MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:02 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, FOR MAY 1994 - KATHLEEN LUKAS, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU #1 (0028) through (0132) Russell Pillifant, Commander, Support Services Bureau of the Department of Public Safety, came before the Commission and introduced Kathleen Lukas, Administrative Assistant of the Public Safety Support Services Bureau. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he had the opportunity to spend two days with Ms. Lukas at her work location while he was participating in the Emergency Preparedness drill last week; that he can appreciate why Commander Pillifant nominated her for this award. Commander Pillifant stated that Ms. Lukas has been employed with the City for 15 years; that Ms. Lukas is the only Administrative Assistant in the City who works for four individuals; that she has continually performed in an exemplary manner; that she always projects a very positive demeanor; that in addition to her regular job duties, she is a volunteer recorder for several task teams in the City and the County. Mayor Patterson presented Ms. Lukas with a plaque and certificate for "Employee of the Month" May 1994 and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0133) through (0179) Vice Mayor Merrill requested the following change to the Orders of the Day: DRAFT ONE Page 10604 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. DRAFT ONE Page 10605 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. A. Move forward New Business Item VIII-6, Approval Re: Request for preparation of an ordinance to implement a conservation district for Laurel Park to Unfinished Business, Agenda Item VII-2, to be the first item addressed under Unfinished Business, per the request of Vice Mayor Merrill. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved - to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 6, 1994 = APPROVED - (AGENDA ITEM I-1) #1 (0180) through (0192) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the minutes of the Regular City Commission Meeting of June 6, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2,3, 4, AND 5 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A-1, -2, -3, -4, and -5) #1 (0193) through (0209) 1. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3811, amending Chapter 33, Traffic and Motor Vehicles, Sarasota City Code, providing authority to traffic engineer to designate certain streets as local streets and establish 25 mph posted speed limits on local streets in residence districts; making findings as to need; defining terms; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. 2. Approval Re: Amendments to the 1993-94 Community Development Block Grant. 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to advertise the proposed uses for the 1994-95 Community Development Block Grant Funds and to conduct a public hearing at the July 18th City Commission meeting. 4. Approval Re: Interlocal Agreement between Southwest Florida Water Management District, Sarasota Bay Program and the City to perform a feasibility assessment for expansion of the City's wastewater treatment service area. 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to negotiate and the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute a professional services contract with Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., to provide services relative to a feasibility assessment of the expansion of the City's wastewater treatment service area. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 through 5 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2 - ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-739) = ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO.94R-743) = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-744) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B-1, -2, -3): #1 (0210) through (0265) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 94R-739, 94R-743, 94R-744 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-739, authorizing an Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County formulating a consortium pursuant to the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990; setting forth findings; approving the Interlocal Agreement and authorizing its execution by the Mayor; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-743, approving the admission of the City of Hollywood, Florida into membership in the First Florida Governmental Financing Com- mission; approving the removal of Pinellas County and Manatee County from membership in the First Florida Governmental Financing Commission; providing certain other matters in connection therewith; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-744, accepting reports of abatement of nuisances, and costs incurred, pertaining to the demolition of buildings or structures in accordance with the Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code as adopted by the City; directing the assessment of liens against the real property upon which such costs were incurred; providing for the recording of said assessments in the City's "Assessment Book for Local Improvements" and in the Official Records of the Clerk of Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County; providing for the accumulation of interest on said liens; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 3 inclusive. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. DRAFT ONE Page 10606 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. DRAFT ONE Page 10607 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. 6. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION: REOUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE THIRTY (30) DAY TIME LIMIT BETWEEN PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING AND CITY COMMISSION MEETING IN ORDER FOR THE ACTION ON PRELIMINARY SITE & DEVELOPMENT PLAN 94-I (ADDITION TO THE FLORIDA WEST COAST SYMPHONY HALL) TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE JULY 5TH CITY COMMISSION MEETING = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM V-2) #1 (0269) through (0336) Gretchen Serrie, Executive Director, Florida West Coast Symphony, came before the Commission and stated that the Symphony Building is being renovated with a tight construction schedule which must begin by July 7th; that the Florida West Coast Symphony is asking the Commission to waive the 30-day time limit between the Planning Board Meeting and City Commission Report for consideration of Planning Board actions. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the 30-day waiver. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to approve the request for a 30-day waiver between the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency meeting and the City Commission meeting in order for action to be taken on Preliminary Site and Development Plan 94-I. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson congratulated Sally Kesten, reporter, Sarasota Herald Tribune, who received a national award for her report on children abusing children; that the Commission was impressed with her report and appreciates her contribution on the subject. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: RECOMMENDATION TO CLOSE SARASOTA MOBILE HOME PARK = AFFIRM THE ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION AND SET ORDINANCE NO. 94-3813 FOR PUBLIC HEARING - (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #1 (0337) through (1438) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration has recommended to the Commission the Closure of the Sarasota Mobile Home Park and a change in the land use designation; that the City Commission has been reviewing density reduction of the Sarasota Mobile Home Park since 1985 and passed an ordinance with a sunset provision which expired at the end of five years in 1990; that over the five-year period a density reduction of approximately 70 units occurred; that the density reduction ordinance was renewed in 1990; that 192 units vacated the Park between 1990 and 1994; that there are currently 444 units in the Park; that in 1990 when the density reduction ordinance was renewed, the city Commission met with the residents of the Sarasota Mobile Home Park; that 251 residents currently live in the Park that had lived in the Park at the time the Commission held its meeting there in 1990; that the Commission made a commitment to work towards density reduction through voluntary attrition when the density reduction ordinance was renewed in 1990; that since the reduction ordinance was renewed in 1990, the State law governing mobile home parks was challenged on constitutional grounds and the buy-out feature was stricken down by the courts; that by State law, a park owner has to give notice of a change in designation of land use and six months notice of eviction to the residents; that the Administration's recommendation is more liberal than what is provided under State law with respect to the time of notice to residents; that the Administration feels that action should now be taken as there has been a change in the State law; that the infrastructure proposals in the Capital Improvement Program call for an investment of one-hali to one million dollars over the next five years which is questionable on a mobile home park that is to be phased out; that the latest edition of trailers in the Park is early 1970s with a number of trailers from the 1950s edition. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the Administration's recommendations are: The Sarasota Mobile Home Park be closed and land use changed as of September 30, 1999. Owner occupants on or before July 16, 1990 may remain after the effective date of the change in land use. The land use designation be changed from residential to recreational and open space by amending the park rules and regulations and initiating a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The buy-out program continue based on the appraised value of the unit and funding availability, but only for those owners who lived there on or before July 16, 1990, except in instances that are advantageous to the City, i.e., an owner who wants to move elsewhere and will sell the trailer to the City for a couple of hundred dollars. A public hearing be set for proposed Ordinance 94-3813 which changes the land use designation from residential to recreational and open space effective September 30, 1999; provides that the City give notice of eviction due to change in land use effective September 30, 1990,which is consistent with State law and provides that residents who occupied the units on or before 1990 may remain. The park rules and regulations be strengthened regarding evidence of ownership by requiring an owner to give the Park Manager notice of intent to sell and by providing that failure to do so will be grounds for eviction. City Attorney Taylor stated that this proposed ordinance does not change the land use; that the land use change will be a part of the Comprehensive Plan process because the current land use is not consistent with the intended future land use; that the ordinance is DRAFT ONE Page 10608 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. DRAFT ONE Page 10609 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. basically stating that the City Commission is going to follow the procedure established by the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the land use change requires two steps: 1) to change the rules and regulations of the Sarasota Mobile Home Park which notifies residents of the evidence of ownership requirements, and 2) to initiate the Comprehensive Plan amendments; that the Section 14-32 of proposed ordinance states: "Residents of the Sarasota Mobile Home Park who were resident on or before July 16, 1990, may, within the discretion of the City Commission, remain after the effective date of the change in land use under such terms and conditions as may be established by the City Commission." Mr. Sollenberger continued that this statement continues the commitment the City Commission made in 1990 while at the same time affording some degree of latitude and flexibility for future City Commissions to make appropriate decisions; that the cost of operating the park versus relocation of the mobile homes should be reviewed; that a decision could be made to give payments for relocation assistance in order to close out the park; that this decision would depend on the actual operating circumstances of the park as some of the infrastructure has failed within the park; that if the attrition rate of 8 units leaving per month continues, there should be fewer than 100 units left on the property in 1999; that those decisions will have to be made Closer to the 1999 deadline; that the ordinance will allow a future City Commission to follow through on the intent of the 1990 ordinance, but also will give future City Commissions the flexibility to deal with the situation. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Commissioner Pillot stated that he has concerns regarding the statement in Section 14-32 of the proposed ordinance which reads "within the discretion of the City Commission"; that this statement will not be clear to the 300 residents who have been in the Sarasota Mobile Home Park since February 19, 1990; that the language leaves the decision within the discretion of a future City Commission which could totally abrogate the February 19, 1990, agreement; that the integrity of a future Commission would not allow for this, but at the same time that Commission would have the authority and the right to abrogate the 1990 agreement; that he cannot support the language as stated, but wants the language to be specific as to exactly what the Administration intended; that the intent is that those people who were residents on or before July 16, 1990, would not be involuntarily moved until such time as the number of residents remaining in the park is so small that it is not economically viable to keep the park open; that future Commissions could be asked by this Commission to relocate those people to other suitable places at City expense to keep the faith of the 1990 statement that the people would never be asked involuntarily to leave the park; that the Commission in February, 1990, said a resident in good standing would not be forced to leave the park; that the present Commission is stating the park will close and the land use will change in 1999; that he is in agreement with and supportive of this decision; that the language should be modified so it is clear and easily understood that it is the intent of the Commission sitting in June 1994 to ask future Commissions to honor the 1990 agreement; that in future years a small enough number may have been reached in the park that is no longer sensible, feasible, or economic to keep the park open and, in that case, the City will relocate those people still remaining at City expense; that if this is specifically stated in the ordinance in language that cannot be misinterpreted, he would find it possible to support the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Atkins stated that he was a member of the Commission in 1990 when it met with the residents of the Sarasota Mobile Home Park; that it is very important that this Commission maintain their word as it relates to the 1990 ordinance; that he supports Commissioner Pillot's statement. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved that this discussion be tabled until the completion of the Public Hearing. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Pillot stated that the terms "owner occupant" and "resident" are used interchangeably in the recommendations and ordinance; that it is unlikely, but possible, that someone who was a resident in good standing as defined in the action of 1990 was in fact not an owner occupant; that if the Commission is going to keep the faith of the 1990 action, the phrase "owner occupant" should be deleted and the word "resident" substituted in the proposed ordinance; that he requests the word "resident" be substituted for "owner occupant" in the action taken by the Commission. Mayor Patterson stated that there are some features of the 1990 ordinance that have not been followed, i.e., the ordinance states that "every mobile home should be in a moveable condition with wheels and tires at all times"; that moveable means the mobile home may be moved somewhere else but it has been stated that some of the mobile homes cannot be easily moved; that the ordinance also states that "cabanas, awnings and similar structures must be removable" and "anything non-conforming to the ordinance may be asked to remove itself by the park manager"i that there have been a variety of discrepancies between what appears to exist in the park and the wording of the 1990 ordinance. DRAFT ONE Page 10610 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. DRAFT ONE Page 10611 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone asked the Administration to comment on the use of the words "resident" and "owner occupied". City Attorney Taylor stated that there are two goals which are conflicting in the language; that an opportunity has developed because of a change in the state of the law as it relates to the ability of a park owner to make a change in land use; that this is a statutory procedure that allows the City to close a park through a change in land use; that there are two questions that need to be answered if the Administration closes the park: 1) was there an intent to create a special Class of occupants for the future which may have legal rights beyond what existed in the State Statute in 1990? 