MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1995, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor David Merrill, Vice Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Commissioners Delores Dry, Nora Patterson, and Gene Pillot, Deputy City Manager V. Peter Schneider, city Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: City Manager David Sollenberger PRESIDING: Mayor David Merrill The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:02 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR AUGUST, 1995 - GARY L. COGAR, FIREFIGHTER FIRST CLASS/PARAMEDIC, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, FIRE-RESCUE SERVICES BUREAU #1 (0040) through (0132) Julius Halas, Chief of Fire-Rescue Bureau, Russell Stulce, Battalion Chief, and Gary Cogar, Firefighter First Class/Paramedic, came before the Commission. Fire Chief Halas explained in detail an incident whereby Mr. Cogar, as part of a three-man team from the Public Safety Department working together as lifesavers, helped to save the life of a woman in danger of drowning; and stated that Mr. Cogar was also named Firefighter of the Year for 1994. Mayor Merrill presented Mr. Cogar with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the August 1995 Employee of the Month in appreciation of his unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated him for his outstanding efforts. Fire Chief Halas requested that Mr. Cogar's wife, parents, and children who were present in the audience stand and be recognized. 2. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARDS TO RICHARD E. AVERILL, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE CLERK, UTILITIES DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WITH 10 YEARS OF SERVICE; JIMMIE F. THOMAS, MASON, STREET AND HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, 1 WITH 17 YEARS OF SERVICE; ALAN W. RIESER, FIREFIGHTER FIRST CLASS, FIRE/RESCUE BUREAU, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, WITH 18 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0136) through (0351) Book 38 Page 12234 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12235 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Merrill read the Retirement Award in its entirety and presented individual plaques to each of the retiring employees. Julius Halas, Chief of Fire-Rescue Bureau, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission, introduced Alan W. Rieser, Firefighter First Class, Fire-Rescue Bureau, Public Safety Department, with 18 years of service, thanked him for all his efforts, and congratulated him on his retirement. Mr. Rieser's wife and son who were present in the audience were recognized. William Hallisey, Facilities Operations Manager, Public Works Department, came before the Commission, introduced Richard E. Averill, Preventive Maintenance Clerk, Utilities Division, Public Works Department, with 10 years of service, thanked him for all his efforts, and congratulated him on his retirement. Mr. Averill's wife, Doris, who was present in the audience was recognized. Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, came before the Commission, introduced Jimmie F. Thomas, Mason, Street and Highway Maintenance Division, Public Works Department, with 17 years of service, thanked him for all his efforts, and congratulated him on his retirement. Mr. Thomas recognized a friend and former employer, Antonio G. Fernandez, owner of WKXY, by whom he was employed for 42 years; and thanked Mr. Fernandez for inspiring him to be precise and for providing him with dignity. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 = APPROVED AS CORRECTED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0370) through (0390) Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Vice Mayor Cardamone referred to draft page 27; and stated that following change is necessary to reflect her statement accurately: Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the full page of recommendations on how to conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing, which was presented during the presentation made by the Land Development Regulations Update consultants, should be considered for inclusion in the procedural document. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no additional changes, the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of September 5, 1995, as corrected are approved by unanimous consent. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S SPECIAL MEETINGS OF JUNE 21, 1995 AND JULY 13, 1995 - SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING SITES 1 THROUGH 15 ON OCTOBER 23, 1995, AND SITES 16 THROUGH 30 ON OCTOBER 30, 1995 (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0425) through (0555) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Judson Boedecker, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), came before the Commission. Mr. Boedecker stated that the PBLP held a public hearing on June 21 to review the 30 sites located in residential zone districts which were identified with nonconforming uses; that the June 21 public hearing was continued to July 13; that a two-page summary chart of the Staff and PBLP recommendations as well as the minutes from the PBLP special meetings have been included in the Agenda packet for Commission review. Commissioner Pillot asked for clarification of the term "amortize" as used in the summary chart. Ms. Robinson stated that the term indicates the permitted nonconforming uses will expire on January 10, 1999. Commissioner Patterson asked for an overview of the PBLP's rationale for recommending that the properties located at 221 Garden Lane be amortized but the property located at 246 Garden Lane be permitted to continue its use. Mr. Boedecker stated that the PBLP recommendations were based on input received from the public; that the enhancements made to the Siesta Key Fish Market located at 221 Garden Lane have increased and enlarged a noncontorming use; that Mr. Wallin, co- owner/operator of Walt's Fish Market, and property owner of the rental property at 246 Garden Lane, utilizes the boat dock to off- load and transport fish to other locations. Commissioner Patterson asked if the PBLP is recommending that the off-loading of fish at the 221 Garden Lane property cease? Mr. Boedecker responded, yes. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Administration recommends setting the nonconforming uses for public hearing on two separate dates - On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to set sites 1 through 30 for public hearing with sites 1 through 15 being heard on October 23, 1995, and sites 16 through 30 being heard on October 30, 1995. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Book 38 Page 12236 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12237 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEMS NOS. 1 AND 2 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0577) through (0590) 1. Approval Re: Request by Mote Marine to construct a privacy sheet metal fence around the research tank farm area for security purposes 2. Approval Re: Authorization to delegate the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) review to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No.1, Item Nos. 1 and 2. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-832) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3860) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3887) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0598) through (0948) Commissioner Patterson requested that Item No. 1 be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance Nos. 95-3860 and 95-3887 by title only. 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3860, annexing certain real property lying contiguous to the city limits into the corporate limits of the City of Sarasota, as petitioned by Joel J. Freedman, for Robert W. Geyer and Patrick H. Dickinson, said real property being described as follows: a parcel of land being lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, and 24, Block H, resubdivision of Tamiami Park as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 125, of the Public Records of Sarasota, Florida, with a street address of 3931/3951 Dearborn Avenue and 3940 School Avenue; more particularly described herein; making findings; redefining the boundary lines of the City of Sarasota to include said real property; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 95-ANX-01, Joel E. Freedman) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3887, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, Article II, Pensions, Division 2, Fire, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sarasota; amending Section 24-44 of the Code to provide authorization for the Fire Retirement System Board of Trustees to employ special counsel for disability hearings; extend the time for issuing a written order and make technical amendments, amending Section 24-29 of the Code to clarify the effective date of disability benefits; providing for severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Items Nos. 2 and 3. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-832, calling on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to request a major investment study of bridges proposed for Sarasota/Manatee Counties Barrier Islands, including the proposed John Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Patterson stated that the John Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge has been a controversial issue; that the proposed resolution scheduled for presentation by the Bridge Too High Committee (BTHC) on the August 21, 1995, meeting agenda was not heard since the Commission did not conclude the scheduled agenda; that she removed the item to provide the members of the BTHC an opportunity to speak. Richard Storm and Mark Smith, representing the Bridge Too High Committee, Inc., came before the Commission. Mr. Storm stated that the cities of Holmes Beach, Bradenton Beach, and Anna Maria have passed several and joint resolutions opposing the plans of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to construct high, fixed span, replacement bridges on Cortez Road and on Manatee Avenue (Anna Maria Bridge); that the proposed replacement of the Ringling Causeway, the Cortez and the Anna Maria bridges, and the potential construction of a Sarasota Bay Bridge to Longboat Key constitute critical links in an interconnected barrier island transportation system stretching from Lido Key in Sarasota County to Anna Maria Island in Manatee County; that presently, transportation projects for the bi-county barrier islands are being decided on a bridge-by-bridge basis through separate Project Development and Environmental studies; that the BTHC believes that a Major Investment Study (MIS) addressing the bi-county barrier island bridge projects on an overall, coordinated and cooperative basis would insure that the end product meets the needs of all the communities served by such an interconnected system; that an MIS is a term used and authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) passed in 1991 which the BTHC feels can be utilized to address issues not currently solved regarding the FDOT-planned bridges, e.g., problems with evacuation Book 38 Page 12238 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12239 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. due to flooding or high winds; that the Commission is requested to join the cities of Holmes Beach, Bradenton Beach and Anna Maria in passing a resolution asking the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to request from the FDOT a Major Investment Study of bridges proposed for the bi-county barrier islands. Mr. Smith stated that the FDOT-planned bridges estimated to cost taxpayers approximately $100 million will not solve the problems associated with evacuation and traffic; that the dollars could be more efficiently spent by rehabilitating the existing bridges, researching and implementing other forms of transportation to the barrier islands, or finding a means by which to keep the water from flooding the bridge approaches; that the BTHC is requesting that the City Commission support the approach having the bridges leading to the bi-county barrier islands evaluated comprehensively rather than on a bridye-by-bridge basis to assure the safe evacuation of people from the barrier islands in a high-wind condition; that an MIS will provide an overview of the entire bi-county traffic transportation system. Commissioner Pillot publicly apologized to the BTHC for the Commission adjourning the August 21 meeting without hearing the scheduled presentation. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R-832 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 95R-832. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll- call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill 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. City Attorney Taylor stated that the public hearing on Petition No. 95-PA-08 is a continued public hearing; that Staff will be permitted to enter rebuttal evidence into the record during the public hearing; that the petitioner will be permitted time for closing argument after the public hearing is closed; that entering new evidence into the record will not be permitted during the closing argument. 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. 95R-840, CERTIFYING TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND TAX COLLECTOR OF SARASOTA COUNTY, THE RATES OF MILLAGE TO BE LEVIED BY THE CITY OF SARASOTA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1995 - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) AND 8. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3898, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1994, AND ENDING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995; SAID BUDGET TO INCLUDE THE GENERAL FUND, SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, DEBT SERVICE FUNDS, ENTERPRISE FUNDS, INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN : PROVIDING FOR CURRENT EXPENSES AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, EACH BEING SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED HEREIN; ASSESSING AND LEVYING AD VALOREM TAXES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1994; SPECIFYING THE AD VALOREM TAX MILLS TO BE LEVIED AND ASSESSED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN BONDED-DEBT SERVICE; SPECIFYING THE AD VALOREM TAX MILLS LEVIED AND ASSESSED FOR BONDED-DEBT SERVICE; MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE AD VALOREM TAX REVENUES COLLECTED; IDENTIFYING THE BUDGETS AND AMOUNT OF THE AD VALOREM TAX REVENUES WHICH ARE APPROPRIATED FOR THE PURPOSES ENUMERATED HEREIN; APPROPRIATING MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES AND SURPLUS REVENUES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED; WORKSHOP TO BE SCHEDULED REGARDING LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLANNING #1 (0948) through (2692) Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that this is the second required public hearing on Ordinance No. 95-3898 which adopts the City of Sarasota budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 95/96; that proposed Resolution No. 95R-840 certifies to the Property Appraiser and the Tax Collector the millage rates to be levied by the City of Sarasota for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1995, and must be read in its entirety and adopted prior to the final reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 95-3898; that Resolution No. 95R-840 certifies the following: Debt Service for 1990 0.825 mill Refunding Bonds Debt Service for 1994 0.335 mill Refunding Bonds General Fund Operation 5.339 mills 6.499 mills Book 38 Page 12240 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12241 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Mitchell stated that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3898 establishes the operating millage at 5.339 mills, which is the same millage established for FY 94/95, and the voted debt service millage at 1.160 mills, which is a .075 mill reduction compared to FY 94/95; that the total millage required to fund the proposed budget is 6.499 mills; that the Truth in Millage (TRIM) bill requires that the millage rate for ad valorem taxes be measured in terms of the Rolled-back Rate; that the Rolled-back Rate is the millage rate necessary to yield the same ad valorem tax revenue generated in the 1994-95 fiscal year; that based on the Property Appraiser's Certified Taxable Value of $2,721,052,860 for the City, the Rolled- back Rate would be 5.178 mills; that the proposed millage rate of 5.339 mills is 3.11% greater than the Rolled-back Rate and will generate $374,000 of additional ad valorem tax; that the increase will be used to help fund the salary adjustment for City employees. