUSEWAY REPLACEMENT BRIDGE ISSUE IN THE FALL OF 1997 TO DETERMINE THE REAL EXTENT OF OPPOSITION TO A HIGH-LEVEL BRIDGE WITHIN THE CITY'S JURISDICTION - RESCINDED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #2 (0977) through #3 (0282) Mayor Pillot stated that he requested this item be placed on the agenda. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at the June 2, 1997, regular Commission meeting, a motion passed by a 3 to 2 vote to hold a Citywide, non-binding referendum on the issue of the John Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge in the fall of 1997 to determine the real extent of public opposition to a 65-foot, high-level bridge within the City's jurisdiction; that at the July 10, 1997, special Commission meeting, Mayor Pillot gave notice of his intent to move to rescind the motion to hold the referendum; that with notice, the motion can be rescinded by a simple majority vote. Mayor Pillot passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Dupree. The following people came before the Commission: Richard Storm, 707 South Gulf Stream Avenue, #108 (34236), representing the Bridge Too High Committee, stated that the referendum is well-intentioned; that the desire for a mandate from the voters is understood in view of the fact that Commissioner Patterson and Commissioner Merrill will eventually be responsible for presenting the City's position to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) ; however, a non-binding referendum may not provide the sought-after mandate or facilitate the City's legal battle against the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) i that the referendum may cloud the issue rather than reinforce the Commission's courageous stand supported by the Bridge Too High Committee. Jacqueline Phillips, 3891 Peregrine Point Circle East (34231), stated that she supports Mayor Pillot's motion to rescind the motion to hold a referendum; that Commissioner Patterson moved to hold the referendum for a Clear mandate from constituents to support the Commission's opposition to the 65-foot, high-level BOOK 42 Page 14978 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14979 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. bridge at the MPO; that a referendum will moot the issue of the compromise developed at the July 10, 1997, regular Commission meeting to propose a 48-foot bascule drawbridge; that the question to be put to a referendum cannot be worded in such a way that would allow any side to win even without the compromise proposal. Ms. Phillips continued that the percentage of voters required to comprise a clear mandate is unknown; that 51 percent will not provide a clear mandate for either side; that including the 48-foot bascule drawbridge in the referendum confuses the issue further; that the question would require the electorate to choose between a 65-foot, high-level bridge, a 48-foot bascule drawbridge, or postponement of action for further study; that the referendum may produce a quagmire and polarize the community even further as the results of the referendum will be open to attack on both sides; that the solution for healing the divisiveness in the community will not be found in a referendum. Donald Blivas, 143 Beach Road (34242), stated the Commission's desire to solicit public support for a 48-foot, bascule drawbridge before undertaking the actions voted upon at the July 10, 1997, special Commission meeting is understandable; that the Commission indicated the FDOT should be stopped from building the 65-foot, high-level bridge designed by Figg Engineering, Inc. and required to build 48-foot bascule drawbridge from an existing FDOT design; that a lawsuit tying up the FDOT for two years and costing several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees will be necessary to accomplish the desired goal; that legal fees and fees paid by the City for the design charette which produced the design for the 65- foot, high-level bridge could total one half to three quarters of a million dollars in tax funds; that the City will be unable to work with the FDOT and the MPO to resolve and fund the stormwater drainage improvements on St. Armands Key during the period the lawsuit is pending. Mr. Blivas continued that a 48-foot bascule drawbridge will not move traffic as efficiently as the structure designed by Figg Engineering, Inc.; that 300 to 400 vehicles can be expected to stop each time the drawbridge is raised which, despite the inaccurate interpretation of a 1993 boat survey, will occur almost as often as the existing bridge; that Bird Key and U.S. 41 will still act as a parking lot for vehicles spewing exhaust fumes; that the drawbridge will not be more efficient in emergencies as gears and components can be expected to break down; that Bird Key residents will receive no relief from noise as tires will continue to abrade on the metal grating of the proposed drawbridge; that the drawbridge will not prevent flooding, will cost $6 million more than the proposed 65- foot, high-level bridge, and cost $200,000 more per year to operate. Mr. Blivas further stated that a 48-foot bascule drawbridge designed by FDOT will not be more attractive than the 65-foot, high-level bridge designed by Figg Engineering, Inc.; that the FDOT drawbridge will have multiple columns and a massing of concrete and steel to accommodate the gears; that the Commission believes the residents of the City can be sold on a bridge which is $6 million more expensive, less attractive, does not function properly, and will require the expenditure of over $500,000 in tax monies to fund legal fees. Mr. Blivas further stated that a productive, three-point course of action should be considered rather than the disastrously, expensive eight-point plan designed by the Commission at the July 10, 1997, special Commission meeting; that the beautiful, marvelous bridge designed by Figg Engineering, Inc., should be accepted by the Commission; that no bridge can be expected to please everyone; that the Commission should work with the FDOT and the MPO to find a solution to the flooding problems on St. Armands Key; that the FDOT is willing to do so and may still reimburse the City for the $200,000 cost of the design charette; that a window of opportunity exists; however, a decision must be made by the Commission. On motion of Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to rescind the motion adopted by the Commission at the June 2, 1997, regular Commission meeting to hold a Citywide, non-binding referendum on the John Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge issue in the fall of 1997. Mayor Pillot stated that the motion to rescind is not specific to the ultimate outcome of the bridge construction but rather how the outcome is reached; that his opinions and judgment cannot be documented objectively; however, the community can infer the Commission is currently considering a proposal for a 48-foot bascule drawbridge, therefore, a referendum would be moot. Mayor Pillot continued that the Commission knows the community's feelings about the