2) Has Statutory law been followed when closing the park? City Attorney Taylor continued that what the City has done is to create two classes of people, requiring one class to leave the park and allowing another class to remain; that because of this conflict, the ordinance was developed providing for a change in land use while at the same time allowing a future Commission to take action as deemed prudent based upon the state of the law at that time; that the proposed ordinance reposes in a future Commission the power and discretion necessary to deal with this subject; that there is no way to predict what the laws will be in the future; that statements can be made by way of ordinance, but unless someone has achieved a vested right pursuant to ordinance, there is a possibility that an ordinance might be passed in the future to modify those provisions of an ordinance which are modifiable; that the proposed ordinance will accomplish the change in land use in 1999 with the ultimate decisions regarding the status of the remaining residents resting with the Commission installed at that point in time. City Attorney Taylor continued that the questions raised in the wording "owner occupancy" versus "resident" is that there are a number of occupants who are not owners which is a direct violation of the park rules in effect; that the proposed ordinance gives a clear right to the park owner to start enforcing the rule of not allowing occupancy by persons who are not the actual owners of the mobile homes. Mayor Patterson stated that she feels this is a responsible ordinance; that the only problem is the contradiction between the intent to Close the park and yet not setting a date certain by which the residents have to leave; that in 1999 the Commission will have a better idea of how many people are left in the park, what infrastructure will be needed if the residents are to be relocated elsewhere in the park, what resources will be available for the City to compensate people; that she is comtortable with leaving the entire matter to the Commission in 1999 so as not to create a hardship for the people who may still reside in the park. Commissioner Pillot stated that future Commissions can change action taken by a previous Commission; that it is not without precedent that a City Commission ask on the record that future Commissions honor a commitment made by a present Commission; that people have violated the "owner occupant", "resident" clauses since 1990, but the word "resident" was used in 1990; that if there is one or more people who were bona fide residents but not owner occupants in 1990, they should be included in a "grandfather clause"; that although the Administration's recommendation uses the word "owner occupant, I the ordinance consistency uses the word "resident" throughout; that there is an inconsistency in the wording of the Administration's recommendation, the motion that supports it, and the ordinance the Commission is presently considering. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the motion is to accept the recommendations and to set this ordinance (94-3813) for public hearing; that in the interim the City Attorney can review the wording of the ordinance to assure it is consistent with the intent of the recommendation. Mayor Patterson asked if the maker of the motion intended that this Commission decide now that someone who is not an owner occupant must leave the park in 1999 or intended that a future Commission make that decision? Commissioner Cardamone stated that anyone who lives in the park feel they are a resident; that anyone who lives in a mobile home that they do not own is in violation of the 1990 ordinance; that the people who were renting in the park prior to 1990 should not have the rights of an owner occupant prior to 1990. Mayor Patterson asked if Commissioner Cardamone would like the ordinance to say "owner occupant" as per the Administration's recommendation? Commissioner Cardamone stated this is correct. Mayor Patterson stated that the report including the Administration's recommendation uses the term "owner occupant" and the ordinance uses the term "residents". Mr. Sollenberger stated that he is willing to change the wording in the report to read "resident" to be consistent with the ordinance. Mayor Patterson asked if a "resident" by definition would be an " owner occupant"? Mr. Sollenberger stated this is correct because the ordinances in effect in 1990 restricted residents to owner occupants. DRAFT ONE Page 10612 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. DRAFT ONE Page 10613 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to affirm the Administration's recommendation as previously stated and set Ordinance No. 94-3813 for public hearing. Motion carried (4 to 1) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, no; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3814, CALLING A REFERENDUM OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA SHALL BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT EACH PERSON ELECTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION, WHEN TWO OR MORE PERSONS OUALIFY AS A CANDIDATE, SHALL BE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE A MAJORITY OF ALL VOTES CAST FOR THE CITY COMMISSION SEAT TO BE ELECTED; SCHEDULING SAID REFERENDUM FOR SEPTEMBER 8, 1994; SETTING FORTH THE TEXT OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT; SPECIFYING THE REFERENDUM QUESTION; ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE CHARTER AMENDMENT, IF APPROVED; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH A CHANGE TO TWO BALLOT QUESTIONS FOR THE AT-LARGE AND DISTRICT SEATS AND, IN THE EVENT NO MAJORITY IS ACHIEVED IN THE SECOND ELECTION, THE CANDIDATE(S) RECEIVING THE MOST VOTES IS DECLARED THE WINNER FOR THE AVAILABLE SEATS - (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1440) through (2715) City Attorney Taylor stated that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3814 changes the voting requirement for all five City Commission seats - both the at-large and the district seats to a majority vote requirement; that the majority vote requirement is problematic for the at-large seats which are not numbered or designated and, therefore, various unforeseen statistical probabilities can result; that Attorney Robert Fournier, consultant for the legal issues involved, worked with political scientists to determine how at- large City Commissioners could be elected by majority vote without numbered or designated seats; that the language in the ordinance has been suggested by Attorney Fournier. Various overheads were displayed on the overhead projector. City Attorney Taylor stated that he will begin by discussing the district seats; that if only one person qualifies for a particular district seat, that person will be deemed elected; that if more than two people qualify for one particular seat, there will be a first election; that the candidate who draws a majority vote, i.e., one half of the votes plus one, would be deemed elected; that if no person receives a majority vote, there would be a second election with the person receiving the majority of votes in that election being elected. City Attorney Taylor continued that there are factors in the at- large system which are not involved in the district seats; that the at-large seats are not numbered and all the candidates run for one of the two open seats; that voters may cast two votes if they wish, although they may "single shot", meaning that they vote for only one candidate; that he is told by the political scientists the concept of a majority vote requirement will not work in this situation; that a majority of the voters, i.e., people voting, rather than votes cast is required for majority support since there is the opportunity for one voter to cast up to two votes for two separate candidates; that Attorney Fournier has indicated that a formula must be applied in the at-large elections in order to determine which candidate has the support of the majority; that the formula, which is written into the proposed ordinance, is one half of the number of persons voting plus one; that various scenarios of what can potentially happen in the elections are included in the proposed ordinance. City Attorney Taylor continued that two seats will be open, therefore, if only two people qualify, each is deemed elected to one of the at-large seat; that if more than two candidates qualify, a first election is held and the candidate(s) receiving a majority of support of the people casting a ballot, i.e., one half plus one, is(are) deemed elected; that if no candidate receives the support of the majority of voters, the three candidates with the highest number of votes move to the second election; that if one candidate receives majority support, that candidate is deemed elected and the two candidates with the next highest number of votes move to the second election; that in the second election, it is the candidate(s) with a vote of the majority of the voters who is (are) declared elected, depending upon how many seats remain open after the first election; that the ordinance is not easy to read and thoroughly comprehend; that he did not anticipate it would be as difficult to put into words as it has proven to be. City Attorney Taylor continued that there is a "quick fix" which is to number the two at-large seats and which would result in the same scenario as presented for the election of the district seats; that the problem is the context in which this issue is coming forward; that the City has an election system which was implemented as a result of a law suit; that the reason for the present system is that in the 1980s a federal judge reviewed the legal precedents and the conditions existing at the time and determined that the election system proposed, i.e., three district and two unnumbered at-large seats with a plurality voting requirement for all seats, Book 36 Page 10614 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10615 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. was a system that was fair to the minority interests of the community and for that reason the judge approved the proposed system; that Attorney Fournier previously stated to the City Commission that he was willing to recommend it would be possible, in his opinion, to change the voting requirement for the at-large seats; that Attorney Fournier also suggested it was possible to support the case if a change in voting requirements were proposed for the district seats, although he did not feel as confident with that change; that Attorney Fournier has stated that if the seat designation is changed for the at-large seats, he would have to advise the Commission that his ability to support the change would be seriously weakened. Mayor Patterson asked if the issue of putting the two questions (district and at-large seats) into one ballot question has been addressed? City Attorney Taylor stated that it was decided at the last City Commission meeting that he should present an ordinance with the question posed as one ballot question; that Attorney Fournier reviewed the proposed language and stated that, from the viewpoint of one who might face a legal challenge and for the record, he recommends stating the question in the alternative, i.e., separate questions for the at-large and district seats, so the voters could indicate their preference for majority voting requirements for one or the other or both or neither. Mayor Patterson asked the implications and/or legal advantages of two ballot questions? City Attorney Taylor stated that the fashion in which the question is presently posed is an all or none proposition; that posing the question in the alternative would allow the question to be split, meaning that some of the seats could be elected by a majority vote and others by plurality vote; that Attorney Fournier is of the opinion that -when the question is split the result may not be challenged if, for example, only the voting requirement for the at- large seats is changed; that Attorney Fournier indicated that splitting the question would present more options than a "take-it- or-leave-it", "all-or-nothing" proposition. Commissioner Pillot stated that splitting the question is better than having an all-in-one question, however, the public at large will not have the same opportunity or privilege of hearing the data as those at the Commission table, although the data could be publicized as to the ramifications of the vote regarding the district seats; that he fears the public will cast ballots without having the benefit of the information presented to the Commission; that, therefore, he feels the Commission should not place a question on the ballot which is not likely to be upheld by a court should an action be taken contesting the validity of the majority voting requirement for the district seats; that splitting the question is better than not splitting the question but he feels the only question that should be posed is for the two at-large seats. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak, and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Mayor Patterson stated that it would appear a judge would have little latitude if the proposed ordinance was challenged and may throw out the whole ordinance even if, in fact, the disagreement only concerns the district seats; that if there were two separate ballot questions, a judge would have the latitude to pick and choose between the options; that the City may end up successful on one issue and not the other. city Attorney Taylor stated that by giving the public an opportuni- ty to express themselves on each aspect of the question, two issues have been created whereas it could otherwise be viewed as being an "all-or-nothing" proposition; that an argument the attorney representing the City could make is that there are two separate questions which were voted on separately and the judge would have the latitude of ruling on the issues separately, i.e., both are valid, neither is valid, or one is and one is not. Mayor Patterson stated that this would also give the Commission the opportunity of not pursuing the issue on one of the two questions. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance 94-3814 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Ordinance Number 94-3814 as modified to pose two alternative questions on the ballot. Mayor Patterson stated that the proposed ordinance provides for a runoff election between the candidates receiving the three highest number of votes in the event two candidates do not receive a majority; that it was originally conceived as a runoff among the four candidates receiving the highest number of votes; that the problem which resulted was the very real possibility of the need for another runoff and another runoff, etc.; that having three candidates instead of four advance to the runoff made it less likely successive runoffs would be necessary, therefore, she made the recommendation to change from four to three candidates advancing to the runoff; that a decision should be made as to whether there will be successive runoffs or to accept the fact that there may be a non-majority vote winner at some point. Commissioner Pillot stated that it is possible not to get a majority because the ordinance provides for a majority of the voters and not the votes and, therefore, the vote could be equally Book 36 Page 10616 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10617 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. divided and the proposed ordinance does not go beyond one runoff. Commissioner Pillot asked what happens if the second runoff does not produce a majority winner? City Attorney Taylor stated that Attorney Fournier had stated that the statistical probability of that occurring is small; that the probability is so low that, in all likelihood, this eventuality will not happen; that Attorney Fournier's suggestion is that a third election could always be held; that the issue is where do the elections stop and how much money is invested into them; that if two majority vote winners have not been selected after the second election, the winner(s) could be the person with the highest number of votes; that the issue then becomes whether this procedure is consistent with the desire of the Commission to assure all candidates for City Commission are elected by majority vote; that the issue was not ultimately resolved in the ordinance presented. Mayor Patterson stated that she would not support an ordinance in which elections could continue ad infinitum. Commissioner Atkins stated that it is a special situation when the Commission tries to change the decree of the court; that the judge understood the difficulties of rearranging the election system which was the reason the compromise was permitted in the original court case; that the plaintiffs in that case resisted the election system proposed until it was explained to them what was necessary to reverse the situation and the advantages of the proposed remedy in reversing some of the harm done to the disenfranchised community of the City; that the Commission is now trying to redo something that was done to remedy a harm and that will be difficult; that the attorneys should be considering what can be done to satisfy a judge instead of this Commission. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he likes the suggestion that the top two vote getters will be declared the winners in the event of a second election with no one achieving a majority; that this solution is simple and is at least as good as what exists today. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the main motion by providing the top vote getter(s) to be declared the winner in the event that there is no majority winner(s) in the second election. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as the top vote getter(s) will prevail in the event there is (are) not majority winner (s) in the at-large seats and there will not be a third election. Commissioner Atkins stated that he fails to realize the difference between having less than a majority in the second election and the way the system is now; that the Commission is contradicting itself; that if it is justifiable to have a person seated at the Commission table who won with less than a majority at the second election, there is nothing wrong with the way the judge has done it now; that the Commission is going through a lot of things that are unneces- sary. Commissioner Pillot stated that Commissioner Atkins has made a valid point, however, the motion on the floor will accomplish: 1) saying the Commission gave it a good shot by having a runoff election, but common sense dictated that the Commission cannot support election after election, and 2) having a second election with no more than three candidates guaranteeing the winner will be elected by not fewer than a third of the votes; that in the 1989 election the winners could have been elected by slightly more than 9 percent of the vote because there were eleven candidates even though this did not happen; that at least this proposal guarantees an honest effort to achieve a majority vote winner, applies common sense by not going on forever, and assures a winner supported by at least a third of the voters. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion to strike the ballot question related to the district seats. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 7:15. Mayor Patterson restated the amendment to the main motion as to declare the top vote getter(s) the winner(s) in the at-large election if no people achieve a majority in the runoff. Motion carried (4 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the main motion to pass Ordinance No. 94-3814 as amended to change the proposed ordinance to pose two separate ballot questions for the at-large and district seats and to provide that the candidate(s) receiving the most votes will be declared the winner in the runoff election for the available seat(s). Motion carried (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 9. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION: UPDATE ON AIRPORT PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS = REPORT MADE (AGENDA ITEM V-1) #1 (2716) through #2 (0029) Rick Vacar, Executive Director of the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport Authority came before the Commission, presented an aerial view of the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport, and stated that he will present to the Commission an overview of development programs scheduled at the airport for the next several years, one of which is the extension of the runway Book 36 Page 10618 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10619 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. area; that the terminal complex has the capability to be expanded with two additional wings, one to the left and one to the right of the terminal; that the wings will only be added if the air traffic justifies the additions; that the additional terminal wings will cost up to thirty million dollars or more and will be paid for by the air carriers using the airport; that at some point additional parking will be built adjacent to the terminal, but only when traffic revenues are increased in order to pay for the additional service; that the present runway will be increased from 7,000 feet to 9,500 feet by adding 1,150 feet to the northwest side and 1,350 feet to the southeast side of the runway; that by air carrier standards, 9,500 feet is a good runway, but is not the type of world-class runway necessary to maintain long-haul heavy aircraft operations; that the proposed runway expansion at Sarasota Bradenton International airport is modest, considering that Ft. Myers is attempting to extend their runway to 12,000 feet and the new airport in Denver, Colorado, is proposing to have a 16,000 feet runway. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:18 p.m. Mr. Vacar continued that the reasons the runway is being expanded are: 1) that the Airport Authority is attempting to attract international traffic which includes longer haul charter traffic which is a growth area in tourism in the State of Florida; that a longer runway is necessary to accommodate some of the older wide-body aircraft used in longer haul charter traffic; that the impact to the economy could be in the millions of dollars from large aircraft carriers doing tourist-type operations. 2) that a longer runway is a safer runway; that even though 7,000 feet is an adequate runway, many of the aircraft operating out of the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport today are weight restricted on humid or hot days; that the aircraft must be able to accelerate to a "take-off safety speed" and must be able to abort the take-off and stop on the pavement if anything goes wrong; that a longer runway will give the aircraft a better opportunity to accelerate more slowly on take-offs when the. aircraft is heavier and still be able to meet the safety requirements. 3) that this runway extension will have both noise benefits and drawbacks; that by having the runway extended with aircraft taking off to the northwest, the aircraft will start to roll sooner and be in the air sooner; that when the aircraft leaves the airport boundary, the aircraft will be higher in the air, therefore, those who are neighbors of the airport will have less noise impact because the aircraft is further away; that the same condition will also apply to aircraft taking off from the northwest with a southeast departure; that noise is not a substantial drawback to the southeast because the Airport Authority has acquired substantial land between the area where the aircraft initiates take-off and the other side of DeSoto Road; that there will, however, be a noise impact to residents in Manatee County if the take-off is initiated on the northwest side of the airport and this will have to be addressed by the Airport Authority. Mr. Vacar continued that the older aircraft hangars will be replaced and additional aircraft hangars will be built, with the total not to exceed 100 hangars; that under federal law an environmental assessment must be done when a runway extension is considered; that after the environmental assessment is completed, public hearings will be held; that if the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) determines that the runway extension will have no significant impact on the environment, the FAA will make a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI); that if the FAA determines that the runway does indeed have a significant environmental impact, the Airport Authority must complete a full Environmental Impact Statement; that a review of the noise impact level must be completed by the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport as the current noise impact study is about 5 years old; that the airport is in the process of updating the noise impact study which requires public workshops and public hearings be held; that the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport was subject to the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process; that under Florida State Law, if an airport runway is extended more than 10 percent, it is deemed to be a substantial deviation, therefore, the DRI process must be completed with the input from the City and Sarasota and Manatee Counties; that projects for the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport are subject to local and State reviews, and input must be received from the community in order to proceed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that it is nice to have the Commis- sion apprised of projected programs in order that the Commission can respond to the public. Commissioner Atkins asked if the runway is extended will the noise be less to the southeast of the airport in the landing and take-off process? Mr. Vacar stated that there will be less noise from planes taking off over Sarasota, but to the southeast the noise will be more apparent to the residents; that a preliminary analysis has been completed and the noise will have a very minor impact as it does Book 36 Page 10620 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10621 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. not reach the lowest tundamental level of significance measured by the FAA. Commissioner Atkins stated that the difference between the fundamental significance for the FAA and the residents and school children is probably a significant one and asked if the runway extension will allow aircraft to rise higher over Booker Middle School and Newtown Estates? Mr. Vacar stated that this is correct; that under federal law aircraft which operate in the United States must phase out jets which create a significant amount of noise and by the year 2000 the entire fleet in the United States must be jets utilizing the quieter technology. Commissioner Atkins stated that the residents around Booker Middle School and Newtown Estates need relief from aircraft noise now as there appears to have been a change in the landing pattern over that area; that the aircraft seem to be flying closer to residences in that area. Commissioner Pillot stated that aborted take-offs are rare at the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport but not impossible; that extending the runway 2,500 feet would provide an increased measure of safety to the residents and businesses to the northwest of the airport as there is a greater safety factor if a take-off must be aborted. Mr. Vacar stated that improvements in safety easures enhance areas on and off the airport property. Commissioner Pillot stated that there have been bad take-offs at other locations in the United States which have resulted in fatalities. Mr. Vacar stated that the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport is compared. to La Guardia Airport in New York which has a runway of 7,000 feet; that there is the argument if La Guardia can handle the traffic with a runway of 7,000 feet then Sarasota should be able to do the same; but the Port Authority at La Guardia Airport in New York is now extending the runway to increase safety. Vice Mayor Merrill asked what length of runway is needed for the landing of aircraft? Mr. Vacar stated that the Sarasota runway can land any aircraft that operates with the exception of a few military jets; that the landing of an aircraft is not as critical as the take-off because the aircraft is lighter and in a more controlled situation; that the touchdown point for an aircraft is 1,500 feet down the runway, but the longer runway will give aircraft an additional landing space in case problems occur with the brakes or the aircraft must land with the loss of an engine. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the chance of having bigger airplanes in the future will make the glide path lower in order to take advantage of the full runway? Mr. Vacar stated that he does not foresee this happening; that the landing is not as critical as the take-off; that the take-off is the most important. Mayor Patterson asked what is the noise impact for residents that live on the sides of the runway and are in line with aircraft take-off as opposed to those directly under the flight pattern? Mr. Vacar stated that the general rule is that it is better to have residences farther away from the airplane, although there are certain aircraft for which the noise profile is more intense at the side of the aircraft than directly below it; that the noise impact is dependent on the type of engines, etc. Commissioner Cardamone asked where Booker Middle School is in relation to the runway extension? Mr. Vacar stated that Booker Middle School is two miles off the end of the runway. Commissioner Pillot asked what is the largest aircraft that could take off on the extended runway with a full load of passengers and baggage? Mr. Vacar stated that a 767-300, which is a newer technology airplane with long-range twin engines, did a take-off from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport non-stop to Paris, France; that the L10-11, DC-10 and the MD-11 require more than 9,500 feet of runway. Commissioner Pillot asked if a fully loaded L10-11 could take off with a 9,500 feet runway? Mr. Vacar stated that the aircraft could take off, but- the issue is whether a take-off can be aborted if necessary and this is dependent upon the weight of the aircraft. Mayor Patterson stated that service to the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport has decreased in the last six months; that there are fewer flights out of the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport to major destinations such as New York. Mr. Vacar stated that during the last four years, an enormous amount of money has been lost due to carriers leaving airports; that American Airlines stopped serving Sarasota Bradenton Interna- tional Airport along with six other cities in Florida; that the airport is working to add more carriers and to entice current carriers to stayi that a letter from the Commission to all airline carriers supporting the airport service would be very effective in trying to attract more airline carriers to Sarasota Bradenton International Airport. Book 36 Page 10622 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10623 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. 10. CITIZENS . INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI): #2 (0032) through (0036) There was no one signed up to speak. 11. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: REQUEST FOR PREPARATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT A CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR LAUREL PARK - (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #2 (0037) through (1246) Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association drafted a conservation area plan; that representatives of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association will make a presentation to the Commission. The following people came before the Commission: Tina Taylor Little, President, Laurel Park Neighborhood Association, stated that she fell in love with the Laurel Park neighborhood and moved into the area; that the neighborhood has a historic character with older architecture from the 1930s and some structures that were built in the 1800s; that when the neighborhood was built, protection of the neighborhood in the form of building restrictions was not necessary; that the City was then limited in terms of industryi that now there are planning boards, City planners, developers and knowledgeable people to-build a "perfect" neighborhood; that there are problems in the Laurel Park neighborhood and there is a need to protect the natural resources of the neighborhood; that if the neighborhood is not protected, drugs, crime, etc., will occur; that a neighborhood is like a child and its inhabitants are the protectors; that adjustments should be made in order to protect and not lose a potentially revitalized neighborhood; that there is a great deal of energy in the neighborhood to support the creation of a conservation district; that the plan is not perfect nor finished; that the Commission is being asked to help this conservation district become a reality. Devin Rutkowski, 1920 Laurel Street, stated that one of the policies and goals of the City is for neighborhood revitalization; that research has been completed on neighborhoods that are conservation districts; that there are only 30 conservation districts nationwide; that a conservation district represents basically the development of a neighborhood plan; that the City of St. Petersburg implemented six neighborhood improvement districts in downtown historic neighborhoods with five of the six having design review; that the overall goal of conservation districts is to preserve the character of the neighborhood; that the Laurel Park Conservation District Plan was developed specifically for that neighborhood, but is flexible enough for other neighborhoods which choose to adopt this type of plan; that this type of conservation district does not exist in the City; that he believes the concept of Conservation Districts will gain the support of the Commission; that people want to buy property in the Laurel Park area but are waiting to see how the neighborhood develops; that the biggest issue with the neighborhood is the density of the neighborhood and the suburban zoning code requirements which are not appropriate in an urban context; that there should be a process by which a neighborhood can become a conservation district in the City; that in some cities ten voters and the Mayor decide if an area is worthy of the designation as a conservation area and in some cities the neighborhoods decide; that the plan is consists of the development standards of the Laurel Park neighborhood; that these guidelines will become specific to Laurel Park and if someone wants to build or renovate in the neighborhood, these guidelines must be followed; that the conservation district plan should be approved as soon as possible. Karen Lybrand, 1716 Oak Street, stated that if a neighborhood can remain stable and correct its problems, it is better than waiting for major problems to evolve; that the Laurel Park neighborhood has great momentum for this project; that the neighbors are trying to accomplish what they can as a neighborhood, but are requesting help from the City Commission; that this conservation district plan is very important to the residents; that the residents