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearings on proposed Resolution No. 95R-840 and proposed Ordinance. No. 95-3898 simultaneously. The following people came before the Commission: Laura Alexander, representing All Faiths Food Bank (AFFB), 717 Cattlemen Road (34232), stated that $20,000 of funding in the FY 95/96 City of Sarasota budget has been requested to support providing food assistance to non-profit agencies in the City and to assist in the acquisition of a 20,000 square-foot warehouse for the AFFB on Cattlemen Road; that presentations have been made to the City Commission on two previous occasions; that the following information has been submitted as justification for including the one-time request in the City's. budget: The AFFB currently serves over 102 non-profit feeding programs, the majority of which are located in the City. The AFFB provides 860,000 pounds of food, valued at $1.2 million, to qualified, non-profit agencies Countywide which feed the needy. Food assistance is primarily being requested by working, poor families with children. The County Social Service Department recently announced that budget cuts to the Federal Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) would result in an inability to provide monthly food assistance to 4,000 residents Countywide. The program was not in operation during the month of September and could be eliminated when a Congressional vote is taken in October 1995. Private charitable institutions such as the AFFB have been preparing to fill the gaps where food assistance is needed. The acquisition of the AFFB facility is necessary to meet the growing demand for food assistance. Statistical information from the First Call for Help referral service indicates 35% of total referrals provided are for food assistance. Ms. Alexander stated that arguments have been raised that City property owners pay both City and County taxes; that many property owners in the city do not reside in Sarasota County but generate revenue from low-income residents by renting low-cost housing; that many of the 500 AFFB volunteers reside in the City and have expressed their interest in helping the hunger problem by volunteering and also by supporting the AFFB's efforts in requesting funds from the City's budget. Ms. Alexander requested that the Commission support the budget request for $20,000 as submitted by the AFFB in the name of people who are hungry. Christopher and Brenda Whaley, 461 North Shore Drive (34234). Mr. Whaley stated that his daughter, Scarlett, was born seven weeks premature and experienced a brain hemorrhage shortly after birth; that the physicians at All Children's Hospital informed him and his wife that Scarlett may never fully recover, walk or talk. Mr. Whaley explained his personal experience with the Child Development Center (CDC) in caring for and rehabilitating Scarlett who is now talking and walking and has recently been enrolled in a "normal" preschool. Mr. Whaley thanked the Commission for past and continued support of the CDC. Mrs. Whaley stated that supporting an agency such as the CDC indicates the integrity of Sarasota; that serious disabilities affect rich and poor families alike; that the CDC not only assists in the rehabilitation of children but also offers emotional support to families. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Resolution No. 95R-840 and proposed Ordinance No. 95-3898. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R-840 in its entirety. Book 38 Page 12242 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12243 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 95R-840. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3898 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 95-3898. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to amend the motion to include $20,000 in the budget for the AFFB with the source to be determined by Administration from the least restrictive part of the budget. Amendment failed (3 to 2): Cardamone, no; Dry, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. Mayor Merrill stated that a long-term budget has not been addressed over the past few years since the City was attempting to operate under an economic crisis; that the economic crisis has passed; that the FY 95/96 budget does not adequately focus on the long-term finances of the city. Mayor Merrill displayed on the overhead projector and explained in detail charts adjusted for inflation which reflected the City's tax base since 1972, the annual percentage change in the tax base since 1973, and property tax revenues since 1984. Mayor Merrill stated that the tax base has been flat since 1984; that a large quantity of residential permits were issued in 1974 and 1981, but construction has been limited since 1981 because the City is built out; that property tax revenues increased steadily from 1984 to 1990, but remained flat or decreased thereafter. Mayor Merrill referred to and explained a chart entitled "Cumulative Changes in Inflation-adjusted Property Tax Revenue and Operating Millage Since 1984" which reflected that the millage rate between 1985 and 1990 increased by 70% from 3.15 to 5.339 while the property tax revenue increased by 90% for the same period; and stated that the Breen Consortium Report issued in 1994 includes a statement that the City's future is one of raising taxes or cutting services; that the statement applies to the past 10-year history of City operations; that taxes were raised for the first 5 years until taxes reached an objectionable level; that services have been reduced for the past 5 years; that the chart indicates that raising taxes has hindered economic growth; that the tax increase implemented in 1993 is achieving less tax revenue than the revenue achieved prior to the tax increase. Mayor Merrill referred to and explained a chart entitled "Cumulative Change in Inflation = Adjusted Tax Base Since 1990" which compared the tax bases of the city of Sarasota and Sarasota County; and stated that financial operations are often cyclical, e.g., attributed to an economic recession or an economic boom; that economic growth has been occurring nationwide for three years; however, a slight increase in the city's tax revenue is noted only in 1995; that the City and County are faced with the same economic conditions but the County's tax base has increased by 68% since 1990 while the City's tax base has decreased by 12%. Mayor Merrill continued that factors other than the economic recession have caused the differences reflected in the City's and County's tax bases; that first, the City is built out with limited vacant land, and the County is not; that the County is the frontier for economic growth and the growth along Cattleman Road has largely attributed to the County's increased tax base; that secondly, redevelopment is costly and limited to areas which have a strong economy; that redeveloping a limited number of office buildings in the City annually will not generate sufficient revenue to meet the demand on City services; that third, the City's older, middle- income neighborhoods are being converted to the future supply of affordable housing; that as the community grows, the lower 10% of wage earners also grows; that affordable housing evolves by the conversion of older neighborhoods into lower-priced housing; that the conversion impacts the City since the tax base of the affected neighborhoods remains flat; that the tax base of retail areas serving such neighborhoods also remains flat or decreases since less disposable income is available and circulated; that another consequence of providing housing for the lower-income people is that those are the people who require human services, i.e., assistance by the All Faiths Food Bank. Mayor Merrill further stated that dual taxation is not the only issue hindering growth of the City's tax base; that the fundamental problem of the city's inability to keep up with the demands of the community is an issue which has to be addressed; that he realizes the problems identified tonight should have been clarified prior to his offering a solution, which was to consolidate with the County; however, a solution is necessary whether it be annexation, a metro- government, consolidation, etc.; that the creeping financial crisis will not disappear; that the Commission has a duty as an elected board to present the represented democracy with identified problems and potential solutions; that the budget does not address a long- range financial plan; therefore, he will not support the budget. Commissioner Pillot stated that although he does not agree with all the philosophy regarding the City as put forth in Mayor Merrill's presentation, the information was startling and should be reviewed in greater depth. Book 38 Page 12244 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12245 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot continued that he cannot, in conscience, support a budget of numerous millions of dollars that does not include support for the AFFB which annually provides over 300,000 meals to the needy people in the community; therefore, he will not support the budget. Commissioner Dry stated that a meeting should be scheduled to discuss and review the information presented by Mayor Merrill and to address a long-range financial plan for the future; however, approval of an operating budget for FY 95/96 is required tonight. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the $20,000 request from AFFB was to assist in the purchase a building at which the facility currently operates; that, in her opinion, the funding was not requested to feed the hungry; therefore, she did not support the amendment. Vice Mayor Cardamone continued that Mayor Merrill's presentation would have been more complete if the source from which the data was complied had been identified. Mayor Merrill stated that the information will be provided. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she agrees that the City is built out and has continuously advocated that the City Commission and Administration be proactive and actively pursue redevelopment; that the establishment of the Redevelopment Advisory Board to address Central Avenue and surrounding areas which have stagnant tax bases should assist in the effort to enhance the City's tax base. Vice Mayor Cardamone continued that Mayor Merrill is correct in that some of the City's older neighborhoods are converting to low-income housing; however, most of the older neighborhoods consist of well-developed, well-maintained homes that are being expanded or rebuilt as new, larger structures; that assessment values in those neighborhoods continually increase; that areas downtown, e.g., Laurel Park and Gillespie Park, are in a period of "renaissance" and are proudly experiencing an encouraging increase in assessment values; that Main Street has been redeveloped and is thriving; that she feels the problems identified by Mayor Merrill are attributed to a lack of concentrated effort on the part of the City to aggressively pursue redevelopment efforts and other solutions to increase the City's tax base; that she supports scheduling a workshop to discuss the issues raised by Mayor Merrill; however, the Commission should attempt a course of action to maintain the financial soundness of the City prior to discussing consolidation with the County government. Vice Mayor Cardamone further stated that she will support the budget. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission dedicated long hours and reached a consensus on a budget which may not have met the individual agendas of each of the Commissioners but represented the best effort to fund that which the Commission was elected to manage; that the specific points raised by the two Commissioners who have indicated the budget will not be supported are understood; that she has often raised the issue of the long-term financial problems with which the City is faced; that the problems identified by Mayor Merrill are valid; that with the ability for expansion of commercial enterprises and residential properties on vacant land, the County has enormous advantages over the City; that a large majority of the City's tax base in the past has been commercial properties; that commercial businesses are hit harder during an economic recession; therefore, the City's tax base could be artificially depressed; that a greater increase may be realized as the economy rebounds; that the City's long-term financial problems should be reviewed and addressed annually; however, she disagrees with the Mayor's solution of consolidation; that consolidation may be a solution in the future if retaining the City without creating an enormous burden for the citizens becomes impossible; however, at this time, the City should continue to fight the dual taxation issue, and further address the City's position regarding the County's request to provide sewer service to properties outside the City in an effort to improve the quality of the Bay environment, although improving Sarasota Bay is one of importance; that the potential fire consolidation and the new policy of insisting that properties receiving or requesting City utilities services annex into the City are solutions which address some of the City's problems. Commissioner Patterson continued that she will support the operating budget for FY 95/96. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 95-3898. Motion carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no; Merrill, no. Mr. Schneider asked if there was Commission consensus to have the Administration schedule a workshop to discuss the long-range financial planning of the city? Mayor Merrill stated that there was a consensus of the Commission. 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: COMPREKENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 95-PA-08, 3638 FRUITVILLE ROAD AND 3, 15, 36 AND 44 GOLDEN SANDS DRIVE, TO AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP #11 TO CREATE AN IMPACT MANAGEMENT AREA MAKING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ELIGIBLE FOR A REZONING TO MULVIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-4 (RMF-4) OR LESS INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL (PETITION NO.95-PA-08. STEPHEN D. REES, ESQUIRE FOR SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE JOSEPH STEWART STOTTLEMYER) -APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE DCA WITH FIVE STIPULATIONS (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (2692) through #2 (0897) Mayor Merrill stated that this is a continued public hearing, therefore, the public hearing is open. Book 38 Page 12246 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12247 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that 95-PA-08 was originally filed as an application for Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) or Residential, Multiple Family (RMF-5) or less intensive zone district; that the petitioner presented and the City Commission denied the request for MCI zone district; that at the request of the petitioner, the Commission provided the petitioner with an opportunity to present a request for the RMF-5 or less intensive zone district; that the petitioner presented a request for a RMF-4 zone district with considerable detail at a public hearing on August 21, 1995; that the public hearing was continued due to the lateness of the hour and to provide adequate time for Staff to digest and respond to many of the points raised by the documentary evidence submitted into the record by the petitioner; that testimony and evidence was presented by the petitioner and public input was heard at the August 21 public hearing; therefore, this public hearing should focus on: 1) rebuttal or response by the Staff to the information submitted by the petitioner, and 2) the petitioner offering brief comments in conclusion; that taking further public input or hearing additional testimony or evidence would not be appropriate. Commissioner Dry stated that she was not in attendance at the August 21, 1995, public meeting; however, the video tape of the public hearing has been viewed and the documentation submitted for the record on August 21 has been reviewed. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and cited the following Staff recommendation: Create an Impact Management Area (IMA) that will allow for RMF-4 of less intensive residential zone, with the following stipulations: 1. The uses of the property shall be restricted solely to an adult congregate living facility (ACLF). 2. The sole ingress and egress to the site shall be on Fruitville Road. 3. Petitioner shall provide enhanced buffering of a minimum of 50-foot width utilizing native vegetation and existing tree masses. 4. The maximum height of all structures shall be 35 feet. 5. A medical clinic will not be developed on the site. Commissioner Patterson asked if the buffering requirement could be synonymous with the water retention area? Ms. Robinson stated that as she understands it, a retention area which must be devoid of trees could not be used as buffering. Commissioner Patterson requested that a decisive response be forwarded for review of another project. Commissioner Patterson asked if RMF-4 zoning permits a medical clinic to service residents of the ACLF on site? Ms. Robinson stated that a medical clinic is not currently permitted in the RMF-4 zone district; however, a change in the zone district could be implemented during the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Update; that a medical clinic was previously presented by the petitioner; that she understood the intention of the Commission was not to allow a medical clinic on the subject property; that the condition was included to prevent future code amendments from affecting the subject property. Commissioner Patterson stated that the MCI zoning request previously presented included a medical clinic which was to serve the needs of other people in addition to the residents of the ACLF; that allowing a medical clinic to service only the residents of the ACLF may not be objectionable. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if an infirmary could be housed in an ACLF in the RMF-4 zone district? Ms. Robinson stated, no. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the fifth stipulation associated with the Staff's recommendation would prevent a modern ACLF from being built on the subject property if the Zoning Code is subsequently amended to permit medical facilities for ACLF'S. Ms. Robinson stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that permitting a medical clinic to service the needs of the community outside the ACLF is objectionable; however, medical services are often required by residents living in an ACLF. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Staff recommendations regarding 95-PA-08 have been confusing; and asked for the basis on which Staff recommended stipulation #5? Ms. Robinson stated that Staff perceived that the Commission opposed having a medical clinic operate on the subject property; that the stipulation could be omitted; that the issue of permitting medical facilities with ACLFS could be addressed during the LDRs Update. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission previously objected to a medical clinic serving the community outside the ACLF; that providing reasonable medical treatment to residents of the ACLF was Book 38 Page 12248 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12249 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. not objectionable; that appropriate language could be drafted to indicate that no medical services shall be provided on site for nonresidents. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that a concern with retaining the large specimen trees was raised at the previous public hearing; that Mr. Freedman previously stated that an ACLF would have no impact on 60% of the trees on the subject property; that the Commission should consider a sixth stipulation requiring that a specific amount or percentage of specimen trees be retained. Commissioner Dry stated that she has difficulty understanding why the Commission is proceeding with a process which has not been conducted correctly; that the Commission should consider deferring the petition until the Evaluation and Appraisal Report is completed. Commissioner Patterson stated that she does not want to be labelled with pursing something which is incorrect; and requested comment from the City Attorney. City Attorney Taylor stated that the process the Commission is following is legally correct. Ms. Robinson stated that the reason and intent of the Staff's raising the issue of the trees on the subject property when various conceptual plans were presented was to amplify the need to balance the various site planning issues; that specifying a specific amount or percentage of trees would not be appropriate; that, for example, the City's landscaping consultant, David Johnston, stated that retaining a lower percent of oak trees on the subject property is more important than having numerous palm trees; that the tree concerns should be reviewed during the site and development plan process. Commissioner Patterson stated that placing stipulations on properties during the IMA process has not been the past practice of the Commission; and asked City Attorney Taylor if the Commission has the authority to stipulate that a certain percentage of trees be preserved on the subject property? City Attorney Taylor stated that the IMA process has not been following past practice for some time; that stipulations have been placed on properties throughout the entire Comprehensive Plan process; that stipulations #1 through #4 were proffered by the petitioner; that the Commission has the legal ability and right to accept proffers which serve a useful purpose; that representations regarding the percentage of trees which would be retained were made by the petitioner at the previous public hearing; that the Commission could ask the petitioner if a stipulation would be acceptable. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission should have the ability to include stipulations without the acceptance of the petitioner if stipulations proffered by the petitioner are included. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Comprehensive Plan process has become so site specific that the Commission has been accepting proffers during the IMA process; that, however, stipulations are usually proffered during the rezoning process; that a specific site plan is presented for approval during the rezoning process; that the positive and adverse impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding neighborhood are reviewed, and proffers, i.e., additional buffering, are made to address concerns with the site plan; that placing stipulations on the site plan is appropriate since the developer must strictly adhere to the site plan approved. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following items into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code (1991 Edition) with Appendices A,D,F,H,J & M and City of Sarasota local amendments. All documents made a part of the record of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's meetings of April 19, and May 3, 1995, as well as the minutes of those meetings. All documents made a part of record at the City Commission meetings of May 10, 1995, and August 21, 1995, as well as the minutes and video tapes of those meetings. Planning Department rebuttal report concerning Petition No. 95-PA-08. On motion of Commissioner Pillot it was moved to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs a proposed IMA for RMF-4 or less intensive residential zone district, with the following stipulations: 1) The uses of the property shall be restricted solely to an adult congregate living facility (ACLF), 2) The sole ingress and egress to the site shall be on Fruitville Road, 3) The petitioner shall provide enhanced buffering of a minimum of 50-foot width utilizing native vegetation and existing tree masses, 4) The maximum height of all structures shall be 35 feet, and 5) Wording developed by the Administration to prohibit any external medical attention but to provide for acceptable attention to residents of the ACLF. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Patterson stated that the petitioners should have an opportunity to make closing statements. Book 38 Page 12250 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12251 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Stephen D. Rees, Esquire, of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, PA, representing the petitioner Joseph Stewart Stottlemyer, Successor Trustee, came before the Commission; and stated that the Staff recommendation implements the PBLP's recommendation for approval and is based on the competent, substantial evidence and testimony which has been presented; that the recommendation demonstrates that the amendment furthers the City's goals, policies, and objectives, particularly with regard to the land use and housing elements of the Sarasota City Plan; that the amendment can be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs with a strong demonstration of furthering both the State and Regional Plans; that after the provision for a medical clinic and further consideration of closing Golden Sands Drive were eliminated from the petitioner's proposal, not one abutting property owner or property owner within the immediate surrounding neighborhood appeared to testify against the RMF-4 proposal as conditioned; that Staff and the petitioner have demonstrated that the mitigating conditions allow for a viable use to occur on the subject property through the designation of an IMA; that the conditions proffered by the petitioner are referred to as items 1 through 4 in the Staff's recommendation. Attorney Rees continued that the eligibility for MCI zoning included a medical clinic as an ancillary structure, which is permitted in the MCI zone district; that with the Commission's vote to deny the MCI zone district eligibility, the petitioner came back to request consideration of the alternative, accompanying RMF-5 or less intensive residential zone district; that the RMF zone districts do not permit a medical clinic or provide for an infirmary or other type of on-site medical services as referenced by the Commission at this meeting; that subsequently approved amendments to the LDRs or Zoning Code providing for on-site medical services to ACLF residents only should be available to any ACLF approved in the City; therefore, the petitioner respectfully requests that stipulation #5 of the Staff's recommendation not be considered. Attorney Rees further stated that particular emphasis has been incorporated into the petition to demonstrate the minimum width of 50 feet of buffering as a preservation area; that the incorporation of retention or structural facilities into the buffered area is not permitted; that the appropriate time to determine whether the minimum width on one or more of the property lines would remain at 50 feet or be greater is when an actual site plan of a definitive nature detailing the footprint of the proposed building and other impervious surfaces is presented; that the petitioner respectfully requests that the Commission either not provide a stipulation relative to the trees or, if such a stipulation is deemed important, the petitioner be provided the greatest liberty and latitude to work on the mandatory site plan with the City at the rezoning stage. Commissioner Patterson stated that whether the Commission chooses to incorporate the modified language suggested by Commissioner Pillot or to delete stipulation #5 is probably immaterial to the petitioner. Attorney Rees stated that is correct. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs a proposed IMA for RMF-4 or less intensive residential zone district, with the following stipulations: 1. The uses of the property shall be restricted solely to an adult congregate living facility (ACLF). 2. The sole ingress and egress to the site shall be on Fruitville Road. 3. Petitioner shall provide enhanced buffering of a minimum of 50-foot width utilizing native vegetation and existing tree masses. 4. The maximum height of all structures shall be 35 feet. Commissioner Patterson stated that Ms. Robinson implied that the RMF-4 zone district may be changed in the future to permit medical clinics; that the Commission clearly does not want a medical clinic on the subject property that would service the outside community; that the Commission may want to incorporate language similar to that suggested by Commissioner Pillot to assure that a medical clinic on the subject property could service only on-site patients if an amendment is passed to permit medical clinics in the RMF-4 zone district. The maker and the seconder of the motion agreed to incorporate the following into the motion: 5. To prohibit medical clinics other than an on- site infirmary for residents as allowable under the RMF-4 zone district. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Staff's recommendation and rebuttal as presented in the Agenda packet is confusing; that the document rebuts the petitioner's statements made in defense of the petition and then recommends the petition; that the Planning Staff's actual position is not clear; that the subject property as pointed out by the petitioner's consultants is a difficult location on which to provide single-family, residential dwellings; that the Book 38 Page 12252 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12253 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment addresses one parcel of land on the Fruitville corridor; that problems similar to those presented for the subject property are inherent on other properties located on Fruitville Road; that the City's vision for the Fruitville Road corridor should be addressed to determine whether single-family residential zoning should be retained or more intensive buffered-type uses should be allowed. Commissioner Patterson continued that she will support the motion. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the process followed for Petition No. 95-PA-08 was strange; that a sector study on Fruitville Road is necessary and should have been performed prior to consideration of an IMA on the subject propertyi that justification cannot be found to oppose the petition; therefore, she will support the motion. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Dry, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Administration should be directed to perform a sector study on Fruitville Road. Mayor Merrill stated that a study has been completed on Fruitville Road west of Beneva Road where sufficient land is available for development; that expending funds to perform a study on Fruitville Road to the east of Beneva Road would be wasteful. Mr. Schneider stated that the Administration will provide a report on whether proceeding with a sector study would be appropriate. The Commission recessed at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m. 10. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 95-PA-05, ADDS LANGUAGE TO LAND USE POLICY 1.3 THAT EXEMPTS PROPERTIES FOR WHICH A SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED AS PART OF A CONDITIONAL REZONING ORDINANCE PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN AND THEN REVERTED TO THEIR FORMER ZONE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DUE TO AN EXPIRED SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN. POLICY CHANGE ALLOWS THESE "REZONED PROPERTIES" TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE REZONED TO THEIR ORIGINAL ZONE DISTRICT CLABSIFICATION. PROVIDED THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERALIZED FUTURE LAND USE MAP - APPROVED FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE DCA (AGENDA ITEM IV-3 #2 (0897) through (2553) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that this public hearing was continued from the August 21, 1995, regular Commission meeting; that the Administration's recommendation has been refined to provide the Commission with greater control over land-use decisions relating to Land Use Policy 1.3 and to provide Elexibility for land uses which have a Future Land Use Map designation based upon existing zoning as of 1989 but due to an expired site and development plan reverted to the zoning held prior to the adoption of the 1989 Sarasota City Plan; that the "rezoned properties" cannot be rezoned to their designated Future Land Use Map category without the completion of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to create an Impact Management Area (IMA). Ms. Robinson cited the Administration's recommendation as follows: To transmit to the Department of Community Affairs an amended Land Use Policy 1.3 to read: Policy 1.3 shall not apply to those properties for which a site and development plan was approved as part of a conditional rezoning ordinance prior to March 13, 1989, the date of adoption of the Sarasota City Plan and reverted to their former zone district classification due to an expired site and development plan, hereinafter referred to as "Rezoned Properties." In such event Rezoned Properties shall be eligible to be rezoned to a zone district classification which is the same or less intensive than the zone district that existed on the property immediately prior to such reversion, regardless of whether the Rezoned Properties are designated as IMAs so long as they are consistent with the adopted Generalized Future Land Use Map. Mayor Merrill stated that this is a continued public hearing; therefore, the public hearing is open. The following people came before the Commission: Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street (34239), stated that the amended policy is aimed at providing flexibility for one specific property; that the issue could be addressed in a manner other than amending the City's Comprehensive Plan policy statements to address specific land uses; that the sub-elements and the IMA process have been distorted by addressing specific land uses; that policies in the Plan should not be tainted as such by eliminating the requirements for making properties eligible for conditional rezonings; that the Plan states all rezonings will be conditional and must be in an IMA; that rezonings to the properties under discussion occurred prior to the adoption of the current Plan, and therefore, those rezonings do not comply with the current requirements; that the City is evaluating and reviewing the Plan; that the City is also establishing an advisory committee to review the Rosemary District; that having the studies accomplished and recommending the "rezoned properties". as a revision to the Plan would be more appropriate than establishing a procedure which excludes the public from participating in an IMA process; that the Book 38 Page 12254 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12255 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Comprehensive Plan process currently permits public input prior to placing properties in an IMA, which is the normal procedure that should be followed. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the correct procedure was followed and the "rezoned properties" had been approved for development at the time the Sarasota City Plan was adopted; that subsequently, the site and development plans expired and the properties reverted back to their original zoning; that the potential of such an event occurring was overlooked by the Administration and therefore a provision addressing such properties was not included in the Plan. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for the time period associated with following the "normal" procedure to make the Mission Harbor property available for development for other than Residential, Multiple Family (RMF-3, -4, -5) zoning? City Attorney Taylor stated that a proposed moratorium on Comprehensive Plan amendments during 1996 will be addressed by the Commission as a subsequent agenda item. Sherry Carter, Chief Planner, Comprehensive Division, came before the Commission, displayed on the overhead projector and explained the Long Range Planning Schedule. Ms. Carter stated that the 1996 Comprehensive Plan cycle would begin in November 1995 and be completed in December 1996 if the proposed moratorium is not approved; that the Commission would have the option of addressing the property through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process if the proposed ordinance implementing the moratorium is adopted; that the completion date scheduled for the EAR is June 1997; that the 1997 Comprehensive Plan cycle will begin in November 1996 and be completed in December 1997. Mr. Babb stated that the property could be addressed as a Small Scale Development Activity if the Rosemary District Advisory Board meets, reviews, and makes recommendation for alternative zoning. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission is actively pursing an increase in the City's tax base; that development on the Mission Harbor property is an important property in this pursuit; that delaying eligibility for rezoning of the Mission Harbor property until June 1997 worries her. Dan Lobeck, representing Growth-restraint Environmental Organization (GEO) and himself, 450 South Shade Avenue (34237), stated that the proposed amendment was defeated by the Commission on May 10, 1995; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) voted 4 to 1 to defeat the amendment and recommended that the properties be addressed during the EAR process; that the Staff has not identified all the properties which would be excluded by the amended policy language; that the "rezoned properties" had vested rights under the designated conditional zoning categories and were not subject to the Comprehensive Planning process; that an evaluation was not performed to determine the traffic impacts to affected neighborhoods and streets or if intensely developing the 11 acres of Mission Harbor property under commercial zoning is appropriate; that concurrency requirements were not required when the Mission Harbor property was approved for Commercial, Central Business District, Secondary (C-CBD-S) zoning; that if comprehensive planning is important to the Commission, the amendment should be defeated and the properties addressed under the EAR process or as a separate IMA. Mr. Lobeck continued that the Commission should not approve the amendment for a number of technical, legal reasons; that the City of Sarasota Charter states that notice of every ordinance hearing shall advise that interested parties may appear at the public hearing and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Lobeck referred to the published notice for 95-PA-05; and stated that the required language was not included in the notice which only stated that at a prior date people were heard and the public hearing will be reopened; that the public may have perceived the opportunity to speak had passed; that legally, the notice is deficient. Mr. Lobeck stated that the Charter also requires that the notice state the time, date, and place when the ordinance will be heard; that the Commission did not hear 95-PA-05 on August 21, 1995; that the petition is being heard tonight. Mr. Lobeck continued that adoption of 95-PA-05 which is parcel specific would also violate Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; that the purpose of the amendment is to allow for a large mall on the Mission Harbor property; that Staff's providing only three examples and not a definite quantity of affected parcels violates 935.5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code which requires relevant, appropriate data and analysis; that the notice is deficient in that parcels affected by 95-PA-05, which is a parcel-specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in the guise of a policy change, were not identified; that affected neighborhoods were not properly informed of the opportunity to speak. Mr. Lobeck further stated that the maximum frequency of Comprehensive Plan amendments is being violated; that the Commission previously defeated the amendment; that 95-PA-05 should be addressed in the next Plan cycle; that the Commission technically violated the State law requiring that any motion to delay must include the date, time and place to which the matter is Book 38 Page 12256 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12257 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. being delayed; that the motion made regarding 95-PA-05 was uncertain and dependent upon contingent events. Mr. Lobeck further continued that a comprehensive analysis on 95-PA-05 has not been performed; that the Sarasota Herald Tribune poll of registered voters during the last municipal election indicated traffic as the number one concern of people in the city; that a major traffic generator is being considered for location on a Level of Service "F" road; that rerouting Ringling Boulevard to Fruitville Road or constructing a bridge across Sarasota Bay from Longboat Key will not decrease but increase traffic to the Mission Harbor property area; that Staff is attempting a "back door" approach to avoid performing a proper analysis which will identify the adverse impacts on the transportation system and to neighborhoods by developing a large, commercial mall on the Mission Harbor property; that congesting the major arterials promotes diversion of traffic through neighborhoods; that the Commission should be weighing the adverse impacts versus the tax base and other interests promoting the development of additional malls. Mr. Lobeck stated in conclusion that legal reasons against the adoption of 95-PA-05 have been cited; that the Commission should not rush to judgement without having the parcels properly reviewed. Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue (34236), stated that the Commission and PBLP previously voted to have all the affected properties addressed during the EAR process. Ms. Quillin cited the following from an article in the Florida Planning April 1995 issue: A successful EAR will be one that has permitted thoughtful retrospective about its process deficiency. Ms. Quillin stated that Staff has provided the Commission with three examples of properties the policy amendment would affect; however, Staff provided her with five examples and others were discovered; that conditionally rezoned properties revert back to prior rezoning if construction does not begin by a certain date; that the Mission Harbor property was rezoned to C-CBD-S, not C-CBD, in 1987. Ms. Quillin cited the following: C-CBD-S, District and Intent This district is intended to serve as a secondary commercial area supporting the central business core. Permitted principal and accessory uses within this district are similar in nature to the C-CBD zone but are less intense. It is intended to serve as a fringe area and should be applied only to areas abutting the C-CBD zone. Ms. Quillin stated that the Mission Harbor property does not abut C-CBD zoning, therefore, the rezoning permitted in 1987 is questionable; that under today's regulations, C-CBD is more intense than the original zoning on Mission Harbor property; that Staff is requesting the Commission change a policy to permit a more intense use. Ms. Quillin stated that the City has a designated retail image area which identifies downtown streets; and cited the following from the Zoning Code: The C-CBD district permits and encourages coordinated development of retail trade activities, business professional, financial services, hotels, and high-density residential use. Ms. Quillin cited the following from a newspaper article published in 1990: Because the developer used up the available time extensions offered by the City but never started the project, building permits and site plans expired in September. Ms. Quillin stated that speculation regarding the fate of the Mission Harbor property is inappropriate at this time; that the Commission should direct that the properties be addressed under the EAR process. Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Commissioner Patterson stated that three examples of affected properties have been provided to the Commission: 1) the property known as Mission Harbor, 2) three parcels on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way, and 3) two parcels on Bahia Vista Street at Tuttle Avenue; and requested clarification from Staff as to the five properties referenced by Ms. Quillin. Ms. Robinson and Ms. Carter came before the Commission. Ms. Carter stated that Ms. Quillin was referring to a list of potentially affected properties prepared by Staff in preparation of the proposed amendment; that the three examples provided to the Commission were identified as the only properties having a future land use map designation that does not match the zoning or does not have the ability to be rezoned under an IMA as designated on the future land use map; that one of the properties on the list prepared was a downzoning performed at the request of the property owner; that another property on the list had an expired site and development plan, but the zoning had not yet reverted; that additional properties may exist, but the three examples provided are the only properties identified by Planning Staff. Book 38 Page 12258 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12259 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Ms. Carter referred to the Planning Staff Report map attachments to identify and explain in detail the three examples of affected properties and the IMAs surrounding the Mission Harbor property. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Mission Harbor property fronts on North Tamiami Trail; that the properties to the rear and to the south of the Mission Harbor property are in an IMA. Ms. Carter stated that is correct. Ms. Robinson stated that the property across Tamiami Trail known as the Sarasota Quay is zoned : C-CBD; that the 888 Condominium was zoned C-CBD until that property was rezoned to RMF-7; that the intensity of the C-CBD zone was reduced by five percent and new regulations, i.e., open-space and setback requirements, were implemented when the C-CBD-S and C-CBD zones merged; that, for example, commercial parking lots and commercial service stations were eliminated as permitted uses in the merged district. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Administration recommends approval of 95-PA-05 and transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-PA-05. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she voted in favor of 95-PA-05 on May 10, 1995; that passing the amendment makes the Mission Harbor property available for development without substantial delay; that the vast majority of the property is surrounded by an IMA; that she has respect for the statements made by Mr. Babb regarding the City's process; however, she will support the motion. Commissioner Patterson stated that in weighing the various aspects of the Mission Harbor property issue, passing 95-PA-05 is the only responsible position she can take; that in her absence, the Commission approved an agreement to transfer the Second Street parking lot to the County for the library location at Five Points to make the Mission Harbor property available for commercial development; that, although she would not have voted to support the transfer, it was approved by the Commission of which she is part; that the Commission would not be acting responsibly if the County's ability to market the Mission Harbor property is delayed because a moratorium on 1996 Comprehensive Plan amendments is necessary due to the understaffing in the City's Planning Department; that the lack of a specific number of propèrties which will be excluded by the policy amendment concerns her; however, with reluctance, she will support the motion on the table as well as the moratorium to be subsequently addressed. Commissioner Dry stated that the City does not own the Mission Harbor property; that during the IMA process, the property owner comes before the Commission and states the intended use for the propertyi that the City Attorney informed her that the City can legally proceed without input from the County; that, however, the process being followed is not consistent with established procedures for land use regulation; that she will vote against the motion. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-PA-05. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Dry, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendments 95-PA-05 and 95-PA-08 will be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs; that the second public hearing will be held at the January 15, 1996, regular Commission meeting. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3884, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE PROCESSING OF AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREKENSIVE PLAN (A.K.A. SARASOTA CITY PLAN) FOR ONE (1) YEAR FROM NOVEMBER 1, 1995, TO NOVEMBER 1, 1996; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO THE NEED FOR AND PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY SUCH A MORATORIUM: EXEMPTING FROM SAID MORATORIUM PETITIONS TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS, PERTAINING TO ANNEXED PROPERTY, REQUESTING ZONING UNDER THE CITY OF SARASOTA ZONING CODE EQUIVALENT TO THE EXISTING SARASOTA COUNTY ZONING ON THE ANNEXED PROPERTY AND/OR THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION APPLIED TO THE PARCEL BY THE SARASOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; EXEMPTING FROM SAID MORATORIUM PETITIONS TO AMEND THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN WHICH IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT REQUIRED TO BE PREPARED BY CITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3191, FLORIDA STATUTES; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; PROVIDING FOR READING BY TITLE ONLY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #2 (2552) through (2945) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the proposed ordinance establishes a one-year moratorium on processing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; that at the City Commission meeting of September 5, 1995, the Commission voted to advertise proposed Ordinance No. 95-3884 for public hearing with the following language added: The following amendments shall be exempt from the moratorium: Petitions to amend the future land use maps pertaining to annexed property requesting zoning under the City of Sarasota Book 38 Page 12260 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12261 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Zoning Code equivalent to the existing Sarasota County Zoning on the annexed property and/or the future land use designation applied to the parcel by the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Dan Lobeck, representing Growth-restraint Environmental Organization (GEO) and himself, 450 South Shade Avenue (34237), stated that the moratorium is a modest and prudent proposal being made by the City's Staff to allow for the completion of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and the update of the Sarasota City Plan; that applications received by November will be processed; that the moratorium will not affect building permits, certificates of occupancy, or rezoning and site and development plans; that the proposed pause to delay development is appropriate; and requested that the Commission support proposed Ordinance No. 95-3884. Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street (34239), deferred from speaking. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson distributed and entered into the record a letter received from Stephen D. Rees, Esquire, representing the Chapman Trust; and stated that the letter requests favorable consideration of the proposed ordinance. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill Closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3884 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3884 on first reading. Commissioner Patterson stated for clarification that the letter received from Attorney Rees requests favorable consideration and subsequent adoption at first reading of the revised language to facilitate the potential annexation of the Chapman Trust property. Commissioner Patterson continued that she will support the ordinance with reluctance caused not by compelling development interests but because the moratorium is being implemented due to an insufficiency in Planning Staff. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 1) : Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. 12. CITIZENS' . INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS = ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT BACK ON THE FALSE ALARM ISSUE AND PROVIDE A RESPONSE TO MR. CUTTLER 's RECOMMENDATIONS (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (2962) through #3 (0752) The following people came before the Commission: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Cuttler, owners of Computer Car Care and McBargain Rent-A-Car, 1909 North Washington Boulevard (34234). Mr. Cuttler read a prepared speech and stated that his business has been burglarized over 50 times in the past three years; that none of the perpetrators have been arrested except for four burglars caught in the act; that the City has not provided assistance in reducing his crime burden; that in 1988 razor wire was installed on the six-foot-high cement block wall surrounding his stored rental vehicles; that citizens are not allowed to use active means such as electrified fences to protect property; that the City took away the last effective passive measure in 1992 when the Commission passed Ordinance No. 92-3576 finding the use of razor wire or coiled barbed wire inappropriate and outlawing its use; that the City has squandered over $12,000 on legal fees because of the suit he has filed to retain the installed razor wire; that the cost to taxpayers will be approximately $20,000 when the case reaches trial; that the City Manager has not attempted to resolve the situation and since the Commission passed the ordinance feels obliged to continue the expensive legal action; that he objects to the way his tax dollars are being wasted. Mr. Cuttler continued that he has a burglar alarm; that the Police are met at his business each time the alarm goes off; that he is now battling with the Police Department over excessive alarm activity; that other merchants in the area experience similar crime burdens, e.g., Mr. Roberts and Jim Dowell Auto Sales; that the merchants who operate on the north side of town should be contacted for input and the City should take appropriate action to decrease the tremendous crime burdens; that the following action is suggested: 1. Repeal the razor wire ordinance. 2. Pass an alarm ordinance that bases the amount of excused false alarms on the amount of criminal activity in the geographical area. Mr. Cuttler stated that the method currently used bases the number of excused false alarms on an arbitrary figure which bears no Book 38 Page 12262 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12263 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. relationship to the amount of criminal activity or the complexity of the area being monitored. 