bridge; that some members of the public prefer the existing bridge be repaired and others the construction of a 65-foot, high-level bridge; that although both ends of the bridge will land within City limits, a broader community which will not cast votes in the referendum will be using the bridge; that the Commission's knowledge of the issue has a wider scope than any information derived from a referendum restricted to voters within City limits could produce. Mayor Pillot further stated that the City is currently engaged in litigation upon which the effect of a referendum is unknown; that the litigation has the potential of influencing the FDOT whereas the results of a referendum would have no influence whatsoever; that the contention could be made from letters received subsequent to the June 2, 1997, vote that the FDOT is proceeding with the engineering plans; that Jack O'Neil, Commissioner, Sarasota Board of County Commissioners, and an MPO member from BOOK 42 Page 14980 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14981 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. another municipality have reiterated their votes supporting the 65-foot, high-level bridge will not change; that the referendum will probably have little or no influence on the FDOT or the MPO. Mayor Pillot stated further that the intent of the Commissioners supporting the referendum was positive; that Commissioner Patterson and Commissioner Merrill require as much support at the MPO as possible and hope the referendum will bolster the City's position; however, the City Commission is the only political body directly affected by the segment of the electorate which votes in City elections although the same electorate may also vote in County Commission elections. Mayor Pillot continued that finding correct, expeditious wording for the referendum may be difficult; that placing the referendum on the same ballot as the Local Option Sales Tax (L.0.S.T.) would impact negatively on the sales tax issue; that the electorate may wonder why the City Commission should be entrusted with $50 million in L.O.S.T. tax revenues if an independent decision regarding the bridge cannot be reached; that the Commission should proceed with the plan formulated at the July 10, 1997, special Commission meeting and accept responsibility for decisions. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission is a representative government which makes and adheres to tough decisions; that a referendum could be developed to enable the public to provide direction to the Commission on many issues such as development of Mission Harbor and the John Ringling Towers (JRT) properties; that the City should not be run in that manneri that the Commission is extremely democratic and listens to the public for many hours; however, the final decision is consistently made without vacillating; that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune has accused the Commission of reversing positions on the library and bridge issues; however, the fact is that adherence to the original positions has been maintained. Mayor Cardamone continued that the Commission should continue to oppose the 65-foot, high-level bridge; that she voted against holding a referendum at the June 2, 1997, regular Commission meeting; that the referendum may have been appropriately held in June before David Levin, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., was hired to reverse the FDOT and MPO decisions, and the July 10, 1997, special meeting at which Commission support to require FDOT to construct a 48-foot bascule drawbridge was provided. Mayor Cardamone further stated that the definition of a clear mandate has never been determined; that 75 to 80 percent of the electorate would constitute a clear mandate; that a 51 percent majority is insufficient to support and may harm the Commission's position; that an election return reflective of the support for a 65-foot, high-level bridge produced by a survey advertised in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune by a private citizen would be problematic; that the Commission should continue to act as a representative government making tough decisions; that a referendum should not be held. Commissioner Patterson stated that the results of the survey advertised by the private citizen in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune was incredibly biased and do not represent the majority of citizens; that individuals who disagreed with the survey's premise that a high-level bridge is preferable would not have completed or mailed in the form; that the City Attorney presented alternative choices for the wording of the referendum at the July 10, 1997, special Commission meeting; that one version questioned if the voter approved or disapproved of the City Commission's rejection of the 65-foot, high-level bridge and if the renovation of the existing drawbridge or construction of 48- foot bascule drawbridge is supported; that the response to the referendum question should be made binding. Commissioner Patterson continued that the Commission has never wavered from the position opposing the MPO's decision to construct a 65-foot, high-level bridge; that the only other time the Commission reversed a decision was also relative to a referendum; that on January 30, 1995, the motion to prepare a referendum question on the bridge issue was unanimously approved; that on February 6, 1995, the motion to hold the referendum was reversed. Commissioner Patterson further stated that a logical reason for spending $500,000 in legal fees must be presented to the community; that the FDOT is no more interested in building a 48-foot bascule drawbridge than in repairing the old bridge or building a low bridge; that the only way the Commission will win is to fight an expensive war of attrition which can be expected to cause inconveniences to residents on the Keys; that conducting expensive litigation without a referendum would be acceptable if rational, intellectual reasons against constructing the 65-foot, high-level bridge existed. Commissioner Patterson stated further that construction of the 65-foot, high-level bridge is opposed for reasons of aesthetic taste; that the proposed bridge designed by Figg Engineering, Inc., rises too high for the span of water; that spending $30 million to avoid the minor inconvenience of a bridge opening and closing is unacceptable; however, allocating funds for litigation to prevent construction of a 65-foot, high-level bridge which will sit so inappropriately in the Bay is supported; that her subjective view is supported by architects cognizant of aesthetic taste and scale who believe the proposed bridge is too high for that specific location. BOOK 42 Page 14982 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14983 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson continued that the bridge issue is the only issue for which a referendum has been supported during her tenure on the Commission; that requesting the electorate's support for an expensive litigation process which is