are complimented on the revitalization of the neighborhood; that there are many residents who are supporting this conservation district plan. Heidi Clendenon, 634 Ohio Place, stated that she is very happy to have been a resident of Laurel Park for over a year; that there is a wonderful feeling of community and it is a good place to raise a child; that the neighborhood still needs work and protection; that the conservation district will provide protection for everyone and make the residents proud to be a part of Laurel Park; that people are interested and supportive of the Laurel Park neighborhood; that she hopes the Commission will be supportive of the neighborhood's dreams. Billue Guignard, P.O. Box 49621, stated that she has been a resident of Sarasota for 16 years; that she originally relocated to Sarasota to attend the Ringling School of Art and Design; that she has stayed in this area for the culture, varied opportunities, natural beauty and small town charm of Sarasota; that she is interested in knowing what the Commission's direction is with Laurel Park; that she is currently in the market to purchase property in the area and if the Commission is not behind the Laurel Park Community leaders, she will elect to look elsewhere for a home with a more secure future; that it is her hope that everyone will work together in order to preserve the integrity and the charm of this historic neighborhood and encourage upwardly mobile professionals to invest their money and energy into the Laurel Park area; that such actions will support the Laurel Park community and downtown businesses. Book 36 Page 10624 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10625 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Martha Hafner, 543 Madison Court, stated that her historic home was renovated by her husband; that the house, the history and the neighborhood are very important to her and her family as her husband's family has owned the home since 1938 and it has been passed from generation to generation; that there is great momentum in the neighborhood as people are seeking to buy homes in the neighborhood; that the conservation district plan will be a turning point in the history of the neighborhood; that there has been a great deal of work done by the neighbors and the City; that this conservation district will give the neighborhood a tool to further the work that has already started; that support for the conservation district plan is being requested from the Commission. Judy Ball, President, Alliance for Historic Preservation, stated that the Laurel Park Association has developed an excellent conservation district plan; that the plan should be used as a prototype; that when the Land Development Regulations (LDR) are completed within the next few years, the plan will be reassessed; that the Alliance for Historic Preservation supports the conservation district and offers to assist the Laurel Park Association and the Commission. Robert Town, representing Alliance for Historic Preservation, stated that the Alliance is offering their own efforts in searching for grant funds; that this is one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; that Mr. Rutkowski has done an excellent job in developing the criteria; that the Alliance is in agreement with the plan for the preservation of the neighborhood and for economic benefit to the City. Ted Hunniford, representing Grace Fellowship Church, stated "just do it" in support of the Laurel Park Conservation Plan. Paul Thorpe, representing The Downtown Association of Sarasota, stated that The Downtown Association encourages the Commission to give consideration to the Laurel Park Conservation District Plan; that this neighborhood is a vital part of downtown and the 225 members of The Downtown Association support the idea of a conservation district for Laurel Park. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue, stated that she fully supports the concept of conservation districts and appreciates the work that Laurel Park has accomplished in this effort; that she hopes Gillespie Park will follow with designated areas for conservation. Mayor Patterson asked if Ms. Holland had read the Laurel Park conservation district proposal? Ms. Holland stated she had seen the proposal briefly. Ms. Holland stated that Gillespie Park has reviewed the idea of a conservation district even though the concept may be different; that Mr. Rutkowski spoke at the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association regarding a conservation district area; that it makes sense for Gillespie Park to move forward with a conservation district plan. Mayor Patterson asked for the Administration's recommendations. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he was familiar with the conservation district plan, but an analytical review had not been completed nor discussed with the Planning and Development Director or the City Attorney; that strong neighborhoods exist and remain because of strong neighborhood associations; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association is exerting good leadership and has brought forth a carefully crafted and well thought out piece of work; that even though the full Land Development Regulations (LDRS) will not be drafted for some time; that the initial piece of legislation can be developed with respect to the proposal and be drafted in a form to be consistent with the new zoning code which is to be developed; that the plan contains a recommendation that a moratorium on building permits for construction of new buildings within the neighborhood boundaries be established and this should be discussed with the City Attorney and the Planning and Development Director; that he suggests the Administration return to the City Commission with a formal recommendation at the Commission's next meeting and address areas of concern in the proposed plan. Commissioner Pillot stated that one of the most pleasant experiences while he has been on the Commission is to see events occurring because of the residents of Laurel Park and Gillespie Park neighborhoods. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the City Manager's recommendation to report back to the Commission at the July 5th meeting. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that one of the difficulties has been having enough City staff to help the neighborhood due to the staffing cut-backs; that the neighborhood has taken it upon themselves to get their ideas established; that there has been an emergency in the neighborhood because a proposal has been made which may be considered incompatible with the neighborhood; that the City has been considering the idea of Conservation Districts for a long time, the Administration has reviewed the concept when a consultant was hired for that purpose, and the Commission has debated the issue but nothing has happened; that he is concerned that the Administration wants to make the plan consistent with zoning codes, etc.; that the Administration should not worry about what might happen in the LDR document in the future, but develop a plan today and then correct the problems in the next update of the LDRs; that Mr. Rutkowski has done a beautiful job of putting the Book 36 Page 10626 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10627 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. plan in writing, stating specifically what the neighborhood needs; that he strongly urges the Commission and the Administration to "just do it" and not worry about hiring a consultant or committing dollars to the project; that most of the conservation district has to come from the neighborhood; that they know what they need; that he believes this project will progress forward as the neighborhood is solid. Commissioner Cardamone stated that many times propositions are brought to the Commission that just need to be accomplished instead of being studied for several years; that this type of conservation district plan should be reviewed as a model and a test, and put into place to see how it progresses; that the plan could be a model for other neighborhoods. Commissioner Atkins stated that he supports the City Manager's recommendation in taking the time to review the plan; that he is not prepared to stop building permits in the Laurel Park area; that it is important to continue with the vision of the City to make Sarasota a City for everybody; that the City should be careful in their move forward in conservation of neighborhoods and that the City is best served by all of the people being able to live wherever they choose. Mayor Patterson stated that she had misgivings about a conservation district until she read the proposal; that the proposed plan does not involve great costs; that a neighborhood consensus of the conservation district plan must be achieved especially with regard to design standards for structures in the area; that it is only fair to allow the City Manager to study the plan and return to the Commission with a recommendation; that it is reasonable to have the conservation district plan addressed by the people who will be working on the zoning code update as there are some serious questions to be answered. Devin Rutkowski came before the Commission and stated that the goal of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association is to increase owner occupancy; that there will be funding sources available such as affordable housing programs which can be used directly for rehabilitation of historically designated structures; that this funding source of up to $600,000 per year will be available in the City of Sarasota; that a dozen homes in the Tampa Heights neighborhood in Tampa, Florida has been turned around over the last two years due to available funding which allowed the people to purchase homes who otherwise would not have been able to purchase them; that the Association wants the senior citizens of the neighborhood to stay in the neighborhood and be able to pay their taxes; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association does not want to be involved with a bureaucratic malaise; that the proposed plan should be kept simple and quantifiable. Mayor Patterson stated that no one can direct City decisions without going through a process to get the projects approved; that she is sure that the Commission will want to take expeditious action. Mr. Rutkowski stated that he is concerned about the rewrite of the LDRs which is still undefined; that if the City allows a change to the City's historic preservation ordinance, the legal framework for creating conservation districts will be established; that the conservation district plan language will have to be rewritten in the future to meet specifications, but this should not dictate what the Association wants to accomplish. Mr. Rutkowski stated that there is hope that the City Attorney will be spending time on the conservation district plan rather than other City staff. Mayor Patterson stated that Commissioner Pillot's motion is to refer the proposed conservation district plan to the Administration and to report back to the Commission in two weeks with a recommendation concerning the development of a conservation district in Laurel Park and asked if this includes Gillespie Park? Commissioner Pillot stated that the motion was to support the City Manager's intent to report back to the Commission at the next meeting after reviewing the proposal, specifically with regard to the presentation made this evening. Mayor Patterson stated that the motion is to ask the City Manager to study the conservation district plan proposal made to the Commission this evening specific to Laurel Park and give a report at the next Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson thanked the Laurel Park neighborhood for their time and energy in putting the proposal together. 12. NEW BUSINESS: REPORT RE: USE OF POLICE SUBSTATIONS AND PRESENTATION: SUMMER RECREATIONAL PROGRAMMING - GILLESPIE PARK = REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION (AGENDA ITEMS VIII-1 AND 2) #2 (1247) through (2784) Mayor Patterson requested that Walt Rothenbach, Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Director and Gordon R. Jolly, Chief of the Police Bureau come before the Commission. Book 36 Page 10628 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10629 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Chief Jolly stated that there are peripheral uses for police substations in addition to Police Officers writing reports and talking to citizens of neighborhoods; that two neighborhoods, Newtown and Gillespie Park, have been designated as "Weed and Seed" neighborhoods; that in the Newtown substation located on the southwest corner of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and Osprey Avenue, there is an outstanding after-school tutoring program; that this program was started by Mrs. Sheffield about two years ago with 10 to 12 children and operated on donations; that the after-school program has grown to an enrollment of 150 children; that the Gillespie Park "Weed and Seed" group were very impressed with this tutoring program and has since started a tutoring program modeled after this program with 7 to 8 children enrolled; that as part of the "Weed and Seed" program, the City is required to provide a safe haven for working couples' children after school; that Mrs. Sheffield's program provides a safe haven and exceptional educational opportunities for the children of the neighborhood which is the same concept existing in Gillespie Park; that the substation in Gillespie Park was obtained by the Community Housing Corporation and was intended to be refurbished for low-income housing as a single-family residence; that law-enforcement trust funds were used to refurbish the substation with the intent of the Police occupying the substation for about a year; that the structure is not adequate for any type of growth in the after- school or safe-haven programs; that the Gillespie Park Community Association and the Gillespie Park "Weed and Seed" Program group have expressed a desire to have a police substation combined with a community center located in Gillespie Park; that this would have a dual purpose of having police in the area and a location for the after-school programs; that this idea was discussed with Walt Rothenbach, Director, Sarasota County Parks and Recreation, and the County plans to coordinate recreational programs for the neighborhood at the same location; that it is proposed that the Police substation will be sold as originally intended; that the funds generated from the sale of that structure plus additional law enforcement trust funds could be used to build a new substation and community center which would serve as a site for the safe-haven and after-school programs; that the Volunteer Center is currently working closely with the City to identify volunteers; who could staff the substations on a regular basis during the daytime; that it is not a good use of Police dollars to have a Police Officer sitting in a substation when they should be visible and enforcing the law. Mayor Patterson asked Linda Holland, representing Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association, to come before the Commission and stated that Mr. Rothenbach has been invited to come before the Commission at the request of Ms. Holland to discuss summer recreational programming in Gillespie Park. Ms. Holland stated that one of the activities that Gillespie Park wanted to pursue was a summer recreation program; that the Park has so many children who need to have recreational activities; that these activities would give positive direction to the children in the neighborhood. Mayor Patterson asked what the possibilities are for Gillespie Park, as far as facilities being built? Mr. Rothenbach stated that is would be necessary to have a building with restrooms for a viable after-school program especially for day-long programsi that Project Outreach was started by the County in cooperation with the City where the staff were being taken to various public housing locations; that the building that was going to be used as base for operating the program has since been demolished; that the program has been eliminated due to budgetary cutbacks; that in many areas of the County, such as Newtown, if the people will not come to the program, the program must be taken to the people; that the Boys and Girls Club of Newtown are successful because they are in the heart of where the people are; that the County's effort would be to try start up an afternoon program and then progress to a summer program. Vice Mayor Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 8:25 p.m. Commissioner Pillot stated that at the last City Commission meeting, Commissioner Cardamone noted there are a number of unused and boarded up portables in the Shade Avenue School Board complex; that the City could negotiate with the School Board for a building to use in Gillespie Park; that the portables are not attractive, however, it could be an asset for the City to acquire a portable and to modify it instead of spending $100,000 of law enforcement trust funds for a new building; that the suggestion by Commissioner Cardamone that the City acquire a portable is to be commended; that the Commission should consider this suggestion and the Administration should investigate the possibility. Mayor Patterson stated that it may not cost a great deal of money to build a 1500 square foot building without a kitchen and or significant amenities other than restrooms; that she is open to the suggestion of relocating a portable to Gillespie Park; that portables are not pleasant to look at and having a portable on the property for the long-term would require remodeling. Commissioner Pillot stated that even though portables are not aesthetically pleasing, external modifications can make them attractive to be consistent with the decor of Gillespie Park. Mayor Patterson stated that this request will be referred to the Administration to investigate the cost of establishing portables versus constructing a new building in Gillespie Park; that if there Book 36 Page 10630 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10631 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. is not a huge monetary difference, it would be better to build a new structure compatible with the Park. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is not against the recreation or tutoring programs, but he is not in favor of relocating portables to Gillespie park; that in order to make the programs work, a building needs to be located on the Gillespie Park property; that $100,000 from the law enforcement trust fund could be used to remodify the pavilion in Gillespie Park; that to relocate a portable to Gillespie Park and make it attractive will be difficult. Ms. Holland stated that the residents did not have a positive reaction to having a portable relocated to the park; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association cannot reach a consensus on where a building should be built; that several ideas have been suggested for an appropriate site: the Boy Scout Building; a building to be located in the park proper which is in the center of the neighborhood where children congregate; or on 10th Street although there is concern due to the heavy traffic in this location. Commissioner Cardamone stated that portables do not look good, but she has a vision as to how a portable can be refurbished to look attractive; that there are community housing homes being built in Gillespie Park and selling for $65,000.00 which is a lot less than $100,000 of the law enforcement trust fund money; that it is a good idea to enclose the Pavilion and build an additional smaller structure to take care of the substation and the restrooms. Vice Mayor Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:30 p.m. Police Chief Jolly stated that the $100,000 of law enforcement trust fund money is based on the figure of $65.00 a square foot for construction of commercial property which is required to have handicapped facilities, etc.; that there is $35,000 to $40,000 equity in the existing substation that can be used as a funding source. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to refer this to the Administration for suggestions as to how the building can be accomplished as a community center and a police substation. Commissioner Cardamone asked what the role of the County would be? Mayor Patterson stated that guidance is needed from the Administration as to what can be done by the City to help make summer and after-school programs a reality and ideas for presentation to the County Commission. Mr. Rothenbach stated that whatever the City proposes to do will dictate what the County can do; that the building specifications need to be reviewed along with how the building will be staffed; that the County wants to reactivate the programs that were phased out at other locations and include Gillespie Park in the process. Mayor Patterson stated that law enforcement trust fund dollars may be used to help with the after-school programs. Mr. Rothenbach stated that the relationship of the City Police and Sheriff Departments working harmoniously to serve the various communities where the after-school programs are active has been an outstanding approach, i.e., the Police Athletic League, the Community Resource teams, etc. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins it was moved to amend the main motion to include sincere cooperation between the County Parks and Recreation Department and the City Administration and Police Department. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson restated the main motion that the entire discussion be referred to the Administration. Commissioner Pillot stated that the motion was not intended to handcuff the City Manager when a report is made to the Commission as to how the Administration will acquire a building; that if portables are one of the choices, then the City Manager has the freedom to consider that as well. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone asked why there is a perception that the police substation on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way is unmanned and closed? Police Chief Jolly stated that residents believe a police officer should be located at each substation 24 hours a day; that there is not enough manpower nor would it be a good use of manpower to staff substations 24 hours a day; that a police officer operates out of a substation occasionally to write reports and talk to residents. Commissioner Cardamone asked if there has been anything done on the search for volunteers for staffing the substations? Police Chief Jolly stated that volunteers are being acquired from the Volunteer Center specifically for the substations. Book 36 Page 10632 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10633 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Atkins asked why the drug problem still exists in the area? Police Chief Jolly stated that a plan was presented to the Commission in January and this year the drug arrests have increased significantly since last year, but this does not mean the drug dealers are going to quit selling drugs. Commissioner Atkins asked why the parking lot at Osprey Avenue and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way cannot be kept Clean from drugs, gambling, etc., as the parking lot across the street at the substation; that there is a grave problem and something needs to be done. Police Chief Jolly stated that the S.A.B.R.E. (Sarasota Area Burglary and Robbery) Unit is working the area; that businesses have been provided signage for the no-trespassing program at no charge; that all but two businesses on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way are enrolled in the program; that the police officers are working very diligently to solve the drug problem. Commissioner Atkins stated that the major problem is the area across the street from the substation; that the other three street corners in the area are clean; that there is a building on Osprey Avenue that needs to be condemned and a store that has questionable practices which has been reported to the Police; that the community itself has had to close the adjacent building; that to his knowledge this building was not reported by any of the police officers. Police Chief Jolly stated that the open building was reported several times and the owner of the building was cited as there was questionable activity in the building. Mayor Patterson stated that maybe a more intense interest in the Osprey Avenue area needs to be made since the problems have been graphically pointed out. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she was concerned that King Academy was being closed for the reason that the police were not manning the substation; that King Academy should stay in the area as it is good for the area. Mayor Patterson stated that either Police Chief Jolly or City Manager Sollenberger should find out if King Academy is closing due to the substation not being manned; that if this is the reason, then the hours that police are available could be modified for specific protection when the school is in session. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Resource Center or tutorial programs at King Academy has never had any problems with drugs, etc.; that an honor system has developed in this area; that the students at King Academy are trying to use an alternate way of acquiring a high school diploma; that it was not the problem of the absence of the police that created the King Academy situation; that he is concerned that the substation is a pristine island with no problems; that an answer needs to be given as to why the same type of environment cannot exist across the street on Osprey Avenue. Mayor Patterson asked if moving King Academy to one of the high schools presents a negative impact to the Community that it is serving? Commissioner Atkins stated that the concept was always to have that type of program on a school campus; that he never had a commitment for King Academy to stay at the same location; that the tutorial programs now need extra space due to the increase of students. 13. CITIZENS' INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) = SUBMIT LIBRARY PLANS TO COUNTY COMMISSION: #2 (2785) through (2970) Mayor Patterson reopened Citizen's Input and asked Mr. Harding to come before the Commission to present with a time limit of one minute, on the subject of the library site. Edward T. Harding, representing himself, submitted plans for a library site in the Van Wezel parking lot and stated that a building could be constructed with a parking area underneath so the present parking spaces would not be lost; that at the second level of the building would be the library, the third floor would be the offices and research library and the top floor would be a roof garden for relaxation with a coffee station; that the building would also have elevators on each side with stairways and escalators. Mayor Patterson stated that she felt sure the County Commission would appreciate hearing this idea as it is the County's library. Mr. Harding stated that it may be the County Library, but it is on City property. Commissioner Pillot asked to have the Administration submit the plans to the County Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that one of the purposes of moving the present library is to get it away from the water. 14. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: PESTICIDES - REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #2 (2971) through #3 (0909) Book 36 Page 10634 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10635 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that there was a presentation on Pesticides at the Neighborhood Workshop on May 21, 1994; that some people had spoken on the ill-effects of pesticides and herbicides used in the Community; that the subject matter was not appropriate for the purpose of a neighborhood meeting; that only a limited amount of time was allowed; that the Health Department was contacted to make a presentation of the concerns that PATCH (Planned Approach To Community Health) and the County's Public Health Unit have on the issue of harmful pesticides. Cheryl Ann Gross, Janice Fletcher and Chris Patterson, representing PATCH, came before the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone left the Commission Chambers at 8:50 p.m. Ms. Gross stated that PATCH is a voluntary agency that was formed under the auspices of the Federal Center for Disease Control; that PATCH is coordinated through the Sarasota County Public Health Unit and has members of every public and private health agency and facility in the County as well as the Community at-large; that the goal of PATCH is prevention rather than the treatment of illness by identifying causes and hopefully reducing or eliminating diseases; that the PATCH program is a model program for the nation since it has been so successful in Sarasota County; that the Environmental Health Committee of PATCH has the goal of identification and reduction of environmental causes of illness; that the 1llness can range from industrial pollution to off-gassing from carpets and home cleaning products; that one of the biggest problems identified in southwest Florida is the heavy use of pesticides; that reference to pesticides is insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides, and fungicides which are used with caution by homeowners; that pesticide use has been linked to increases in cancer rates, particularly with different types of leukemia and brain tumors in children, neurological problems, liver and kidney damage, immune system dysfunction including the disease of multiple chemical sensitivities and numerous developmental problems in children as well as cognitive and memory dysfunction in adults; that the list of illnesses or conditions linked to the chemicals is very long; that most people have the impression that chemicals have been tested and evaluated and are proven to be safe, but this is not accurate; that most cases these chemicals are registered with the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) ; that FEPA should be testing the chemicals, but accepts the data as submitted by the manufacturers; that much of the chemical data has proven to be inaccurate and the FEPA is under a mandate to conduct additional testing; the FEPA has not completed the guidelines related to the testing and has a projected completion date of 1996; that the testing of each chemical will take 15 years for completion. Ms. Gross continued that the other problem with pesticides is that up to 98 percent of the formulations can be composed of "inert" ingredients; that "inert" gives the public a meaning of something that is harmless which does not act; that this meaning is inaccurate; that the "inerts" can be anything the manufacturer adds to the chemicals and many of these components can be far more toxic than the active ingredient itself; that 98 percent of products can be composed of "inerts" with no way for the public to realize what the "inerts" are; that Federal law prohibits the disclosure of the "inerts"; that the FEPA is being sued by a national agency to try to force the FEPA to reveal the "inert" ingredients; that in many cases the Federal Government is unaware of what the "inert" ingredients are in the chemical compounds; that the use of these chemicals have numerous health affects which have not been recognized by physiciansi that PATCH has been very active in trying to develop programs and materials to educate the general public; that there are some issues which can only be handled by the government; that there are several things the City can do to help; that the City can issue a Least Toxic Integrated Pest Management Policy (LTIPMA) similar to the one developed by the County which would urge and encourage the use of the least toxic alternatives by the Community at large; that the implementation of LTIPMA is needed in all City controlled facilities both indoors and outdoors and includes government buildings, parks, beaches, recreational facilities, golf courses, and housing projects; that PATCH feels this is a particular concern to the City as both the courts and Federal Agencies have upheld that people who suffer from chemical sensitivities are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); that if these people are precluded from entering a building due to the use of toxic chemicals, it would be considered discrimination. Commissioner Cardamone returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:55 p.m. Mayor Patterson stated that the County has a current policy and the City could investigate the County's policy to adopt into a City policy. Ms. Gross further stated that people who suffer from multiple chemical sensitivities can react to other products such as petroleum based cleaning products or petroleum based fragrances; that most people are not aware that fragrances contain various toxic chemicals; that there are other areas to review in addition to the use of pesticides; that the City should consider requesting that programs conducted by the County Department Of Transportation such as road maintenance and stormwater ditch maintenance be completed using the least toxic alternatives; that there should be a control of the use of pesticides through restricting the use of chemicals in areas where there are sensitive environmental conditions and any area where it will impact human health or the environment which includes the impacts on Sarasota Bay. Book 36 Page 10636 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10637 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that the sensitive areas where human health is impacted would be everywhere. Ms. Gross stated this is correct; that there has been an attempt to limit the control of communities over the use of these chemicals by having restrictive legislation enacted at the State level; that the Courts have upheld the rights of Communities to protect public health safety and welfare; that PATCH also suggests the City adopt an occupational license ordinance amendment which will require additional education for professional pesticide applicators; that the City should also develop an ordinance which would regulate the storage of chemicals when offered for sale to the general public; that pesticides are stored in all supermarkets; that PATCH had a seminar for safe pest control for supermarkets and the only one who complied was the Granaryi that PATCH also suggests the purchasers of pesticides be informed of potential health affects as well as the proper application of these chemicals; that homeowners should be required to post their yards prior to and after application of chemicals. Mayor Patterson stated that she thought there was a mandate for the posting of yards; that businesses who fertilize and occasionally add insecticides do put signage in the yards. Ms. Gross stated that the professional applicators are required to put signage in yards, but the homeowner does not as they are sold chemicals in stores and are not aware of the potential effects or how to properly use these chemicals; that the "synergistic effects" or combined effects of chemical use must be considered as these are cumulative. Ms. Gross further stated that Ann Mason who could not attend the Commission meeting due to illness requested to have handouts distributed to the Commission. Ms. Patterson