3. Start investigating new methods for protection the merchants who inhabit the high crime areas. Mr. Cuttler cited the following from the September 6, 1995, Wall Street Journal Rule of Law column: "Americans are sitting on a demographic crime bomb. By the year 2000 there will be about 500,000 more 14- to 17- year-old males in the population than there are today. About 6% of young males are responsible for half the serious crimes committed by their age group. Thus, in five years we can expect at least 30,000 more young murderers, rapists, and muggers on the streets. Worse, since the 1950s each cohort of young male criminals has done roughly three times as much serious crime as the cohort before it. This crime bomb cannot be defused. From the swelling ranks of 7- to 10-year-old boys who are growing up in fatherless, Godless, and jobless settings surrounded by deviant, delinquent, and criminal adults will come a new and more vicious army of predatory street criminals. By John J. Dilulio Jr." Commissioner Pillot asked Mr. Cuttler if the razor wire is still installed? Mr. Cuttler stated, yes. Commissioner Pillot stated that the razor wire does not seem to be an effective deterrent based on the number of times Mr. Cuttler has been burglarized. Mr. Cuttler distributed a photograph depicting damage to a vehicle which occurred over the weekend; and stated that the burglaries are occurring on the section of his property which is not protected by razor wire; that the installed razor wire is an effective deterrent. Commissioner Pillot stated that although he voted in favor of the ordinance outlawing the razor wire, he agrees with Mr. Cuttler's suggestions; that repealing the ordinance and basing the amount of excused false alarms on the amount of criminal activity makes sense and should be considered. Commissioner Pillot asked what the City could do to minimize the criminal burdens being experienced outside the protected area on Mr. Cuttler's property? Mr. Cuttler stated that the greatest reduction to juvenile crime would occur by implementing stricter penalties to keep repeat offenders off the streets; that business owners should also be permitted to use razor wire and other passive measures to protect their properties. Commissioner Patterson stated that the false alarm ordinance was implemented to reduce the substantial Public Safety Department resources being expended by responding to alarms triggered by malfunctions in alarm systems; that the purpose of the ordinance was to encourage property owners to address the malfunctions and maintain their alarm systems. Commissioner Patterson requested a report back from the Administration regarding the percentage of false alarms occurring versus actual burglary attempts; and stated that a property owner should not be penalized if an alarm is triggered by a juvenile attempting to enter a property. Vice Mayor Cardamone concurred. Mr. Cuttler stated that the heavily alarmed area of his property is a high activity, outside area; that alarms have been triggered by numerous illegal dumpings onto the property; that insects and bugs also trigger the alarm system; that two citations have been issued for the disconnection of his alarm system; that a court hearing is pending for his nonpayment of the false alarm fees. Commissioner Patterson stated that a report from the Administration is necessary prior to further deliberation by the Commission on this issue; that a property owner should be responsible for paying false alarm fees, regardless of the property's location, if the alarms are triggered by a faulty alarm system which is not being repaired. Commissioner Patterson continued that she supported, perhaps with some naivety, the prohibition of razor wire perhaps with some naivety; that she felt razor and barbed wire was inappropriate in a city; that the prohibition of barbed wire in addition to the razor wire was considered until calls were received from area merchants protesting the elimination of all means by which to protect their properties; that feedback from the public is necessary, but she may consider repealing the ordinance. Commissioner Patterson further stated that substantial legal fees are being expended to litigate the razor wire ordinance, but the Administration has not informed the Commission of this situation; that the Commission should be apprised on a regular basis of the cases pending and the resources being expended to defend the City's ordinances. Vice Mayor Cardamone concurred. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that after the City responds to an alarm, business owners pay,approximately $50.00 to have a service technician verify the alarm system is functioning properly; that a Book 38 Page 12264 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12265 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. false alarm fee is not issued if the service technician's bill verifying the system is not faulty is submitted to the City. Mr. Cuttler stated that service technicians are paid $50.00 to $100.00; that his businesses are located in a high-crime area; that the outside areas of the property need protection; that only two burglaries have occurred inside the buildings; that the preponderance of burglaries and illegal activities occur in the outside car storage area which is the most difficult area to protect; that the City has the same standard for a high-crime area as an area, i.e., on Siesta Key, where criminal activity is less likely; that controls are necessary but should be adjusted based on the degree of difficulty in protecting an area; that protecting an inside area is much easier than protecting an outside area. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she is not naive and never would have supported the prohibition of razor wire in the City of Sarasota; that as a business owner, she realizes the importance of protecting property from theft and other criminal activity; that from personal experience in dealing with prosecuting a shoplifter caught in her store, she understands Mr. Cuttler's frustration with the court system; that the Commission should consider repealing the razor wire ordinance; that the Administration should review and report back on the false alarm issue regarding high-crime areas. Commissioner Patterson stated that low-crime areas, i.e., Osprey Avenue south of Siesta Drive, also experience burglary activity; that a comprehensive report on the false alarm issue should be provided; that other merchants experiencing difficulties should be encouraged to provide input; that she would seriously consider repealing the ordinance. Commissioner Pillot stated that he would consider repealing the ordinance; and requested that specific responses to Mr. Cuttler's recommendations be included in the Administration's report for consideration by the Commission. Mayor Merrill stated that there was consensus of the Commission to have the Administration provide a comprehensive report regarding false alarm activity which includes a response to the recommendations submitted by Mr. Cuttler. Mr. Cuttler submitted his speech for the record. Mayor Merrill stated that public safety is the Commission's number one responsibility; that the legal system gives the public civil rights, property rights, etc.; however, citizens do not have any legal rights against a government's failure to protect; that the protection of citizens may be taken more seriously by the court systems once a citizen sues a government for failing to protect them and wins. Dan Lobeck, representing Groxth-restraint Environmental Organization (GEO) and himself, 450 South Shade Avenue (34237), stated that the future development of the City and the County are interrelated; that the diminishing tax base within the City can be attributed to the urban sprawl occurring within the County; that the City does not seem to perceive this as a problem; that the city Commission should actively enter into the debate regarding the 27th Revised and Updated Amendment (RU27) to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan; that a first hearing has been held and RU27 will be before the Board of County Commissioners again on October 3, 1995; that RU27 proposes: 1) deletion of the current prohibition in the County's Comprehensive Plan against further eastern, urban sprawl, 2) a mandate to establish a task force of developers and others to plan for urban growth east of the interstate, and 3) inclusion of provisions which will greatly intensify the amount of development allowed around the Sarasota Square Mall and in other locations throughout the unincorporated County; that Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, was reprimanded for speaking up during a County consideration regarding the Schroeder-Manatee Ranch and stating that excessive urban sprawl harms the City; that Ms. Robinson should have been praised for her accurate comments. Mr. Lobeck continued that instead of a true commitment to redevelopment within the City to provide a greater customer base for existing businesses and more vitality and a renaissance within the residential areas, the City is aggressively pursing additional shopping malls, higher densities to permit more high-rises and Adult Care Living Facilities (ACLFS), and more intense, commercial development; that the type of redevelopment being pursued overcrowds the City's roads and is not good redevelopment; that Manhattan, New York, is an example which illustrates that increasing densities and commercial development does not help lower taxes. Mr. Lobeck further stated that a deep and fundamental reconsideration of the City's policy on development is necessary; that the City Commission should provide input to the County Commission regarding RU27, stop the "malling/mauling" of the City, and attempt to make the City better rather than tearing it down. Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street (34239), stated that neither definitive nor general procedures have been developed for the quasi-judicial process being conducted on land use issues; that procedures have not been developed concerning Small Scale Development Activities or annexations; that generally, the petitioner and the City do have adversarial roles during these procedures; that the petitioner and the residents are usually the adversaries; that the residents are greatly handicapped both in terms of time and unified support and financially; that, for example, voluminous documents presented by the petitioner to the Book 38 Page 12266 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. ASRE oae Book 38 Page 12267 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Commission during the hearings are not available for public review and rebuttal by the residents; that the procedure proposed by the City Attorney regarding the submittal of documentation will accommodate the Commission but not the public; that the public should not be limited to one opportunity to speak; that an opportunity to respond should be provided to the public if additional data and evidence is subsequently submitted by the petitioner; and requested that the Commission direct the Administration to develop definitive procedures pertaining to land use proceedings. Mr. Babb continued that the Commission approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-PA-05 to enable the development of the Mission Harbor property on the basis that the Mission Harbor property is surrounded by Impact Management Areas (IMAs); that the uses in the IMAs should have been reviewed; that the Commission's decision was not based on sound data. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 95R-838, ADOPTING THE REVISED POSITION CLABSIPICATION COMPENSATION PLAN: AUTHORIZING EMPLOYEES, FOR WHOM COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS NOT REQUIRED, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREIN, AN INCREASE IN THE BASE RATE OF PAY AS PROVIDED HEREIN, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 4, 1995, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTINUE TO ADMINISTER THE CLASSIPICATION/COMPENSATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS: PROVIDING ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR LONGEVITY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #3 (0752) through (0983) William Davenport, Director of Human Resources, came before the Commission and stated that Resolution No. 95R-383 authorizes a 3.1% increase to all eligible employees not represented for collective bargaining; that the Classification/Compensation Plan has been adjusted to reflect the 3.1% increase. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Administration recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 95R-838. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R-838 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 95R-838. Commissioner Patterson stated that 3.1% is a reasonable cost of living adjustment (COLA) i the segregating one portion of the employees from another would not be appropriate; however, she has continuously stated that COLA's or longevity raises should not be provided to employees just because they show up to work; that two employees seated next to each other in an office will receive the same percentage increase although one employee is performing above work standards and the other employee is performing below work standards; that the merit increase program previously used in the City permitted increases up to 10% with no employee receiving less than a COLA; that terminating government employees is difficult without documentation of poor work performance; that all salary increases in the city should be associated with performance evaluations; that Sarasota County provides salary increases based on evaluation; that the total salary increase liability to the County's budget is equivalent to a COLA; that the City should initiate a similar program; that the Administration has made no effort to further her previous requests on this issue; that, hopefully, Commission consensus will be reached at some time directing the Administration to develop a merit-based salary increase program; however, she will support the salary increase as proposed. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the minimum base salary of $15,627 annually is equivalent to $300 per week or $7.50 per hour; that including benefits, the minimum entry level position at the City of Sarasota is valued at approximately $20,000; that she concurs with Commissioner Patterson's statements, but will not support the salary increase. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, no; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 95R-843, AUTHORIZING THE SALARIES OF THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 4, 1995, DETERMINING WHICH OFFICERS SHALL GIVE BOND AND THE AMOUNTS THEREOF: PROVIDING ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR LONGEVITY: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (0983) through (1800) William Davenport, Director of Human Resources, came before the Commission and stated that consistent with past practice and the arrangement described in the City Manager's contract, proposed Resolution 95R-843 is being presented to authorize a 3.1% salary increase for the City Manager and City Auditor and Clerk. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Administration recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 95R-843. Commissioner Patterson cited the following weekly base salaries for the Charter officials as indicated in the proposed resolution: City Manager $2,135.85 City Auditor and Clerk $1,779.36 Book 38 Page 12268 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12269 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the total cost to the City for the City Manager's position is currently $138,916 annually? Mr. Davenport stated that the $138,916 figure includes benefits and is correct. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R-843 by title only. Commissioner Patterson requested that separate votes be taken on the resolution relative to each Charter official. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 95R-843 as applicable to the City Auditor and Clerk. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Commissioner Pillot stated that except those employees covered by collective bargaining for whom the Commission may not legally provide unilateral salary increases, all City of Sarasota employees have been considered; that Commissioner Patterson previously commented that employees should not be segregated; that in his opinion, employees should be treated equally unless there is documentation for doing otherwise; that no documentation is available to support treating only one employee differently. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 95R-843 as applicable to the City Manager. Commissioner Dry asked if annual evaluations are performed for all City employees? Mr. Davenport stated the Personnel Rules and Regulations which provide for annual evaluations of City employees are not applicable to the Charter officials; however, annual evaluations on the two Charter officials have been performed annually by the Commission. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the City of Sarasota Charter provides for annual evaluations of the City Manager and City Auditor and Clerk; that the evaluations are performed in December. Commissioner Dry asked if past practice has been to provide the City Manager and City Auditor and Clerk with annual salary increases prior to the completion of an evaluation? Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that is correct; that salary increases are provided with the adoption of the budget and have not traditionally been affiliated with evaluations. Commissioner Patterson stated that last year, she requested completion of the evaluations prior to the Commission's approving a salary increase for the two Charter officials; that being familiar with the evaluation form, she knows what her evaluation of the City Manager would be this yeari that voting against salary increases for city employees would have also been a vote against successful collective bargaining; that as one of five Commissioners, she cannot directly control the method by which the city Manager chooses to provide salary increases to City employees; that such a mandate would require support from the majority of the Commission; however, as one of five votes, she has direct control over the salary increase provided to two City employees; that she is not currently satisfied with the City Manager's performance and therefore will not support a salary increase for him. Commissioner Pillot stated that the development of the previously established, short-lived merit system was aggressively supported; that he supports the preparation of objective-related evaluations relating to the Charter officials' salaries which the Commission directly administers and for employees Citywide; that the evaluations currently completed for the Charter officials are subjective and do not measure performance output; that Commissioner Patterson's statements may be supported in the future if data is available based on the extent to which output objectives are or are not reached; however, absent such data, and based on the averaged, acceptable evaluations received by the City Manager in the past, the Commission should vote to support the salary increase for the City Manager. Commissioner Pillot continued that he strongly supports development of a system to base salary increases on bjective-related evaluations. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that Commissioner Pillot's statements are understood; that lengthily, bjective-related comments of similar content were included with each of her evaluations completed for the City Manager over the past two years; that many dissatisfactions were noted; that major improvements to the areas addressed have not been noticed; that the City Manager's work performance is not meeting her expectations; that she will not support a salary increase for the City Manager. Commissioner Dry asked for the status of the Charter officials' evaluations. Commissioner Patterson stated that salary increases for the two Charter officials were granted last year by a 3 to 2 vote; that a subsequent evaluation was performed in December; that as stated by Commissioners Pillot and Cardamone, the evaluation form does not Book 38 Page 12270 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12271 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. provide for an objective-related evaluation; however, objective- related comments have been included with the evaluations she has submitted; that the concerns she noted are difficult to quantify by objective criteria; that the average, acceptable evaluation was somewhat skewed by some Commissioners providing all high grades, while unsatisfied Commissioners did not go to the other end of the grade spectrum. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission's goal-setting workshop provides one objective by which the City Manager could be evaluated; that competent, periodic reports have been provided from the City Manager as to the achievement of the Commission's goals; that the City Manager has effectively carried out the goals of the Commission. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote to adopt proposed Resolution No. 95-843 as applicable to the City Manager. Motion carried (3 to 2) : Cardamone, no; Dry, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she would have liked to have made her comments directly to Mr. Sollenberger in public; and regrets he is not in attendance. Commissioner Patterson concurred. The Commission recessed at 10:02 p.m. and reconvened at 10:12 p.m. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: METHOD USED FOR SURVEYING NEIGHBORHOOD OPINIONS TO SIDEWALK PROJECTS AND TRAFFIC ABATEMENT PROJECTS = A METERED POSTCARD WILL BE PROVIDED FOR SURVEY RESPONSES; ONLY VOTES RECEIVED WILL BE COUNTED IN SURVEYS CONCERNING PROPOSED TRAFFIC ABATEMENT MEASURES (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #3 (1791) through #4 (0053) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Commission requested a report from Staff at the last regular Commission meeting as to how surveys for neighborhood sidewalk projects are conducted; that the City has mandatory and discretionary sidewalks projects and the survey approach is only used for those locations where sidewalks are discretionary. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer and Alexander Hay, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission. Ms. Hay stated that the approach taken with the Citywide sidewalk project includes a rating criteria developed for all proposed sidewalk segments; that each segment is reviewed and sidewalks are considered mandatory for those segments receiving more than seven points; that citizen or property owner input is not sought for mandatory sidewalk segment projects; that sidewalks are optional for those segments receiving less than seven points; that Staff considers sidewalks to be beneficial through the encouragement of pedestrian usage and by providing a safe way, to get to local destinations and would like to place sidewalks in the most number of locations possible; that Staff's position is to plan, design and construct a particular optional sidewalk unless a survey of the neighborhood shows a majority of the property owners are in opposition; that surveys are distributed to all property owners, on both sides of the street where the sidewalk segment is proposed; that unless more than a 50% response opposed to the sidewalk is received, the project is moved to the design and construction phases; that guidance is requested on the acceptability of this method used for optional sidewalk projects. Commissioner Pillot stated that he appreciates and respects the attention that Staff has given to this matter; that Staff has come very close to satisfying his concerns, however, some remain. Commissioner Pillot referred to the draft of the City of Sarasota Traffic Abatement Survey included in the Agenda material and stated that the relevant word is "surveyed"; that the draft survey reads in part "the sidewalk will be constructed unless we receive a majority protest from the property owners surveyed"; that if 100 people are eligible to be surveyed, the project will proceed unless 51 or more objections are received; that the result is the same as the wording presently used where a nonresponse. is considered a supportive response; that if the wording was simplified to indicate that a sidewalk will be constructed or not constructed based on the majority vote of those who respond, those people who choose not to respond forfeit their right to complain; that the same is true about not having a right to complain about City Commissioners if one does not vote; that unless the survey reads that a decision will be based on the majority vote of the respondents, the effect of a nonresponse being counted as a supportive response is the same; that he cannot, therefore, support the proposal. Commissioner Pillot continued that his suggestion is to state in the surveys that sidewalks will or will not be constructed based on the majority vote of those who respond; that he likes the wording in the survey that "your response is very important" which should be emphasized by using larger point type or other word processing means; that the following wording could be printed in bold, upper case lettering: We will construct or not construct based on the majority vote of the responses received; therefore, your response is important. Commissioner Patterson stated that Commissioner Pillot's suggestion is not a wording change but rather a policy difference. Book 38 Page 12272 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12273 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that the City Engineering Department is trying to comply with the policy; that this is an issue of semantics; that he is suggesting a policy change if he does not understand the policy being supported; that a wording change is appropriate in any case. Commissioner Patterson asked if the current policy counts a nonresponse as a supportive response for both traffic abatement measures and sidewalk construction and if Staff is supporting this policy. Mr. Daughters stated that is correct. Commissioner Patterson stated that Commissioner Pillot's suggestion is to consider only responses received and make a decision based upon a majority vote of those responses, which is not a semantic change. Commissioner Pillot stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she had requested this subject be brought back to the Commission because of concern that a nonresponse is counted as a vote; that she does not care for this; that a nonresponse to a survey means either the recipient has no interest or the survey was not received; that a nonresponse should not be counted as a vote either for or against a proposal; that this concern is not addressed in the material presented; that a letter received from a citizen on Bahia Vista Street said the Engineering Department clearly stated that a nonresponse would be counted as a supportive vote; that the survey letters should be less wordy, more clear, and put into a positive frame; that the present wording in the survey requires the reader to pause and consider the intent; that the survey could read "If a majority wants this sidewalk, it will be built" or "If a majority does not want the sidewalk, it will not be built"; and asked why a stamped, self-addressed envelope is used instead of a traditional, metered postcard? Mr. Daughters stated that either a stamped, self-addressed envelope or a metered postcard could be used. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the metered postcard is less expensive than envelopes. Commissioner Patterson stated that one issue is how to count nonresponses; that a second issue is that some property owners may be willing to vote for a sidewalk which is not on their side of the street; and asked how the votes are counted under the current system if a sidewalk is to be constructed on one side of the street. Ms. Hay stated that currently votes from property owners on both sides of the street are counted equally. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if nonresponses are counted as supportive votes. Ms. Hay stated that the policy has been that the sidewalk will be constructed on the side of the street previously designated unless more than 50% of the property owners object. Commissioner Patterson stated that two issues exist: 1) what to do with property owners who do not respond at all, and 2) the relevancy of the vote to the side of the street on which the sidewalk is to be constructed. Mr. Schneider stated that the rationale for counting nonresponses as supportive votes is that this procedure produces the highest probability of constructing sidewalks, which is important because the Commission has established neighborhood improvement programs, Funding for Sidewalks, and Sidewalk to Schools programs; that the importance of sidewalks in neighborhoods is emphasized. Mr. Schneider referred to a chart with the results of 16 recent surveys and stated that three sidewalk construction projects would not have had sufficient support if the nonresponses were not counted as supportive votes; that the rationale is to construct as many sidewalks as feasible; that this inclusive approach produces the highest probability of constructing sidewalks without mandating the construction of sidewalks; that this procedure can be changed but it is important to know why the surveys have been done in this manner. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that although it is an interesting rationale, she does not agree with it; that this is similar to automatically casting a vote even if a citizen did not go to the ballot box. Mr. Daughters stated that this is the same process used in assessment districts; that assessment districts are approved unless objection is received from the majority of affected property owners. Commissioner Patterson asked if the State established this process? Mr. Daughters stated yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if registered mail is used in the assessment district process? Mr. Daughters stated that it is. Book 38 Page 12274 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12275 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that, therefore, the City is assured the property owner received the ballot or survey and then chose not to respond. Mr. Daughters stated that a third question is what to do with surveys already performed as some property owners have stated they did not submit a survey response because they knew a nonresponse would be counted as a supportive vote. Commissioner Pillot stated that he will not support the sandbagging technique currently used for sidewalks or traffic abatement; that he does not use the word sandbagging with any pejorative connotation; that any change should not be retroactive. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved that sidewalk and traffic abatement surveys would: 1) emphasize the need to respond emphasized in a simplified letter, and 2) clearly state that the decision will be based on a majority of the responses. Mayor Merrill asked if the wording should be revised to require a positive response either way? Commissioner Pillot stated noi that a response cannot be required; that the second half of his motion was that a decision will be based on a majority of the responses received; that the first half was that the letter be brief and a strong emphasis placed on the importance of a response. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion to use a metered postcard instead of a letter with a stamped, self-addressed envelope, assuming that the cost is not higher. Mr. Daughters stated that many responses are received via fax; that metered postcards can be faxed, although it is more difficult; that both a metered postcard and a letter could be provided. Commissioner Pillot stated that the intent of the amendment is to make it as inexpensive and convenient as possible for the respondent, leaving the details up to Staff. Commissioner Patterson stated that Staff does not have to come back to the Commission if the change would be more expensive than using envelopes. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the amendment to use a metered postcard. Amendment to the motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that a decision should be made if this change should be retroactive or not; that the survey recently conducted in the Tangier Terrace/Granada Neighborhoods concerning proposed traffic abatement measures could pose a problem. Mr. Daughters stated that Staff examined the votes received on the survey to property owners of the Tangier Terrace/Granada Neighborhoods, and the result would not change as the majority were still in favor of speed humps; that all current projects have been examined regarding nonresponsive votes; that three sidewalk projects would not be constructed if the decision is based on the majority of votes received. Ms. Hay stated that the survey numbers presented are current as of Thursday, September 14, 1995; that additional petitions were received from property owners on Wisteria, Clematis and Hyde Park Streets after some neighbors called others and urged them to submit a responsei that the neighbors in these areas were concerned about the situation, and the survey results have been modified to include these additional responses. Mr. Daughters stated that these additional responses gave further support to the neighbors' desire not to have a sidewalk. Ms. Hay stated that Wisteria, Hyde Park and Clematis Streets were eliminated from the sidewalk program after the neighborhoods submitted additional responsesi; that Staff explained to property owners that the City's intent is not to force sidewalks on neighborhoods. Commissioner Patterson stated that an additional concern has been expressed to her which is the process of getting traffic abatement to an area, such as recent efforts regarding the Gillespie Park area; that the current process requires that 60% of the property owners in a neighborhood indicate a desire for traffic abatement, in which case the justification is clear; however, in a situation in which the 60% threshold has been waived due to the large number of absentee owners, the result could be speed humps in a large neighborhood where only four people wanted them; that problems could arise if the survey procedures are modified for both sidewalks and traffic abatement. Mr. Daughters stated that the intent regarding traffic abatement in the Gillespie Park area is to bring the matter back to the Commission for modification at a near future date. Commissioner Pillot stated that a small number of people voting, and thereby putting a particular traffic abatement measure in place, could occur; that the process is a democratic one; that he was first elected with 9% of the eligible voters of the City of Sarasota; that the survey should stress that the property owner Book 38 Page 12276 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12277 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. should respond if interested in the issue; that decisions are made based on the majority of those who respond, which is how elections work. Mayor Merrill stated that a terrible mistake is being made; that the result could be to seal the future of the City's sidewalk program; that most people who bought a home on a street without a sidewalk do not rate sidewalks as being important; that if sidewalks were important, they would have bought a house in a different neighborhood, which is a natural process of self selection; that families with young children want sidewalks; that in some neighborhoods with larger lots and larger yards, sidewalks may not be as important; that the lack of sidewalks has an impact in his own neighborhood, which has many children and considerable traffic; that many senior residents do not want sidewalks as they may be afraid of skateboarders coming in front of their house or do not want the nuisance of edging the sidewalks; that the only way sidewalks will be constructed is if the negative response is used; that the Commission, understanding the value of sidewalks, wants sidewalks constructed in order to support long-term neighborhood property values; that even though a property owner may be neutral, he may simply not respond; that construction of sidewalks is a great enough benefit to a neighborhood that the City should construct them if the property owners do not object; that gathering a petition in a neighborhood to oppose a sidewalk is easy; that he was recently asked to sign a petition in his neighborhood, but he declined because he believes in sidewalks; that sidewalks are important to increase the long-term desirability of a neighborhood in attracting young families by taking care of children; that the person the collecting signatures wanted traffic abatement measures and not sidewalks; that these neighborhoods have to be made attractive to the general public; that the general public, including the large number of people who are not buying in the City's neighborhoods, like sidewalks; that time will tell if the policy has to be revised; that it is a mistake to change the present policy which has worked and will continue to work. Commissioner Patterson stated that this argument is very convincing; however, traffic abatement should be treated differently from sidewalks; that sidewalks have mostly been rejected west of U.S. 41 in some of the older areas where property values already are quite high; that those property values are going up and those areas do not need sidewalks to drive those values; that the concern about constructing sidewalks in the east neighborhoods is more vital in that the neighborhoods are not appreciably increasing in value; that traffic abatement is very invasive in neighborhoods; that it is difficult to go ahead with speed humps simply because property owners were out of town; that if the Mayor would consider separating the policy into two, i.e. a policy for sidewalks and a policy for traffic abatement, she would change her position. Mayor Merrill stated that he has no objections to separating the policy. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Deputy City Manager made an honest and candid comment in stating that the process has been used because it is a better way of assuring that sidewalks are constructed; that he would rather be straightforward and not even ask the property owners; that if there are reasons to have sidewalks for safety, then the Commissioners should exercise their rights as Commissioners and vote to construct the sidewalks. Mayor Merrill stated that some neighborhoods really do not want sidewalks; that at least this policy provides property owners some veto power; that if property owners want to collect signatures on a petition, they can do SO. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she will support the motion on the floor; that she is not willing to force a sidewalk on someone who does not want one if a real safety need has not been declared or a Sidewalk to School route not identified; that property owners in mature neighborhoods with trees or plantings which would be affected by sidewalk construction do not want the burden of construction; that she will not vote to force sidewalks on neighborhoods. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Mayor Merrill (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Cardamone), it was moved to amend the motion to apply only to traffic abatement issues and to leave the sidewalk program with its current system for recording votes, changing only the method of notification. Mayor Merrill stated that the Commission has decided that sidewalks are desirable throughout the City; that in general, most people desire sidewalks; that sidewalk construction always encounters some objections, but sidewalks have been successfully received after construction, for example, on Waldemere, Bailey, and other streets; that if it were demanded that all, or a majority of, property owners on Waldemere Street respond affirmatively, the sidewalk would not have been constructed; that the neighborhoods most in need of sidewalks would not get them; that this vote is an issue of deciding if sidewalks are good for neighborhoods or not; that if sidewalks are good for neighborhoods, a vote should be cast for the amendment; that this is the only way sidewalks will be constructed. Commissioner Patterson stated that this amendment still provides an avenue for someone to block the construction of a sidewalk if it is not desired in a particular neighborhood; that sidewalks are not forced on a neighborhood if a consensus against sidewalks exists; that the issue is weighed in favor of the sidewalk. Book 38 Page 12278 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. asa 7 Book 38 Page 12279 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the amendment to apply the motion only to traffic abatement issues. Amendment carried (3 to 2): Dry, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no; Cardamone, no. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion to base decisions on a majority of the responses received as amended to apply only to traffic abatement issues, leaving the sidewalk program with its current system and changing only the method of notification. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, no; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes, Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mr. Daughters asked for clarification regarding the issue of surveying one or both sides of a street when a sidewalk is proposed for one side of the street onlyi that currently property owners on both sides of the street are surveyed. Mayor Merrill stated that the issue was raised and the Commission did not vote to change it; that no objection was received to surveying both sides of the street. Commissioner Pillot stated he agreed. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked how the survey results will be counted if there is a nonresponse. Mr. Daughters stated that a sidewalk would be constructed unless a majority protest from all the property owners surveyed in the affected area is received. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if a nonresponse is counted as a supportive vote. Mr. Daughters stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if this treatment is the same for surveys concerning proposed traffic abatement measures. Mr. Daughters stated that only votes received will be counted in traffic abatement. 16. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 95R-841, ESTABLISHING A ROSEMARY DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD; SETTING FORTH RECITALS AS TO THE NEED FOR SAID BOARD AND THE PURPOSE TO BE SERVED BY IT; PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS : IDENTIFYING THE PURPOSES OF THE BOARD; STATING THAT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE AND TECHNICAL ADVICE MAY BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY COMMISSION: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 (0054) * through (0303) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that this proposed resolution establishes a nine-member Redevelopment Advisory Board for the Rosemary District and is intended to provide citizen, business, and neighborhood participation in the redevelopment process of the Rosemary District; that the Administration recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 95R-841. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a new, revised resolution was distributed today. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the revision includes Commission recommendations regarding the composition of the Redevelopment Advisory Board? Mr. Schneider stated that it does; that the membership distribution in the revised resolution is slightly different. Commissioner Patterson stated that the membership of the Advisory Board could be comprised of a minority of City residents; that the two residents of the Rosemary District and the representative of the Housing Authority could be the only City residents and the latter is not mandated to be a City resident as several Housing Authority Board Members do not reside in the City; that only two out of nine members on this Board would be guaranteed to be City residents; that some verbiage should be included in the resolution stating that at least five people should be City residents or at least City property owners. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Sarasota City Charter states that preference is given to City residents on all advisory boards; that the Commission has been very cautious to date when appointing members to the various boards; that nonresidents have been appointed only when no residents have applied or when very specific qualifications were sought which were not available in the City. Commissioner Patterson asked if these appointments come back to the Commission? Mr. Schneider stated yes; that they go through the regular appointment process. Commissioner Dry stated that proposed Resolution No. 95R-841 states that appointees should be City residents or shall own or be affiliated with businesses whose principle offices are located in Sarasota. Commissioner Patterson stated that although someone may be affiliated with NationsBank, for example, they may live in Port Charlotte and never pay a nickel in City taxes. Book 38 Page 12280 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12281 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Dry stated that a significant portion of the changes found in the revised document, as opposed to the original document, were suggested by her; that other Commissioners may have requested changes as well; that the original document showed very little input from people living in the Rosemary District which was a major concern. Commissioner Pillot stated that proposed Resolution No. 95R-841 indicates that the nine members shall be appointed by the City Commission; and asked if these appointments will be handled as any other advisory board appointments? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct; that the appointments will be brought back at the next Commission meeting if possible. Commissioner Pillot asked if the application form indicates if the candidate is a resident of the City? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the same application form will be used as with regular advisory board appointments. Commissioner Patterson stated that applications will be takèn; that unsolicited nominations can be made. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct; that two applications have already been made and are on file. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read Resolution 95R-841 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve proposed Resolution 95R-841 establishing a Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a citizen has signed up to speak on this item. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236), deferred from speaking. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she requested the Administration establish this Advisory Board almost two years ago; that the request was accompanied by a handout from a redevelopment advisory board of Ybor City in Tampa; that this is an example of why her evaluations of the City Manager are not as favorable as she, and probably he, would like them to be; that the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board should be approved and the redevelopment of Central Avenue commenced. Mayor Merrill asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote to adopt Resolution 95R-841. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes, Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 17. NEW BUSINESS: REPORT RE: CITYWIDE SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROGRAM = REPORT GIVEN (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #4 (0303) through (0552) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Commission requested a report on the Citywide sanitary sewer rehabilitation program at the last meeting; that as late as September 1, 1995, which was four days prior to the last Commission meeting, negotiations with the contractor were still being held; that these negotiations were held to assign responsibility and to develop a work schedule resulting in minimal interference to U.S. 41 and other roadways. Gil Leacock, Director of Public Works, and William Hallisey, Facilities Operations Manager, Public Works Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Leacock stated that 15 years ago the City embarked on an aggressive and much needed sanitary sewer infrastructure improvement program; that in the early part of March 1995, Staff was informed that approximately one mile of 24-inch PVC sanitary forcemain had consistently failed pressure tests; that his report consists of a memorandum from Mr. Hallisey to the City Manager, which is included in the Agenda materials and which outlines the investigations and the approach the Public Works Department took to resolve the issue, and a location map; that the negotiations began in March 1995 and concluded a week or ten days ago, resulting in the generation of a Memorandum of Understanding between the contractor, the pipe supplier, the Administration and the city Attorney; that the areas to be reconstructed as a result of the necessity to replace this forcemain are indicated in the Agenda material; that a construction schedule has been provided, showing what and when each portion of each phase will be completed; that the contract includes a $500 per day liquidated damages clause which could be levied against the contractor if the work is not completed on schedule; that on September 13, 1995, the City's construction inspectors visited all the residences and commercial establishments along the route and made personal contact with the individuals concerned; that if they were unable to make personal contact, a notice of construction was left at the location; that the inspectors have been instructed to return to the relevant locations until personal contact has been made; that work commenced as of this morning in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding and the construction schedule. Book 38 Page 12282 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12283 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked when the first phase, which is on 17th and 18th Streets and is to be completed by October 5th, will start? Mr. Leacock stated that this phase started this morning. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the work will take about 20 days. Mr. Leacock stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the construction will be a day and night operation, or only a day-time or night-time operation. Mr. Hallisey stated that work is scheduled for ten hours a day. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the ten hours of work is scheduled mostly during the day time? Mr. Hallisey stated yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked when the next phase, to be completed by October 12th, will start? Mr. Hallisey stated that the next phase will start as soon as the first phase is completed; that it is anticipated that the October 5th date will easily be met; that the second phase will, therefore, start by October 5th. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that a large part of the project is on U.S. 41 and 17th Street, and asked how long that phase of the project will take? Mr. Hallisey stated that work on 17th Street will run approximately from October 12th to December 8th, or approximately eight weeks. Commissioner Patterson stated that more sewer pipe was laid than the section requiring replacement, and asked if the pipe came from different lots and if all the pipe had been tested? Mr. Leacock stated that all the forcemain in this project was tested; that with the exception of these 5,100 feet, all the forcemain passed the pressure testing; that the majority of the line laid in this project was gravity sewer and not subject to pressure testing; that Staff is now requiring that contractors pressure test by segments, but this was not part of the original specifications; however, as a result of the failure of these pipes, the contractor is being required to pressure test and approve shorter segments rather than pressure test the entire area at one time. Commissioner Patterson asked if the pipe has to be laid in order to be pressure tested. Mr. Leacock stated that it does. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that this project was started last year and then stopped during the season, and asked if the entire project is now completed? Mr. Leacock stated no; that construction has been deferred on a portion at the intersection of Prospect Street and U.S. 41, at the intersection of Bahia Vista Street and U.S. 41, and on U.S. 41 from Gulf Stream Avenue to 10th Street; that these three segments have not been completed; that these will be tendered for bids after Easter 1996. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if these segments can be completed more quickly than the original construction? Mr. Leacock stated yes; that the most significant is the Prospect Street/U.S. 41 crossing which will be used for some of the improvements originally planned for Bahia Vista Street/U.S. 41; that work at the Bahia Vista Street intersection will be done more quickly as a result of using the Prospect Street crossing at U.S. 41, which will be less disruptive since U.S. 41 will not have to be cut open at Prospect Street; that a jack and bore process can be used beneath the pavement in that area and traffic will be maintained during construction; that U.S. 41 will have to be opened at Bahia Vista Street because existing pipes in that intersection must be replaced. 18. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 95R-839, REVISES THE CITY'S INVESTMENT POLICY APPLIED TO ALL FUNDS, EXCEPT PENSION FUNDS, PROVIDING FOR MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, ETHICAL STANDARDS, AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS, ESTABLISHING AN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE AND PROVIDING FOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED AS REVISED TO INCLUDE THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #4 (0552) through (1129) Commissioner Dry asked if a disinterested third party, such as an investment professional from outside of the City, should be added to the Investment Committee in order to avoid any allegations of impropriety or other potential problems and to lend additional credibility to the Investment Committee; that the chain of command of the proposed members leaves a lot to be desired; that however, no one's credibility is being doubted. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that he does not object to such an addition; that he had expected the Commission to ask why a City Commissioner was not recommended to be a member of this Committee; that his answer to Book 38 Page 12284 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12285 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. that question would have been that he did not want to appear presumptuous in burdening a Commissioner with that function; that any person the Commission feels would provide additional assurance is acceptable; that the City has a financial advisor hired to provide the Finance Director and the Commission with financial advice who could be considered for membership on the Committee. Commissioner Patterson stated that the financial advisor would probably have to be paid to assume this additional function; that Commissioner Dry raised a valid issue; that the Commission has very conservative investment control in the person of Mr. Mitchell; that she can not imagine Mr. Mitchell acting in a fashion which would produce radical results as he is very conservative; that all members of this Committee are under the same chain of command; that adding the City Auditor and Clerk to the Committee may be appropriate; that the City Auditor and Clerk could provide independent feedback to the Commission and not represent an additional cost to the City. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that this Investment Committee should be tailored as Commissioner Dry suggested; that this Committee has three members who are all City employees under the same chain of command; that she understands how conservative Mr. Mitchell is and how excellent his investment strategy has been for the City; however, the position of the Finance Director may not always be occupied by Mr. Mitchell; that an Investment Committee should not be constructed based on the fact that the City already has a conservative Finance Director; that the scope of the Committee should be broadened; that the Commission should reach outside of the City; that this Committee should function with some members who are not involved in City politics or government; and asked how much time the Investment Committee will demand of its members? Mr. Mitchell stated that the Investment Committee will meet on a proposed quarterly basis or as deemed necessary. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the Investment Committee's work will be strictly concerned with investment policy and not, for example, with particular bonds. Mr. Mitchell stated that the investment policy overseen by the Investment Committee has a broader scope than particular bonds; that the policy will set the methods by which the Finance Director's investment performance will be measured; that the policy also prescribes how the City's investments will be made and measured; that the Investment Committee will provide direction to the Finance Director and the Cash and Investment Manager; that the Investment Committee can recommend changes to the investment policy to be considered by the Commission for adoption. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she supports adding at least two members to the Investment Committee from outside of city government and politics. Commissioner Pillot stated that he liked the idea of independent members; and asked if the City will be handicapped by two outside members in arranging meeting times of the Investment Committee, especially if the meetings are scheduled as necessary rather than quarterly? Mr. Mitchell stated that he is concerned as to which professions will be included from the outside; that he refers to people in the investment business and his concern is that they may be tempted to sway the Investment Committee towards their particular area of investment expertise; that he does not imply this is what they would do; that he did not hear the discussion specify that the outside members would have to be investment professionals, rather, they would only have to be from outside City government and politics. Commissioner Pillot asked if one of the people chosen by the City's pension boards could be useful on a committee of this kind? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes. Commissioner Pillot asked if there is any concern on the pension boards that the investment managers or investment advisors who the boards have selected to manage their investments are acting in any manner other than in the best interest of those pension boards? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated no. Commissioner Pillot asked if the professional experts hired by the pension boards could be useful on an investment committee of this kind? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes; that he is referring to persons in particular professions, not individual persons. Mr. Mitchell stated that investment managers differ from pension board to pension board; that some pension boards have as many as three investment managers; that every one of those investment managers are paid by the respective pension board; that most of those investment managers are from outside of Sarasota County and some are from outside of the State; that restricting the two additional Investment Committee members to people outside of City government or politics may be too restrictive. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read Resolution No. 95R-839 by title only. Book 38 Page 12286 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12287 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 95R-839 with the addition of the City Auditor and Clerk and a reserved privilege for the Commission to add one or two more members in the future at its discretion. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the composition of the Investment Committee to include only four City employees is problematic; that the Investment Committee should have some outside involvement; that the addition of the Commission's discretion to add one or two members is appreciated; however, that discretion should be exercised now; that the four City employees involved on the Investment Committee would probably welcome an additional person or persons who are not involved in City government or politics to be part of their Committee. Mr. Mitchell stated that in 1984-1985 Staff came before the Commission and recommended the establishment of an investment policy; that the City established an investment committee that met quarterly and was composed of the Finance Director, the Investment Manager, the City Manager and a Commissioner; that over the years the committee turned into a "dog and pony show"; that the committee was discontinued; that the interest of those Commissioners serving on the committee waned and the quarterly meetings simply stopped; that in 1993 the investment policy was revised to eliminate this investment committee; that now, under the guidelines set forth by the Florida Government's Finance Officers Task Force, of which the City's Cash and Investment Manager was one of the seven members, it has been determined that it would be prudent and wise to have an investment committee; that the deadline to appoint an investment committee is October 1, 1995, and this is the last Commission meeting prior to the deadline; therefore, he suggests the Commission allow Staff to proceed to the first quarterly report with the suggested modifications to proposed Resolution 95R-839; that Staff will probably come back to the Commission with some revisions to this investment policy; that this may. include suggestions as to the composition of the Investment Committee. Commissioner Dry asked if the Commission should approve proposed Resolution No. 95R-839 as presently written for at least three months with the understanding that by the end of next quarter the Finance Director will come before the Commission with a possible recommendation to include one or two outside positions? Mr. Mitchell stated that he recommends that proposed Resolution 95R-839 be approved as revised at the table, with the addition of the City Auditor and Clerk and the reservation of one or two other positions to be added by the Commission, and provide Staff the opportunity to get this investment policy into place, have the report issued, and then come back to the Commission with suggestions for possible improvements to the policy which has been mandated by the State Legislature. Mayor Merrill asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote to adopt Resolution No. 95R-839 as revised. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 19. REMARKS OF COMMISBIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = NOTICE GIVEN THAT A MOTION WILL BE MADE AT THE NEXT MEETING TO RESCIND THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR CITIZEN SIGN-UP SHEETS; CITY ATTORNEY TAYLOR TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING OUASI- JUDICIAL HEARINGS AT THE NEXT MEETING (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (1130) through (1685) MAYOR MERRILL: A. stated that he was not at the last Commission meeting; however, had he been at the meeting, he would have voted to appeal the Walgreens ruling only to provide time for a settlement; that the advice he was given originally was that the City had an excellent case which was the reason he voted to oppose Walgreens, although he did so with some trepidation as he was concerned that the City may have a weak case; that the City Attorney has to feel that an appeal would be weaker than the original case, having lost the first time; that if the neighborhood is depending on the City's ability to win the appeal, the neighborhood may end up with the worst case scenario; that there is a change going on in the courts; that the Florida Supreme Court has placed much more emphasis on private property rights; that although he does not welcome Walgreens at that site, constitutional arguments do not exist to deny Walgreens going in at that site; that he is in the building business and knows the values of homes, and developers typically sell homes at higher values when located on some sort of open space, and retention areas may be considered a positive rather than a negative factor; that he is amazed that allowing the retention to be off site appears to be such a divisive issue in the neighborhood; that retention areas are excellent buffers; that he hopes a settlement is reached; that the City Attorney has said this will be a inexpensive appeal; however, to lose the case could be inexpensive and to win the case could be very expensive because even if the appeal is won, the case would be remanded to the lower court to be heard again; that the appeal will not be as inexpensive as it has been portrayed; that he hopes the neighborhood will use this time to reach a settlement with the property owners. Book 38 Page 12288 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12289 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that Mr. Dan Loebeck referred to the County's consideration of future development of the area east of I-75 and she agrees with his position on this issue; that expansion due to development east of I-75 will hurt property values in the City; that the new County Commission's position on impact fees does not address the affect of expansion in that area on City property values; that now the County has generated the idea of forming a multi-stakeholder group to determine how to develop the area east of I-75 responsibly; that a recent newspaper article seemed to indicate that the area being concentrated on is the north part of the County which is directly east of the City and which will definitely affect the City; that the City is a stakeholder, should make itself known as a stakeholder and should assign someone who is articulate and thoughtful on City planning issues to participate in this process; that the County would not deny this request; that if the County denies this request, it would be quite an issue. B. stated that special recognition of the positive things that the City does is deserved; that many deeds often go unnoticed by the Commission and by the citizens; that a citizen sent her a photograph showing a mass of dead fish in a canal on St. Armands Key; that this citizen is now happy and wrote to Duane Mountain, Public Works Department, about how pleased she was with the City's efforts in removing many tons of dead fish from the bay; that this is an awful job and a tough thing to do; that it was done without the Commission's requesting it be done; that the red tide problem cannot be solved and this episode hit particularly hard; that the dead fish problem was especially grave in some dead-end canals where the water is not naturally flushed out; that she wants to say thank you and call this work to the City's and the other Commissioners' attention. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Public Works Department gets the credit for this effort; that such a clean-up is an extremely labor intensive process; that the dead fish are collected in rented boats and scooped out of the water; that the Public Works Department removed over 30 tons of dead fish; that this does not even make a dent in the total situation; however, a big difference is made in dead-end areas where there is little or no water movement; that this was a relief to the people who live in and around those areas. VICE MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. stated that she made a mistake at the last Commission Meeting; that she voted incorrectly on a motion made by Commissioner Patterson and seconded by Commissioner Dry to rescind a previous motion establishing a new policy whereby no citizen input sign-up sheets on an agenda topic will be accepted once the topic has been introduced and the sign-up sheets have been given to the Mayor; that she spoke in favor of the motion and ended up voting against it; that she realized this too late in the meeting. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to rescind the motion establishing the new policy related to citizen input sign-up sheets. Commissioner Patterson asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson how many votes are required to rescind the motion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a two-thirds vote, or four votes, is required to rescind the motion. Commissioner Patterson asked how many votes are required if notice is given. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that if notice was given for the next meeting, a majority vote, or three votes, is required to rescind the motion. Commissioner Patterson stated that although she would be very happy to vote on rescinding the motion, it would be smarter if the maker of the motion, with the consent of the seconder, were to withdraw the motion and give notice. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she will withdraw the motion with the consent of the seconder and give notice; that she requests that it be placed on the next agenda. B. stated that she is unwilling to continue to be involved in quasi-judicial hearings until procedures for presentation of materials dealing with petitioners and those opposed to or in support of the petition are in place; that having procedures in place is long overdue; that some discussion regarding conducting quasi-judicial hearings at special meetings occurred at the last Commission meeting; that she does not even want hearings conducted in special meetings until defined rules of Commissioners', petitioners' and opponents' behavior are set; and asked the City Attorney, with the Commission's consent, to provide rules for adoption at the next Commission meeting. Book 38 Page 12290 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12291 09/18/95 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated rules will be provided. Mayor Merrill stated that the time is 11:30 p.m. and a motion is necessary to extend the meeting. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to extend the meeting long enough to complete the agenda. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes, Merrill, no. COMMISSIONER PILLOT: A. stated that he agrees with the Vice Mayor's comments regarding quasi-judicial hearing procedures; however, the Commission failed to take action on this issue; that it is critically important to give directions to the City Manager, the city Auditor and Clerk, and the City Attorney by Commission vote rather than by individuals; that Commissioners do indicate specific things they would like to have, and Commission consent is received 99.9% of the time; that the three officials should state that they cannot take directions from an individual Commissioner; that he assumes Commission consensus exists on the valid suggestion made by the Vice Mayor that procedures for quasi-judicial hearings be provided to the Commission by the City Attorney. Mayor Merrill stated that one Commissioner can obtain action on an item on their own if the Commissioner puts the item on the agenda. Commissioner Pillot stated that this was not an instance of only putting an item on the agenda; that this was a request to the City Attorney to bring back a document, which involves the City Attorney's time and an expenditure of funds and which should be done by the Commission rather than by an individual Commissioner. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she did say "with the Commission's consent." Commissioner Pillot stated that was correct; that the Commission failed to respond to the Vice Mayor on this matter. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no objections, Commission consent is given. B. asked if the Commission could obtain an update from the City Attorney on the status of the appeal in the Walgreens issue and if the City Attorney had any further advice for the Commission? City Attorney Taylor stated that a lot of discussion has occurred on how inexpensive this appeal will be that the people who are talking about it may not understand that the appeal is being prepared based on what was done for the Circuit Court; that nothing has changed between now and then other than drawing references to the judge's interpretations at the Circuit Court level; that virtually the same legal briefs will be used as those prepared for the case at the Circuit Court level; that no appreciable additional labor has been expended on the appeal at this point due to vacations, however, the brief for the appeal will probably be completed next week in order to meet the deadline; that the Mayor's comment that the chances of winning the appeal are not as substantial as they were believed to have been at the Circuit Court level is true; that the City lost at the Circuit Court level, and he does not feel as comfortable going into the appeal as he did at the Circuit Court level. Commissioner Pillot asked if the City Attorney's advice is still to pursue the appeal? City Attorney Taylor stated that he would still pursue the appeal; that he has been informed that there will also be an amicus brief filed on behalf of the neighborhood association. 20. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (1685) through (1689) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that the workshop on the Fire Consolidation Interlocal Agreement would be held next Wednesday, the 27th of September, at 4:00 p.m. 21. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (1689) There being no further business, Mayor Merrill adjourned the regular meeting of September 18, 1995, at 11:37 p.m. DAVID MERRILL, MAYOR ATTEST: Billy E Rubenso BILLY d. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK Book 38 Page 12292 09/18/95 6:00 P.M.