marginally winnable is not irrational when the Commission believes the ambiance and atmosphere of the community is at stake. Commissioner Patterson further stated that fighting the FDOT would be reconsidered if a simple majority of the electorate are not willing to pay the legal fees and bear the inconvenience; that two years ago, the Commission first approved and then reversed the decision to hold a referendum on the bridge issue due to the $7,000 expense required to set up the balloting in District 3 in which Commissioner Merrill was running unopposed; that at that time, she opposed litigation to stop construction of the 65-foot, high-level bridge; however, she has changed her mind; that litigation to stop the 65-foot, high-level bridge will be supported even if the motion to hold a referendum is rescinded; however, a referendum is the logical and correct way to address this specific issue. Commissioner Merrill stated that a political compromise will not be possible without an electoral mandate provided by a referendum; that the Commission's ability to achieve the compromise proposal of a 48-foot bascule drawbridge will be hampered without a mandate from the voters who also elect the County Commissioners serving on the MPO; that a political compromise rather than a legal battle is preferred; that the legal fight will be supported if Commission support to hold a referendum does not exist; however, winning will be difficult without a mandate produced by a referendum. Commissioner Merrill continued that the referendum is proposed for the same reason the Bradenton Beach and Longboat Key communities held referendums; that representatives of those two municipalities, supported by a mandate by the voters, successfully stopped the FDOT's inappropriate bridge proposals; that waging a legal battle without a referendum will be difficult; that requesting support from the Commissions in Venice, Longboat Key and other municipalities will be difficult without an electoral mandate; that the lawsuit should proceed if the motion to hold a referendum is rescinded. Mayor Pillot stated that legal action to stop the FDOT has been initiated; that three County Commissioners who support the 65-foot, high-level bridge are elected by the same citizens who would vote on the referendum; that the positions of County Commissioners David Mills and Shannon Staub, are unknown; however, Commissioner O'Neil has publicly stated that his vote will not change; that Commissioner Mills will probably not be influenced by a referendum even if the mandate is provided by voters who also elect the County Commissioners; that recent public statements made by the FDOT and MPO orally and in writing indicate a referendum will have no effect. Commissioner Patterson stated that the three individuals who serve on the MPO as representatives of the County Commission would not necessarily have the discretion to continue to support the 65-foot, high-level bridge; that the County Commission has the option of instructing the three MPO members how to vote on the bridge after the City Commissioners as a united body present the reasons a 65-foot, high-level bridge should not be constructed; that other members of the MPO must also answer to the elected body representing their own municipalities; that the City Manger's suggestion that the Commission present the City's position in person to each of the elected boards in the local area makes a great deal of sense. Commissioner Patterson continued that the MPO never discusses the possibility of a bridge to Longboat Key due to the non-binding referendum which produced a mandate against locating the landing point of a bridge anywhere on Longboat Key; that the FDOT conducted a series of bridge location exercises which were a sham since one of the most logical landing points of a bridge had been ruled out by the referendum; that the MPO understands an enormous political fight would occur if discussion regarding a bridge landing on Longboat Key were introduced; that Anna Maria Island and Holmes Beach were able to stop construction of the FDOT bridge proposal because the majority of voters opposed the bridge at the polls. Commissioner Patterson further stated that she would be sad and bitter if the electorate voted against the Commission's position to fight construction of a 65-foot, high-level bridge; however, the City has less chance of winning the fight without the voter's support; that introducing the referendum issue on June 2, 1997, may have been a mistake; however, the Commission will look even worse by showing an unwillingness to hold the referendum; that the service provided by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune by exposing the scale of the proposed bridge to the public has diminished support for a high-level bridge. Commissioner Patterson stated further that she was quoted by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune as promoting a special election in September 1997; however, her support for an election in September is based on a desire to accommodate other Commissioners who perceive that pairing the bridge issue with the L.0.S.T. will negatively impact the sales tax referendum; that no negative impact should be expected as most citizens would probably welcome the opportunity to cast a vote in support of the Commission's position opposing construction of the 65-foot, high-level bridge. Commissioner Merrill stated that public speakers at this meeting oppose holding a reterendum because of the possibility that the BOOK 42 Page 14984 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14985 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. voters will not support the Commission's position; that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune has also advised the Commission's position may not be supported by the referendum; that although the Commission's position may not be supported by the results of a referendum, the legal battle will not be won without the voters' support. Commissioner Merrill continued that public opinion can be influenced by the FDOT; that the existing bridge could break down; that the FDOT could drag out repairs for as long as two months and portray the City as impeding progress; that rescinding the motion to hold the referendum will weaken the Commission's position and hamper the City's efforts to solve the bridge issue. Commissioner Merrill further stated that the results of the referendum will provide input to the County Commissioners; that two County Commissioners, one of whom is the Chairman of the MPO, are interested in re-election next year when City residents will be casting votes; that one of the three County Commissioners who serve on the MPO supported the City Commission's position to conduct further study on the bridge issue; that Commissioner O'Neil, an MPO member who stated his vote to build the 65-foot, high-level bridge will not change, was not a member in November 1993 when the recommendation to build the proposed bridge was approved by the MPO. Commissioner Merrill stated further that rescinding the motion to hold a referendum will imply that the city Commission is afraid of the results; that the referendum should be held. Mayor Pillot stated that the notion that anyone would believe he would rescind the motion to hold a referendum based on fear of voter non-support for the Commission's position is insulting; that no reference to the possibility of the Commission's position losing at the polls has been made; that the motion to rescind is made from a motive exactly the opposite of fear and his conscience is clear; that the Commission is elected to make decisions; that any perception that the rescission has been proposed due to fear that the Commission's position would lose at the polls is unconscionable and unjustified; that the suggestion that any Commissioner would cast a vote from fear is insulting. Vice Mayor Dupree asked the cost of a reterendum? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the referendum in September would cost approximately $1,000 per each of the existing 25 precincts in the City for a total cost of approximately $25,000; that the referendum will cost approximately $500 if presented on the same ballot as the November 1997 L.O.S.T. referendum. Vice Mayor Dupree asked the estimated legal fees to prevent construction of the proposed 65-foot high-level bridge? City Attorney Taylor stated that an estimate of legal costs to carry the lawsuit through the judicial and administrative process is approximately $300,000. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the referendum should have been held immediately after the motion was approved in June 1997; that a referendum determining the electorate's position regarding a 65-foot, high-level bridge should not be held in November after the Commission has developed a compromise for a 48-foot bascule drawbridge and presented the City's opposition to the 65-foot, high-level bridge to the elected Boards representing other local municipalities; that placing the bridge issue on the same ballot as the L.O.S.T. referendum may negatively affect passage of the sales tax extension; that the FDOT will have worked several months accruing costs for engineering plans for the 65-foot, high-level bridge; that the time frame for holding a referendum in November is not right. Commissioner Cardamone continued that the May 19, 1997, MPO meeting ran for a long time due to the 90 public speakers; that three MPO members representing municipalities which may have supported the Commission had to leave the meeting early and did not cast a vote; that one County Commissioner supported the City's position; that the Commission is requested to rescind the motion to hold a referendum. Mayor Pillot asked if the lawsuit to stop construction of the 65-foot high-level bridge has been initiated? City Attorney Taylor stated that Attorney Levin, who has accessed the FDOT's public records, has advised that facts relating to available options to rehabilitate or replace the existing bridge have not been disclosed to the public; that the research is at the preliminary stage. Mayor Pillot asked if the litigation will proceed between now and the beginning of November? City Attorney Taylor stated that the litigation will proceed unless the Commission instructs otherwise. Mayor Pillot stated that the issue of the legal proceedings is separate from the proposed referendum in November 1997, therefore, the cost of the legal fight should not be compared to the potential cost of a referendum regardless of whether the referendum is held for $500 in November or $25,000 on some other date; and asked if the court would give consideration to the outcome of a referendum or consider only the legal issues? BOOK 42 Page 14986 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14987 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the legal issues will prevail in a court of law. Commissioner Patterson stated that she would not vote to continue the lawsuit if a referendum produces voter support for a 65-foot, high-level bridge; that the lawsuit should be withdrawn if the voters' mandate from a binding or non-binding referendum weighs against the Commission's position; and asked when Attorney Levin will be ready to file for an injunction? City Attorney Taylor stated that Attorney Levin advised the injunction should be ready to file in 30 to 45 days. Commissioner Patterson stated that Attorney Levin could be requested to file the injunction after a referendum is held at the end of September 1997. Commissioner Patterson continued that Vice Mayor Dupree's vote will determine whether or not a referendum should be held; that Vice Mayor Dupree's dilemma is viewed with sympathy; that no rancor will be held whichever way he decides to vote. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that no comparative connection between the cost of the referendum and the legal fees exists; that the decision must rest upon other information. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Commissioner Patterson has indicated the results of the reterendum should determine whether or not the litigation will continue. Commissioner Patterson stated that the referendum should be binding; that litigation to stop the construction of the 65-foot, high-level bridge should not proceed if a majority of the citizenry does not support the Commission's position; that holding a referendum would not be supported if she were not willing to be bound by the result. Commissioner Cardamone stated that in October 1993, the Commission voted unanimously against the 65-foot, high-level bridge; that the results were announced in a modest headline and everyone in the City assumed the issue was closed; that at the November 1993 MPO meeting, members of the public opposed to a 65-foot, high-level bridge were overwhelmed by residents of Longboat Key supporting the proposed bridge who were transported en masse to the meeting in buses funded by the Town of Longboat Key; that many City residents opposed to the 65-foot, high-level bridge never heard about the MPO meeting and did not appear as the city Commission's unanimous opposition to the proposal was perceived as the final word; that City residents who did not go before the MPO, having no reason to believe the MPO would oppose the City Commission's unanimous mandate, were astonished to discover one year later that the final decision rested with the MPO despite the fact that both landings are located in the City. Commissioner Cardamone continued that external political forces stacked the decision unfairly against the City's interest; that she does not support a non-binding referendum; however, Commissioner Patterson is indicating that a Commissioner should be bound by the results of a non-binding referendum; that Commissioner Patterson's statement that she would withdraw her opposition to a 65-foot high-level bridge if the referendum does not support the Commission's position is a concern; that she would not be bound by a vote opposing the Commission's position if the polls for the referendum were stacked in the same manner as the offensive directed by Longboat Key at the MPO meeting. Commissioner Patterson stated that any election can be stacked; that the Sarasota Chamber of Commerce has formed a task force to promote passage of the L.0.s.T.; that another organization is forming a committee to oppose passage of the L.O.S.T. Commissioner Cardamone stated that neither she nor the other City Commissioners opposed to the 65-foot, high-level bridge attended the November 1993 MPO meeting; that no reason existed to suspect the MPO would vote against the City Commission's unanimous position. Commissioner Patterson asked if a new notice is required to determine whether the referendum should be binding and if the referendum should be held in September rather than November? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Commission can amend a previously adopted action without public notice; however, the amendment would require a two-thirds vote; that notice could be given for the next meeting to amend the action by a simple majority. Commissioner Patterson stated that the item could be placed on the agenda for the next regular Commission meeting if the motion to amend the original action does not receive a two-thirds vote. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a non-binding referendum is similar to casting a straw vote to determine the mood or opinion of the electorate; and asked for clarification of a binding referendum? City Attorney Taylor stated that Commission action on an issue addressed by a binding referendum would be required to reflect the decision of the electoral majority. Commissioner Cardamone asked if governing bodies traditionally hold binding referendums? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. BOOK 42 Page 14988 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14989 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that a binding referendum was held to approve the Charter of the City of Sarasota. Vice Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion to rescind the action of the Commission at the June 2, 1997, regular Commission meeting to approve holding a Citywide, non-binding referendum on the John Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge issue in the fall of 1997. Motion carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. Vice Mayor Dupree passed the gavel back to Mayor Pillot. 14. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: PROVIDING INPUT TO THE COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT II - DIRECTION WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE ADMINISTRATION AT THE JULY 24, 1997, BUDGET WORKSHOP AS TO THE TOPICS REQUIRING RESEARCH FOR DISCUSSION AT A WORKSHOP AND PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT II (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #3 (0280) through (0581) Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission on Local Government II provides input to the Constitutional Revision Commission which places binding referendums on the ballot for changes to the State Constitution; that the Commission on Local Government II requested that local governments examine the relationships between cities, counties, school boards, and special districts; that the City Auditor and Clerk provided a memorandum delineating issues presented by the Commission on Local Government II for review; that the City should provide input on issues such as annexation and the duplication of service delivery, i.e., County services not provided to the City for which the City is taxed; that the City should send a representative to one of the meetings scheduled by the Commission on Local Government II listed in the agenda material. Mayor Pillot stated that the summary of the activities of the Commission on Local Government II provided by the City Auditor and Clerk is succinct and well done; that the Commission on Local Government II is requesting cities in the State each hold a workshop regarding the following three discussion topics: 1. What are the three greatest challenges facing the City? 2. What constitutional, legislative, or other tools would allow the City to provide services and govern more efficiently and effectively? 3. What recommendations or testimony would the City provide relating to each of the following seven issues: intergovermmental organization, internal structure, powers of local governments, creation/dissolution of local governments, duties of local governments, financing of local governments, and service delivery capacity. Mayor Pillot stated that a City Commission workshop should be held and the results presented at one of the meetings scheduled by the Commission on Local Government II. Commissioner Patterson stated that the workshop should be expedited as soon as possible; that minutes of meetings already held by the Commission on Local Government II are available; that the City's input should be presented at one of the scheduled meetings no later than November 1997. Commissioner Merrill asked if the issues could be discussed at the September 25, 1997, goals workshop facilitated by Lyle Sumek? Mayor Pillot stated that sufficient time to address the issues raised by the Commission on Local Government II may not be available during the goals workshop. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the list of relevant topics presented by the Commission on Local Government II include annexation issues, unfunded mandates, the effect of devolution on the City, public housing, etc., and should be addressed at a separate workshop. Commissioner Patterson stated that Staff should determine the amount of time required to research the issues and develop the materials for City Commission discussion in order to develop a coherent report to present to the Commission on Local Government II. Mayor Pillot asked the amount of Staff time required to develop the research materials? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that at the July 24, 1997, Budget workshop, the Commission could provide direction to the Administration specifying the subjects requiring research; that Staff could then determine the time frame necessary to prepare the materials. Mayor Pillot stated there is a consensus of the Commission that at the July 24, 1997, Budget workshop, the City Commission will provide direction to the Administration regarding the issues requiring research as suggested by the Commission on Local Government II. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a voluminous amount of information should not be prepared. Commissioner Patterson stated that the. City Commission could advise the Commission on Local Government II that involuntary annexation should be allowed; that the minutes of past meetings BOOK 42 Page 14990 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14991 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. of the Commission on Local Government II show other municipalities recommending the simplification of annexation procedures; however, a specific plan for facilitating annexation has not been presented to the Commission on Local Government II; that Staff should specify procedures to facilitate annexation. Mayor Pillot stated that on July 24, 1997, each City Commissioner should present specific topics of discussion for which materials will be researched by Staff. 15. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES ADVISORY BOARD - APPOINTED JUDITH MARTIN AND CHRISTOPHER TOELLE (AGENDA ITEM IX-1) #3 (0582) through (0655) Mayor Pillot stated that on March 3, 1997, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 97R-966, increasing the membership of the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board from five to seven members; that the Commission now needs to appoint two new members. Commissioner Cardamone stated that two of the applicants are professionals providing services to the physically challenged; and asked if current Board members are all disabled individuals or if individuals who provide medical or rehabilitation services to the physically challenged are also members of the Board. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that one of the current members of the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board may not be physically challenged; however, the majority of the members are handicapped. Commissioner Cardamone stated that both Judith Martin and Christopher Toelle have extensive backgrounds in providing services to the physically challenged; that Ms. Martin, who has a Masters Degree in Special Education, has taught special education for 10 years; that Mr. Toelle is involved in the development and fitting of prosthetics devices. Commissioner Cardamone nominated Judith Martin and Christopher Toelle for appointment. Hearing no other nominations, Mayor Pillot announced the appointment of Judith Martin and Christopher Toelle to the Citizens with Disabilities Advisory Board. 16. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: FIREFIGHTERS PENSION FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES - REAPPOINTED CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON AND APPOINTED RICHARD MINSTER (AGENDA ITEM IX-2) #3 (0657) through (0703) Mayor Pillot stated that Kenneth Bailey has resigned form the Firefighters Pension Fund Board of Trustees and the term of Billy Robinson has expired; that Mr. Bailey was and Mr. Robinson is filling the two seats designated for City residents appointed by the City Commission. Commissioner Patterson asked why the Commission is required to reappoint City Auditor and Clerk Robinson? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that he serves as a permanent member on the General Employees Pension Board but must be appointed to the Firefighters Pension Fund Board of Trustees. Commissioner Patterson nominated City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson for reappointment and Richard Minster for appointment. Hearing no other nominations, Mayor Pillot announced the reappointment of City Auditor and Clerk Robinson and the appointment of Richard Minster to the seats designated for City residents on the Firefighters Pension Fund Board of Trustees. 17. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = REQUESTED STAFF MEET WITH NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC ABATEMENT MEASURES ON WOOD STREET BETWEEN SCHOOL AND SHADE AVENUES AND TO DISCONTINUE POLICY OF RETAINING LAW FIRMS WHO REPRESENT CLIENTS SUING THE CITY; DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION REGARDING VERBAL AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE L.0.S.T. FUNDS TO THE CITY TO PROVIDE SEWER CAPACITY FOR UNINCORPORATED AREAS AND TO WRITE A LETTER TO FDOT OPPOSING THE REMOVAL OF OAK TREES FROM RIGHTS-OF-WAY ON OSPREY AVENUE NEAR BAY ROAD (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (0711) through (1493) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that the reason for the practice of requiring the City Attorney and Staff to stand up and be sworn in for public hearings is not understood. City Attorney Taylor stated that Staff must be sworn in for quasi-judicial hearings such as the one under Agenda Item IV-3, to amend the Marine Park (MP) Zone District to prevent the docking of gambling boats. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission agreed the City Attorney and Staff would not be requested to stand and be sworn in. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission agreed not to make the request unless necessary. BOOK 42 Page 14992 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14993 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that an announcement to the public that Staff must be sworn in for quasi-judicial hearings should be made prior to the swearing-in procedure. B. stated that several letters regarding malathion spraying for the Mediterranean fruit flies have been received; and asked for clarification? Mayor Pillot stated that the State has not planned any aerial spraying over Sarasota County. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the State has performed limited ground spraying and contemplates no aerial spraying at this time. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the City can prove the State's claim that only limited ground spraying has occurred? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the City has no ability to determine if the spraying is necessary; that the infestation is being checked by the State. C. stated that the July 16, 1997, letter from the City Attorney's Office regarding the proposed moratorium on wireless telecommunications facilities was difficult to read; that legal terms should be presented in simple language to facilitate the lay reader's comprehension. COMMISSIONER MERRILL: A. stated that the Southside Village Streetscape Project remains under the control of the contractor; however, the nut sedge is proliferating and becoming an eyesore. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that on July 16, 1997, the city Manager directed Staff to perform maintenance tasks in the Osprey Avenue/Hillview Street area; that the Administration wrote a letter informing the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) that the City has been maintaining the area and that the project has not been completed to the City's satisfaction. Commissioner Merrill stated that the issue has been raised to apprise the public of the Commission's awareness that a problem exists; that the area is attractive from a distance; however, the nut sedge is unsightly on close inspection. B. stated that neighborhood residents have requested the City install traffic abatement measures on Wood Street between School and Shade Avenues, that Staff is waiting to determine the effects of the existing traffic abatement measures on Wood Street between Shade and Tuttle Avenues and to determine if the closing of School Avenue will result in increased traffic flow; that neighborhood residents have requested traffic abatement measures on Wood Street between School and Shade Avenues be installed before School Avenue is closed; that Staff is requested to address the concerns of neighborhood residents. C. stated that the list of proposed projects for funding by the Local Options Sales Tax (L.O.S.T.) advertised in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune included $30 million in L.0.S.T. funds allocated to the County's central sewer program; that at the May 19, 1997, joint City/County Commission meeting, the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners was requested to determine if the funds will be made available to the City if the unincorporated areas are annexed; that the Administration has written a letter to the County. Commissioner Patterson stated that a response has been received; that Jeanne Teel, Interim County Administrator, has informed the City in a memorandum that $30 million in L.O.S.T. funds have been allocated to the central sewer program for residents in the County's unincorporated areas and will not be available to the City if the areas are annexed. Commissioner Merrill stated that at the May 19, 1997, joint City/County Commission meeting, the County Commission verbally agreed to provide funding to help the City provide sewer capacity if residents in the unincorporated areas approve annexation; that the current listing of L.O.S.T. projects presents the $30 million as allocated to the central sewer program, makes those funds unavailable to the City, and precludes the City's ability to annex the unincorporated areas; that convincing property owners in the unincorporated areas to annex is difficult; that the City will be denied L.O.S.T. funds necessary to ensure the viability of the City in the future. Commissioner Cardamone stated that at the May 19, 1997, joint City/County Commission meeting, the County Commission assured the City Commission that L.O.S.T. funds to install sewer capacity to the unincorporated areas would be provided if the areas agreed to annex; and asked if a letter from the City Commission should be written to the Chairman of the County Commission reminding the County Commission of the verbal assurance made at the meeting? Commissioner Merrill stated yes; that the minutes of the May 19, 1997, joint City/County Commission meeting should be attached to the letter. Commissioner Patterson stated that allocating the $30 million in L.0.S.T. funds to the central sewer program does not serve the affected residents well; that several of the County Commissioners, BOOK 42 Page 14994 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14995 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. including Shannon Staub, stated they would vote to allocate L.0.S.T. funds to help provide sewer service to the unincorporated areas whether or not the residents chose to annex or remain in the County; that the funds would be used either to connect the properties to the City's excess sewer capacity if the residents reject annexation or help the City install sewer lines in the event annexation is approved. Commissioner Patterson continued that the City showed community spirit by agreeing to use the funds to help sewer the unincorporated area whether or not annexation is approved; that the County should advertise the funds as dedicated to help reduce the cost of providing sewer whether the residents in the unincorporated areas vote for annexation and require the City to install sewer lines or if the areas remain unincorporated which will then require the use of the City's excess sewer capacity; that the letter should state the City's position in those terms; that the abrupt tone of the memorandum from the County inferring the City will receive no funds for use of the excess sewer capacity if the unincorporated areas are not annexed was offensive. Commissioner Patterson further stated that the City should not allow the issue to remain unresolved; that the City should continue to address the allocation of $30 million in L.O.S.T. funds to the County's central sewer system until the deadline for the L.O.S.T. referendum is past. Commissioner Cardamone stated that everyone including tourists who do not benefit in any way pays the one-cent L.0.S.T. which will be used to fund the County's central sewer system. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that the Commission discussed possible conflict-of-of-interest when David Levin, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., was retained; that the law firm is representing clients who are suing the City on issues such as the noise ordinance; that Attorney William Merrill, of the same law firm, who is involved in the litigation regarding the John Ringling Towers (JRT) property, was hired by the City to act as a consultant for the Laurel Park Conservation District; that Attorney Levin was hired due to his experience in researching environmental issues and his previous successful action on behalf of Manatee County residents in stopping the FDOT's effort to build a high, fixed-span bridge to Anna Maria Island; however, no private entrepreneur and few governments would retain a law firm which also represents clients in litigation against that entrepreneur or government; that the State no longer retains attorneys who represent clients suing the State; that most lawyers refer potential clients to other law firms when a conflict of interest exists; that Attorney Levin's experience and expertise regarding FDOT and bridge issues probably could not be acquired from any other law firm, however, the policy of retaining attorneys from firms engaged in litigation against the City is detrimental to the City's interest and should cease. Mayor Pillot stated that the suggested change in policy makes sense. B. stated that a short segment of Osprey Avenue close to Bay Road is being three-laned by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on a project partially funded by the City; that the FDOT intends to remove two oak trees on the right-of-way in front of a piece of property in which she and her husband own half interest; that two oak trees are scheduled for removal from the right-of-way in front of a small condominium complex next to her property; that three large, old oak trees and approximately 70 percent of another oak tree will be removed by the FDOT; that a barren right-of-way on the east side of Osprey Avenue across the street from the endangered oak trees was recommended to the FDOT by the Engineering Department as providing an solution; that the road construction could be rerouted by four feet to the east and the oak trees allowed to remain. - Mayor Pillot asked if the right-of-way is located south of the Mount Vernon Realty Company, Inc., building at 3701 South Osprey Avenue? Commissioner Patterson stated yes; that Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering, met with several employees of the FDOT who insist the oak trees must be removed as Osprey Avenue is an evacuation route from Siesta Key; that FDOT has claimed rerouting the road four feet to the east would create a sharp curve in the road too acute for drivers to safely maneuver the evacuation route. Commissioner Patterson continued that a sharp curve in the road currently exists; that people evacuating Siesta Key currently must make two 90-degree turns within one half mile of the North Siesta Key bridge; that 90-degree turns are more difficult to maneuver than a curve in the road; that also FDOT will not allow the limb of a tree to extend a few inches lower over the sidewalk than is allowed in FDOT regulations; that the branch of one of the oak trees conflicts with FDOT regulations only over the first six inches of the sidewalk; that the FDOT standards are rigid and inflexible; that the Administration wrote a letter protesting removal of the oak trees to the FDOT. BOOK 42 Page 14996 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14997 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission should write a letter to the FDOT and send a copy to the Governor accompanied by photographs of the beautiful trees; that every action possible to save the oak trees should be taken; and asked if formal action is appropriate? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that one of the oak trees and one half of another are located in the right-of-way in front of the property owned by her husband and herself; that many other oak trees exist on the property, the value of which would probably be minimally affected by the removal of the oak trees on the right-of-way; and asked if a conflict-of-of-interest exists? City Attorney Taylor stated that whether a vote by the Commission would inure to a Commissioner's personal gain must be determined; that no conflict-of-of-interest exists if the Commissioner would not gain by the vote; that a 4 to 0 vote could be recorded and the FDOT informed in the letter that the absence of a vote from Commissioner Patterson is due to a conflict-of-interest. Commissioner Patterson announced a conflict-of-interest. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to oppose the position of the FDOT regarding removal of oak trees from the rights-of-way in front of properties on Osprey Avenue near Bay Road and to send a letter accompanied by photographs to the FDOT, and send copies to the governor, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and environmental groups such as the Sierra Club. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, abstained; Pillot, yes. VICE MAYOR DUPREE: A. stated that a discussion regarding low-income housing will be deferred until the report addressing the interlocal agreement with the County regarding the City and County Housing and Development Program is returned as directed by the Commission earlier in the agenda under Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 7; that the Administration will be consulted regarding possible solutions to the lack of low-income housing in the City. B. stated that the currently seated Commission is addressing extremely problematic issues for which decision-making is difficult. MAYOR PILLOT: A. stated that C. Robert Buford, who represents an owner interest in the John Ringling Towers (JRT) property, has requested a meeting with him; that a meeting was scheduled after Staff confirmed that the City Manager and City Attorney did not object to the meeting; that the City Attorney has since advised the City's interest will not be harmed if the meeting with Mr. Buford does not occur; that he will cancel the meeting. 18. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #3 (1494) through (1630) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: : A. stated that Charles Siemon, Principal, Siemon, Larsen and Marsh (SL&M) requested public input not be allowed at the special Community Redevelopment Agency meeting at 7 p.m., Thursday, July 24, 1997, at which a developer for the Mission Harbor property will be selected; that members of the public have expressed an intent to speak due to being informed by various Commissioners that public input will be allowed; that the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk is informing callers that no public input will be allowed. Commissioner Cardamone asked if other Commissioners are comtortable with lobbying efforts by the proposed developers of the Mission Harbor property. Mayor Pillot and Vice Mayor Dupree stated no. Mayor Pillot stated that one telephone call was received; that a fifteen-minute meeting with one of the proposed developers has been scheduled. Commissioner Patterson stated that the developer for the Mission Harbor property will be selected without any public input; that an existing City procedure allows citizens to give input before the Commission makes a decision. Mayor Pillot stated that the Administration should contact Mr. Siemon and request the reasons public input will be excluded; that a report should be returned at the July 23, 1997, Budget workshop to enable the Commission to decide whether or not to allow public input at the July 24, 1997, special CRA meeting. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the Administration will contact Mr. Siemon and report back at the July 22, 1997, Budget workshop. BOOK 42 Page 14998 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 14999 07/21/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill stated that a backlash can be expected if a developer proposing a hotel and conference center requiring tax rebates is selected without the Commission accepting public input. 19. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (1631) There being no further business, Mayor Pillot adjourned the regular meeting of July 21, 1997, at 9:50 p.m. as CRLK GENE PILLOT, MAYOR IA, ATTEST 4 r: MICLE dis L BILLY BZ ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNÇIL, 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 Drive XX CITY : COUNTY 1 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED July 21, 1997 MY POSITION IS: XX ELECTIVE i 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 with presented a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; use of although the 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 on whether depending 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 112.3143, 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 officer 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. CI FORMEN KB 10-K6 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 responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST 1, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on July 21 19. 97 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) XX inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom 1 am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: A motion was adopted under Agenda Item X, Remarks of Commissioners, to oppose the position of the FDOT regarding removal of oak trees from the right-of-way in front of properties on Osprey Avenue near Bay Road and to send a letter accompanied by photographs to the FDOT, and send copies to the governor, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and environmental groups such as the Sierra Club. My husband and - - are partial owners of one of the properties potentially affected by the adopted motion. August 4, 1997 Ad Date Filed Ahasen 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. CF FORM RR H)-N6