distributed handouts to the Commission and stated that there are adequate loopholes in the Federal Regulations which enable the recycling of commercial industrial toxic hazardous wastes under the assumption that in the recycling process the hazardous nature of the substance is a mute point; that inert means inactive, however in the pest control industry inert is construed to mean it does not play a role in killing the pests the product claims to eliminate; that it is legal to mix hazardous wastes with pesticides for application in homes, offices, yards, playgrounds, etc.; that inerts have remained confidential business information which has resulted in legal action against the EPA for disclosure; that two suits have been filed by the Northwest Coalition and the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides; that there are health effects resulting from the synergistic affect of chemical use; that there is no one who is immune to the synergistic effect; that Florida Power and Light (FPL) tree cutters can legally poison trees to stunt growth, the DOT can legally spray herbicides and mosquito control units can spray the air; that homeowners can purchase third and fourth generation nerve gases over-the-counter without knowledge of the use of the product or the knowledge of the drift of chemicals once the chemicals are applied. Ms. Fletcher stated that she has been a Sarasota resident for 35 years and is a victim of pesticide poisoning consisting of visual and neurological problems; that as a former teacher she is concerned with children and conditions in the schools; that several of her colleagues have been affected by pesticide exposure and have had to alter their conditions in the school system and were moved to portables by not being able to tolerate certain class rooms or have been totally disabled and had to resign; that she has a vested interest in this problem; that there are a lot of behavioral problems and unusual childhood diseases that are linked to pesticide use and misuse in the schools; that the immune systems of children are more susceptible than that of adults and are easier to fall prey to the diseases and disorders of chemical misuse; that this is a serious issue and needs to be addressed; that there are approximately 45,000 people throughout the Country who are victims of pesticide poisoning and are disabled. Commissioner Pillot stated that the presentation has been very informative; that there should be a more universal word than "pesticides" as there are chemicals available that are not pesticides, but have the same harmful affects and asked if there is a broader term that can be used other than pesticides? Mayor Patterson asked the distinction of pesticides and herbicides? Ms. Patterson stated that pesticides includes insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, cleaning agents, etc.; that pesticides also include hydrocarbons, chlorines, formaldehydes and various other toxic substances. Mayor Patterson asked if all toxic substances are organic? Ms. Gross stated that organophosphate is a type of pesticide; that it is very difficult to predict what type of chemical will affect an individual as it is dependent on each person's metabolism. Ms. Patterson stated that PATCH's primary focus is on pesticide control. Ms. Gross stated that pesticides are used extensively, but regarding public schools or public buildings the issue is petroleum based cleaning products such as waxes, polishes, etc.; that this needs to be addressed; that there are safer products that are available to the public along with numerous documents that discuss those products. Book 36 Page 10638 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10639 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Ms. Patterson stated that a book, The Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings, is published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); that the EPA does not approve or certify chemicals, but only registers the chemicals. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is impressed with the amount of knowledge presented; that there has been a good beginning education process for the Commission and asked how many people are victims of this kind of poisoning in Sarasota County? Ms. Gross stated that not everyone makes a connection between an exposure to a chemical and the health affects; that physicians who are required to report pesticide induced illnesses receive very little training in medical school regarding toxic induced illness; that there has been two seminars held in Sarasota for medical professionals; that extensive education is needed in the area of toxic chemical use; that there is an estimate of 15 percent of the population is known to be chemical sensitized. Ms. Fletcher stated that pesticide poisoning has a cumulative affect; that it took her two and a half years to be diagnosed with pesticide poisoning; that it does affect the immune system along with neurological and irreversible diseases over time with re-exposure to the chemicals. Commissioner Cardamone stated that there is a City ordinance on pesticides, but is very old. Mayor Patterson stated that most of the pesticides named in the ordinance have been banned. City Attorney Taylor stated that the ordinance is a restatement of a small section of the Florida State Statutes and not unique to Sarasota. Mayor Patterson stated that the City can look into being as responsible as possible for dealing with its own properties regarding toxic chemical use; that without a scientist on staff it is difficult to be advised as to the products people should use in the Community; that advice could be sought from Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program, etc.; that there is concern for what chemicals are going into Sarasota Bay and needs to be addressed. Commissioner Pillot stated that a problem does exist; that the term "toxic substance" might apply as a general term instead of pesticides; and asked what is the authority of the City Commission and the City of Sarasota to handle the problem of toxic substances beyond what the City staff uses? On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill it was moved to ask the Administration for a timely report as to the current status of what the City is doing internally and what changes are recommended in what the city is doing and what are the legitimate prerogatives that the City Commission can take from this point? Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission can go on record in support of responsible pesticide programs on the part of all individuals within the community. Ms. Patterson stated that if the City and County funds were available to match State funds, an indoor air testing facility could be established in the City. Commissioner Pillot stated that his motion was intended to have the Administration and City Attorney report back with this kind of data. Commissioner Cardamone stated that it would not be good to have an ordinance in the City which is different from the County, as we are all County residents. Ms. Patterson stated that a small City or County department needs to be established to complete testing; that Mote Marine Laboratory has the equipment and the expertise to handle the testing. Mayor Patterson stated that the City is having trouble maintaining staff and providing the current level of services; that it would be most unlikely that the City would set up a department especially for this purpose; that this is more the responsibility of the County to which City residents also pay taxes to address Community- wide needs, although there will be support and encouragement from the City. Mayor Patterson stated the motion as to refer to the Administration for a recommendation in a timely manner and address what is practical for the City to do regarding the maintenance of the City's facilities with the least toxic substances possible and to address some of the larger issues and report back to the Commission as to what the prerogatives will be. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 15. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT - NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM VIII-5) #3 (0910) through (2525) Vice Mayor Merrill stated that four years ago he was a member of the Coalition of City Neighborhoods and helped draft a "Neighborhood Bill of Rights" which included an idea based upon a Book 36 Page 10640 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10641 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. provision in the Comprehensive Plan of Longboat Key that states that any change in land use requires a voter referendum; that at that time he had come before the Commission opposing a land use change in his neighborhood, knowing the issue would come back to the Commission if the land use change was not approved because the property owner would continue to pursue the request; that, therefore, he had sought ideas to assure a that neighborhood would not have to worry about a land owner revisiting the Commission with a request for rezoning and having the Commission listen to the property owners rather than the neighbors; that included among those ideas was the idea that the voters of the City would have the final say on land use rather than the Commission, essentially meaning the voters would have to ratify the Commission's actions concerning land use changes involving increased density and intensity of use; that this idea did not blossom and the issue was dropped; that recently another organization has come forth with the idea of a requirement for a voter referendum for changes of land use approved in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that he feels this was an excellent idea four years ago and is still an excellent idea and that "We The People, u a group supporting a voter referendum for a City Charter Amendment, would now like to give a presentation to the Commission. Dan Lobeck, Co-Chairman of "We The People, " and Mary Quillan, Board Member of the Growth Restraint Environmental Organization and "We The People," came before the Commission. Mr. Lobeck stated that "We The People" is a coalition of the Council of Neighborhood Associations of Sarasota County, the Growth Restraint Environmental Organization and the Venice Taxpayers League, as well as a number of unaffiliated citizens; that "We The People" has observed a need for change regarding future development of the communities in Sarasota County; that the proposal being submitted to the City Commission by "We The People" includes a proposed amendment to the Sarasota City Charter; that this amendment can be placed on the ballot by a vote of the Commission or by a petition of approximately 2700 City voters; that placing this amendment on the ballot would allow the people of Sarasota to vote on whether the Charter should be amended regarding the method in which a change in land use is effectuated; that the Town of Longboat Key has had this provision in its Charter for the past 10 years; that this amendment has provided an additional measure of neighborhood protection for the Town of Longboat Key and will provide the same protection for the City of Sarasota if approved; that this proposal serves as an incentive for positive redevelopment and is an opportunity for the Commission to leave a legacy to the citizens of Sarasota for the protection and improvement of the Community; that in 1989 the City Commission identified areas in the City appropriate for zoning changes which would provide additional opportunities for redevelopment and increased land use; that if a vote is required by the people to add more Impact Management Areas (IMAs) or to intensify existing IMAS, there will be an incentive to use existing development opportunities for positive improvements and for future development of the City; that if a public referendum is required to ratify decisions of the Commission for additional development opportunities, there will be an additional protection to assure no change is made to the land use plan unless approved by the public; that the public is trusted to elect officials which is a complex decision and involves weighing a person's credentials, philosophies, platforms, and approach to governing; that if the public is entrusted to elect officials, they should be entrusted to share in other decisions that affect their quality of life; that this amendment would protect neighborhoods from commercial intrusion and increases in density or intensity of land use; that the Commissioners would not be abdicating responsibility but rather sharing the responsibility with the people of the community; that this amendment has worked well for the Town of Longboat Key which originally had a population projection of 30,000 but now has a population projection of 15,000 because of their Charter provision; that "We The People" urges the Commission to leave a legacy of protection for the quality of life in the community which will last into the next century, and to entrust the public by placing this proposed amendment on the ballot, and to allow the people to decide on the proposed amendment to the City Charter. Mary Quillan stated that an article in the Sunday edition of the Sarasota Herald Tribune reported the feelings of the people around the State; that 36 percent of those surveyed said they believe the quality of life in their area of the State will get worse in the next six years, 42 percent thought the environment would get worse in the next six years, and 64 percent said the candidates' stands on the issues is the most important factor in determining whether to vote for that candidate; that the public wants to hear more about the issues and be involved in decisions related to the issues; that a referendum will allow the public to participate in decisions regarding land use; that there is room for redevelopment and growth in the City and the public wants to be part of it; that the Commission has seen the desire of the public to participate in these decisions in, for example, the people's involvement with the North Trail Sector Study, their involvement on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, and the attempt of the people of the Downtown North Association to participate in the design that will be occurring in that area; that Sarasota County completed a survey on May 4, 1994, and 52 percent of the citizens polled said the County is growing too fast; that many people are starting to participate in the Community and want to know how to become more involved; that it is a wonderful thing to see the public becoming involved again; that people are beginning to re-empower themselves through the ability to vote and become vocal in local matters which is what makes this country great; that "We The People" is asking for a partnership with the Commission and the Commission's support for this land use Book 36 Page 10642 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10643 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Charter amendment; that petitions signed by enough voters can be obtained in order to put this amendment on the ballot; that Sarasota is an exciting town and the people want to see positive actions; that this change in the Charter will help keep Sarasota the type of city envisioned now and in the future. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that people have come to him asking if this proposed change would stop growth in the City of Sarasota, meaning that there would be no new office buildings, apartments, etc.; ;and asked if Mr. Lobeck would explain the effect of this proposal on development in areas which are already zoned versus those areas where a change to the land use plan would be required? Mr. Lobeck stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan provides for 24 Impact Management Areas (IMAs) for which land can be rezoned to a higher or different density/intensity without the need for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Vice Mayor Merrill asked Mr. Lobeck if the proposal would have any effect on land that is already zoned and for which no land use change is required by the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Lobeck stated that a referendum would not be required to build on land which is presently zoned for the proposed use; that this amendment would not stop or limit development in Sarasota; that the result of this amendment would be that all existing development opportunities, will continue but, if additional areas are to be added, a public vote would be required; that all of downtown is in an IMA and no referendum is required for additional office buildings in that area; that over the last 4 to 5 years, only two Comprehensive Plan Amendments would have been subject to this provision: the North Trail designation and the area several blocks north of and including Ringling Towers; that amendments will not occur that often, but if another major change is recommended concerning land use, a vote of the public would be required to ratify the Commission's decision; that this amendment is not an anti-growth proposal. Ms. Quillan stated that an example is the recent proposal concerning the Mission Harbor property which is not in an IMA; that a voter referendum would be required to increase the density/intensity of use of that property since it is currently zoned RMF Multi-Family Residential District). Mayor Patterson stated that the Mission Harbor site was one of the few substantial Comprehensive Plan Amendments which has occurred since she has been on the Commission; that the Mission Harbor property is zoned residential because the Commission down-zoned the property from commercial zoning; that the Commission envisioned the Mission Harbor property as residential so as not to impart a value based solely on Commission action; that the John Ringling Towers property is a perfect example of a property which is artificially inflated in price, but no longer viable as commercial property. Commissioner Pillot stated that he met with Mr. Lobeck and the meeting was very helpful, positive and constructive; that he is torn concerning this proposed amendmenti; that the records show he is a supporter of public input, but he also feels strongly that the Commission has to accept responsibility for the decisions it has been elected to make; that a balance is necessary between trusting the people to make decisions in a general referendum versus trusting the people's judgment in electing and charging the Commission with the responsibility to make decisions; that the Commission's responsibility is to make decisions with respect to the Comprehensive Plan and amendments therein; that the basis of many decisions are not easily documented objectively, therefore, the Commission has to accept the responsibility, for both good and bad decisions; that he will not vote to place this amendment on the ballot but he respects the process of putting the amendment on the ballot by petition; that he is confident that enough signatures will be obtained to put this amendment on the ballot; that if the people approve the amendment to the Charter, he will be proven wrong and he will accept the conclusion that the voters do not agree with his decision; that Longboat Key is a more homogenous population than that of the City of Sarasota and, therefore, what might be good for Longboat Key may not be positive for the City of Sarasota; that while he has respect for the petition process, he will not vote to have the amendment added to the ballot. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission respects the rights of "We The People" to collect signatures and applauds the organization for bringing their concerns to the Commission. Bruce Franklin, 149 Cocoanut Avenue, came before the Commission and stated that, as a City resident, taxpayer and business owner, he cannot allow this type of idea to be discussed without rebuttal; that he supports the Commission and is opposed to what is being suggested; that the correlation of the City of Sarasota to Longboat Key is inappropriate as Longboat Key is a barrier island with a different set of constraints to area development; that he entrusts to the Commission the ability to make decisions on his behalf and that of his family and employees; that if the Commission's responsibility is divested, its purpose as the City's responsible elected public officials will be undermined; that the City Commission and the Administration knows its responsibilities and discharges those responsibilities admirably; that the Commission should be insulted that this kind of initiative has been presented; that he hopes the Commission will not accept the suggestion presented by "We The People" as it undermines the reason the officials were voted into office; that "We The People" should acquire the necessary signatures, put the question on the ballot, and allow the people in the community to decide. Book 36 Page 10644 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10645 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that this effort does not impact land that is presently zoned and approved in the Comprehensive Plan for potential rezoning; that the result of this amendment will be fewer changes in land use; that those changes which occur would be larger land use changes; that the public will be willing to vote for a change only if there is a compelling reason; that in order for a land owner to acquire a change in land use, the public will have to be informed of the reason for the change; that the change will be expensive for a small single parcel of land, therefore, sector plans will occur where property owners combine parcels of land to spread the cost; that the sector plan is a better form of planning as this forces compatibility between adjacent users; that there will be additional public input because of the willingness of property owners to work with the public knowing that whatever decision the Commission makes will have to be ratified by the public; that in general, the planning for the City will be far better than the planning of today; that the North Trail Sector Plan did receive good visibility from the press and with the public and there is no doubt that the voters would have approved the North Trail Sector Plan had this plan gone to the voters; that ideas must stand or fall on their own merit and not be based upon who presents the ideas; that representative democracy will not be destroyed as it has a strong place in the history of America; that sometimes the elected leaders do not know or implement the will of the public; that one of the directions of many governments is voter referenda; that direct democracy is a more efficient use of government as no one interprets the public's will because it is spoken with no confusion as to what the public wants; that presently a public referendum is allowed on the issues of taxation, L.O.S.T. tax, gas tax and school tax as the public favors speaking on those issues; that there have been concerns by the public regarding land usage in the neighborhood associations, including the Coalition of City eighborhoods; that the last three Commissioners elected to the City Commission ran on major platforms of neighborhood preservation; that more people show up in public hearings regarding land usage than any other issue; that residents appreciate being able to rely on information received regarding the zoning of their property when land or homes are purchased; that people would feel more comfortable in relying on the zoning information if the public had the final say on the development of surrounding properties; that he feels the public can make decisions and understands the general broad categories of multi-family, single-family, commercial, and industrial office uses and which land uses are compatible adjacent to each other; that in the same way that the Commission relies on the Planning staff for information, the public will rely on the Commission for available options; that he is not advocating governing by charter amendment and, in fact, the Commission has the option of accomplishing this change by ordinance; that the Commission could decide and adopt by ordinance a requirement that the public would have the right to ratify Commission decisions regarding changes in land use; that if the Commission fails to adopt an ordinance concerning this issue, the public will have only one option which is to govern by referendum; that his issue is not whether this is a Charter change or an ordinance change, but rather the fact that he likes the idea of the public ratifying the Commission's actions concerning land use changes in the City. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that for him to make a motion to set the question for public referendum would be unwise; that there have been no public hearings on this matter; that the Commission does not actually know how well public referenda for land use changes have worked in other areas; that the Commission does not know the views of the Planning staff who may welcome the proposed change because it would move planning towards sector plans and away from the "commercial creep" that has frequently occurred in the past; that the group advocating this change will get the signatures necessaryi that the public debate should be held whether the debate occurs as a result of an ordinance passed by the Commission or a public referendum placed on the ballot by voters' petition; that the public should decide if this idea has merit; that the Commission's input on the idea is worthy and, if the Commission determines that it is not a good idea, that fact should be communicated to the public; that he is intrigued by the idea and, if it is a good idea, the Commission should support it; that the next step is not to set the question of a public referendum for public hearing but it would be a good step to go to public hearing on the idea of a voter referendum for the City's land use decisions. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to set the idea of voter referendum for comprehensive plan land use changes for public hearing. Motion died for lack of second. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is concerned about the title of the proposed amendment, "Citizen Control of the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan"; that she is concerned this idea was brought forth to the Commission by people who regularly appear before the Commission and are always negative to any kind of change, always suspicious, always accusative and do not allow the process to work or will not let the process work if they have an opportunity to block the processi that this is a moratorium in disguise; that this idea halts a process that is a very democratic process; that this Commission goes to great lengths to assure that everyone who wishes to speak at public hearings will have the opportunity to be heard; that she represents the entire City of Sarasota; that every district and every citizen in this community is represented by three Commissioners at the Commission table; that she believes she was elected by this community with voter support to make decisions for the people; that she feels her constituents view her as someone who is very fair minded in attempting to weigh and balance the issues in order that a correct vote is made; that it is the trusted Book 36 Page 10646 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10647 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. voters who know the importance of the democratic process; that the voters want to see good things happen in the City of Sarasota and recognize that Sarasota is a beautiful City with areas in need of redevelopment; that if it is necessary to rezone in order to trigger redevelopment, the five Commissioners have the ability to make that decision rather than throw it to a voter referendum; that this charge was given to the Commission by the reasonable, intelligent voters of the City; that an issue such as this brings about the end of public debate, creates an atmosphere of campaign- style support for rezoning or no rezoning; that there will only be interest to the particular area affected and not the charge of five Commissioners to review the area from a broad point of view with Citywide encouragement of potential opportunities; that this amendment not only limits but also eliminates the process of the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendments; that the budget restraints now existing in the City are due to the fact that the City has had no growth and areas have deteriorated without steps being taken for redevelopment; that the City should be proactive in trying to accomplish tasks that are good for all residents; that in past City elections, the voter turn-out has been only 9 to 24 percent of the registered voters in the City; and that the authority invested in Commissioners as elected officials should not be given back to the 9 to 24 percent of the people who vote and who will react to a campaign that may be led by people who are not concerned for the good of the City. Mayor Patterson stated that she agrees with everything Commissioner Cardamone has said. Commissioner Pillot stated that he also agrees with Commissioner Cardamone; that the articulate and very helpful presentation of Vice Mayor Merrill was equally impressive; that the point was made that the Commission would have to learn as the public will have to learn, however, it is easier for the Commissioners to learn in an objective and detailed manner with the opportunities availed to them than it would be to try to educate all of the eligible voters of the city who do not have the same opportunities to sit and question. 16. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: ENFORCEMENT OF SPEED LIMIT ON MCCLELLAN PARKWAY/ORANGE AVENUE = NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #3 (2530) through (3183) Mayor Patterson stated that residents have complained that a substantial number of accidents have occurred at the intersection of McClellan Parkway and Orange Avenue; that there is a substantial movement in the neighborhood to obtain traffic abatement on Orange Avenue and McClellan Parkway; that this will be a controversial issue when the Southside Village Project is approved for Hillview Street and Osprey Avenue; that residents do not want to inherit more traffic which would occur from the Southside Village Project; that there is great concern from the residents for traffic abatement for Mcclellan Parkway and Orange Avenue; that the traffic abatement issue needs to be addressed; that there have been 11 traffic accidents in a very limited amount of time, with 9 occurring at the intersection of McClellan Parkway and Orange Avenue; that the Commission needs to be aware of this huge number of accidents and to ask the Administration to increase enforcement of the speed limit on these streets; that all of the accidents have occurred south of traffic median on Mcclellan Parkway. Commissioner Pillot stated that according to his observation that only one out of ten vehicles are following the speed limit in that area. Mayor Patterson stated that there has been an increase in traffic citations in the City in the last year, but the Administration has indicated that the fines were decreasing; that this area needs help and the Commission should support the intensity of traffic enforcement in the McClellan Parkway/Orange Avenue area; that there are not alot of areas in the City less than a mile long that could demonstrate 11 accidents in four months; that this is also a residential street with no commercial enterprises. Commissioner Pillot stated that he is reluctant to give a specific direction to the Police Chief through the City Manager as to where to deploy personnel; that the Commission should request the results of traffic enforcement and hope the results can be attained with the current resourcesi that he agrees with Mayor Patterson that more enforcement needs to occur and is supportive of achieving that result. Gordon Jolly, Chief of the Police Bureau, came before the Commission and stated that a concentration of traffic units was made on Orange Avenue, south of Mound Street and McClellan Parkway to the intersection with Osprey Avenue as a result of complaints and in order to provide data regarding violations; that during a three day period, two traffic officers issued 51 speeding citations; that it is obvious there is a problem particularly in reviewing the traffic accidents near the intersection of Mcclellan Parkway and Osprey Avenue; that fixed object accidents, rear-end accidents and injuries are indicative of excessive speed; that there is also some right-of-way violation concerns in some of the accidents; that this entire stretch has been added to the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program which is a hit list of certain specific streets and locations that have continuing traffic problems with high accident/high complaint areas; that protection will continue to be provided to this area. Mayor Patterson stated that the residents in the Mcclellan Parkway/Orange Avenue area will be most appreciative. Book 36 Page 10648 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10649 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that traffic abatement is being requested throughout the City and is a problem throughout the entire City; that there is a fine line of having a police officer on every corner when that police officer is being pulled away from potential other criminal activity; that traffic enforcement should be balanced equally throughout the City. Mayor Patterson stated that traffic entorcement should be decided on accidents per mile. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that traffic enforcement should not include only accidents per mile as there are children playing on streets in other areas and the danger or risk to children on Orange Avenue is not as great as in other residential areas; that as an example, Bailey Road is a wide street and a playground for kids; that speed needs to be controlled there also. Mayor Patterson stated that she was not asking for a 24-hour police patrol on Mcclellan Parkway/Orange Avenue nor was she asking that enforcement be decreased on Bailey Road; that there is an intense problem on Mcclellan Parkway/Orange Avenue and a targeted attack will make the people who use this as a regular traffic pattern slow down. Police Chief Jolly stated that there is a list in the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program for locations that will be concentrated with additional traffic enforcement attention; that the streets mentioned will be added to the list, but will not be the entire focus of the traffic enforcement program. 17. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: 1994-95 CITY COMMISSION GOALS - APPROVED GOALS AND ADMINISTRATION'S IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (AGENDA ITEM VIII-7) #3 (3185) through (3251) Commissioner Pillot stated that City Commission Goals are set by the Commission; that with respect to the Implementation Plan, input was given by the Commission and each one of the proposals in the implementation plan is flexible and subject to further review in the future. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administrations recommendation for the 1994/95 City Commission goals and the Administrative Implementation Plan. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 18. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: IN LIEU OF TAXES PROGRAM FOR NON-TAXABLE PROPERTIES - ADMINISTRATION TO INVESTIGATE THE LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA PROGRAM (AGENDA ITEM VIII-8) #3 (3252) through (3690) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City Commission asked for this item to be placed on the agenda at the June 6, 1994 meeting; that a volunteer-type program exists in Lancaster, Pennsylvania whereby tax exempt institutions are asked to voluntarily contribute funding to offset the cost of providing municipal services; that there was a question as to whether the Healthplex owned by Sarasota Memorial Hospital, (SMH) is tax-exempt; that the Healthplex Building is now known as the Waldemere Medical Plaza; that 61 percent of this Plaza is tax-exempt. Mayor Patterson stated that the Waldemere Medical Plaza has been included on the tax rolls for the first time this year. Commissioner Cardamone asked if City Attorney Taylor could find out why only 61 percent of the building is tax-exempt? Mr. Taylor stated that Attorney Sarah Schenk will investigate the matter. Commissioner Pillot stated that the building is relatively new and has been vacant for a considerable amount of time which may explain why it has just appeared on the tax roll; that SMH has moved its pharmacy to the location of Waldemere Medical Plaza. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the information regarding the voluntary contribution of funds in the City of Lancaster is a neat program; that the City of Lancaster asks organizations to make voluntary contributions for municipal service provided by the City; that the contribution to the City is 10 percent of the amount of tax that would be paid by a taxable organization; that 10 percent is a very low percentage; that in 1980, the first year of the request, contributions were about $16,000.00 from the non-taxable property owners, but by 1988 it rose to $178,000.00; that the hospitals in City of Lancaster are the major contributors to the program; that the City of Sarasota should pursue a similar program and formulate an appeal to tax-exempt organizations to make this voluntary contribution. Mayor Patterson stated that it would be interesting to find out how the City of Lancaster was able to create the goodwill to have tax- exempt organizations contribute; that the Administration should call the City of Lancaster to investigate the program further. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Hospital Boards, the School Boards, and Churches, etc. in the area do not understand what services originate in the City and how those services are provided. Mayor Patterson stated that some area churches have been protesting the assessed County fire fees which were not previously assessed; that the voluntary plan would make the public aware of the fact that the City of Sarasota is the home for a huge percent of the not-for-profit organizations in the County. Book 36 Page 10650 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10651 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. 19. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZATION FOR ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE A NEW LEASE FOR GULFWIND MARINE AT KEN THOMPSON PARK - CONSENSUS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO ACOUIRE A LAND APPRAISAL AND PROCEED BASED ON THE RESULTS (AGENDA ITEM VIII-9) #3 (3691) through #4 (0470) City Manager Sollenberger stated that Gene Whipp, President of Four Winds Associates, Inc., has requested early negotiations for a lease renewal with the City for Gulfwind Marine at Ken Thompson Park; that the present lease expires in December, 1997 which is about a three year notice; that there are a number of items that need to be renegotiated and it would be in the best interest of both parties to commence the negotiations early; that the Administration recommends to have authorization to commence negotiations. Mayor Patterson asked what funds are received on the property from Gulfwind Marine? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City receives approximately $85,000.00 per year. Mayor Patterson stated that before lease negotiations between Mr. Whipp and the City begin, an appraisal should be acquired for the value of the land; that the land value should impact the negotiation process; that the type of capital improvements need to be known as Mr. Whipp has asked for rent reduction for amortizing the cost of capital improvements; that the capital improvements may benefit the public or that benefit Gulfwind Marine only. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the capital improvements will benefit Gulfwind Marine only. Mayor Patterson stated that there should not be any rent reduction for amortizing the costs of capital improvements that benefit Gulfwind Marine only. Commissioner Pillot stated that there is three and one-half years remaining on the present lease; that there have been two considerations discussed at the Commission table by both present and past Commissioners: 1) the City establishing its own marina at the Centennial park area for the purpose of generating revenues as well as providing a service; and 2) when does the City stop "giving away" land on Ken Thompson Park; that he is not in favor of the City getting involved in commercial enterprise; that he respects the high quality business Mr. Whipp conducts, but this is an opportunity for the City to announce that the land should be brought back to the City for City and park purposes and eliminate one major commercial use of the land at Ken Thompson Park; that it would be easier to do this now by giving notice and not renegotiating the lease to and then taking the land back for public purposes; that this may be a far-out idea, but the only other entities on Ken Thompson Park would be WSPB Radio Station and the Sarasota Sailing Squadron as commercial entities and Mote Marine Laboratory and Pelican Man's Bird Sanctuary as not-for-profit public agencies; that one day Ken Thompson Park could eventually be a non-commercial entity. Mayor Patterson stated that whether or not this can happen depends on the lease negotiations with Mr. Whipp; that it seems odd with all of the public land the City has to attack the entity that gives the City substantial revenue; that the Sailing Squadron has an immediate benefit back to the taxpayers; that no revenue is received from Mote Marine Laboratory, but they do have benefits for the City which is a special interest benefit; that there are mixed feelings about turning Ken Thompson Park into a commercial free entity; that the City should not subsidize the capital improvements of a commercial park owner; that the value of the property needs to be investigated. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Ken Thompson Park is a beautiful and valuable piece of land; that this is a public/private partnership and if it stays, commercial revenues should be created on that property; that the idea of a park is also a good idea; that the statement "A point of contention that has been problematic for many years is the percentage of revenues method assessing the leasehold rent. Ever since a U.S. 41 sales office was opened, on Whitaker Bayou, it has made it difficult to determine what sales are generated on the leasehold versus the alternate in-town location"; that the City needs to be concerned regarding the sales generated from the U.S. 41 sales office; that she does not want the City to reduce the rent and allow Mr. Whipp to complete capital improvements that the City will end up purchasing back if the lease is not renewed. City Attorney Taylor stated that it is difficult to be able to monitor sales, as Gulfwind Marine is all over the west coast of Florida. Commissioner Pillot stated that $7,000.00 per month for the lease is not that much money; that there are commercial properties of substantial less land with value that are paying that amount for leasing; that unless the City is going to acquire more than $7,000.00 a month for leasing the land, the land will be more valuable as park land to the City. Mayor Patterson stated that a determination needs to be made on the value of the property at Ken Thompson Park; that there are commercial appraisers that deal with commercial marine land; that the appraisal should include the land only and not the improvements to the land by Gulfwind Marine, as they do not belong to the City. Book 36 Page 10652 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10653 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated the improvements do belong to the City as the improvements become City property at the expiration of the lease. Mayor Patterson stated that an investment of several thousand dollars will have to be made to get an appraisal. Mr. Sollenberger asked if there is a consensus of the Commission to have the Administration proceed cautiously, acquire an appraisal to determine the value and then go forward based on the results of the appraisal. Mayor Patterson stated that this is correct; that the value of the property should be an expected market rent for that piece of property. Commissioner Pillot stated that it would be courteous and fair to inform Mr. Whipp the nature of the Commission's discussion. 20. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: FISCAL YEAR "94" STORM DRAINAGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS APPROVED ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION AND AUTHORIZED SARASOTA COUNTY STORMWATER ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY (SEU) TO SEEK FUNDING FOR EUCLID CANAL PROJECT (AGENDA ITEM VIII-10) #4 (0471) through (0877) Mayor Patterson asked if any of the capital improvements for storm drainage come out of county funds? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City Commission is asked each year to make known their "wish list" for capital improvements so that projects can be considered by the county during its budget process. Rick Winters, Engineering Technician, and Jean P. Marchand, P.E., Manager, Stormwater Environmental Utility, for Sarasota County came before the Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Administration' recommendation is to "Continue funding approved Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) without further additions until Whitaker and Hudson Bayou Basin Master Plans are completed and approved". Mr. Winters stated that every year as part of the Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County, the City Commission must recommend to the Stormwater Advisory Board the stormwater capital improvement projects that the Commission wants to prioritize that year; that the Stormwater Advisory Board will make recommendations to the County Commission for projects to be included in the County's budget; that the County Commission budget meetings will be held next month. Commissioner Pillot asked if the City Commission says "no" to the Administration's recommendation, will the City be saying not to complete the Whitaker and Hudson Bayou projects? Mr. Winters stated that what the Commission is being asked to approve is to continue using revenues towards existing approved Capital Improvement projects. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation to continue funding existing approved CIP Projects without further additions, until the projects from the Whitaker and Hudson Bayou Basin Master Plans are completed. Mayor Patterson stated that she assumes that the motion includes other projects that are not part of the Whitaker and Hudson Bayou Master Plans; that there are projects not included in this motion which have funds connected to it. On Motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to amend the main motion to include the statement "Authorize the Sarasota County Stormwater Environmental Utility (SEU) to seek further funding for Euclid Canal Project in the Sarasota High School Area". Mayor Patterson asked the meaning of "Seek further funding"? Mr. Marchand stated that funding has been requested from the Manasota Basin Board, Division of Water Management, Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFMD) to help fund the Euclid Canal Project. Commissioner Pillot asked if the motion as amended represents the Administration's complete recommendation? Commissioner Cardamone stated that the motion includes (A) The stormwater revenues available for Capital Improvements in Fiscal Year 1994 to be used to provide further funding for the Capital Improvement Projects previously approved by the City Commission, and (B) Authorization to the SEU to seek further funding for Euclid Canal Project in the Sarasota High School Area. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to call the question. Motion carried (3 to 2) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. Mayor Patterson stated that the question was called on the amendment to the motion which is to add to the main motion the statement "Authorize the SEU to seek further funding for the Euclid Canal Project in the Sarasota High School Area". Motion carried Book 36 Page 10654 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10655 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the Commission can rearrange the priority of these programs and, if so, are there programs affecting neighborhoods about which the Commission is concerned that should be moved from FY 96 through 99 to FY 94/95? Mayor Patterson stated that the Whitaker Bayou Dredging Project is an area which is of concern to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the list of projects should be reviewed to determine if changes are necessary under the heading titled "Previously Prioritized" in the CIP. Mayor Patterson stated that projects have been prioritized by the Commission with input from both Commissioners and the staff. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to call the question. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Pillot, no; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson stated the motion as to approve the Administration's recommendation and to authorize the SEU to seek further funding for Euclid Canal Project in the Sarasota High School Area. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 21. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - (AGENDA ITEM X): #4 (0888) through (1135) VICE MAYOR MERRILL: A. stated that he met with a property owner from the North Trail area who was concerned about crime and Gordon Jolly, Chief of the Police Bureau; that Chief Jolly presented the property owner with the crime statistics for the area, and a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CEPTD) Study of the property in question; that he was impressed with Chief Jolly's professional presentation. B. asked the City Manager to review Brian Bishop's payment request on the Main Street project? MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that one palm tree has been missing on the south median on Orange Avenue for over a week and for several weeks there has been a saw horse with blinking orange lights at the street next to it that appears to be a water and sewer project, but it does not appear like anyone works on it. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the tree was knocked out in an accident on June 6 and another tree has been ordered and has not been received, but will be added as soon as it is delivered. Mayor Patterson stated that the traffic accident study does not indicate that there have been accidents near the median; that she is concerned with this particular median as it does not have much line of sight as vehicles approach the median. B. stated that she received a letter from Sandra Freedman, Mayor of Tampa, which was sent to all the cities involved with the League of Cities in the State of Florida; that the letter stated Tampa 's position on various gambling referendums which will be on the ballot at the next election; that the letter was to be put on this agenda to get the Commission's response on complying with Mayor Freedman's suggestion which was to pass a resolution in opposition to the gambling proposals; that since the agenda was so full it was not added, but needs to be addressed. Mayor Patterson stated that there will be alot of people gathering signatures at the School Board referendum next week and the Commission will not be meeting before then; that it is unsure as to the type of impact the Commission has, nor where the Commission stands, but the idea of gambling being enlarged in the State is a disastrous one; that other communities have not fared well when casinos or high intensity gambling is allowed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that since this is a resolution supporting a specific cause, a special meeting should be held prior to the Budget Workshops for this one item and a vote taken at that time. 22. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS - (AGENDA ITEM XI): #4 (1136) through (1156) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that on Wednesday, June 29, there will be a workshop on Adult Entertainment Facilities; that all previous citizens who have spoken to the Commission in prior meetings have been notified of this workshop and are welcome to come and hear the presentation, however, they will not be allowed to voice their opinion as it is Book 36 Page 10656 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10657 06/20/94 6:00 P.M. a workshop, but will be given the opportunity to speak when it becomes a public hearing. Mayor Patterson requested that City Manager Sollenberger and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson investigate the appropriateness of "Public Input" on the last day of the Budget Workshops as listed on the Budget Workshop agenda; that the Commission should be consistent and not allow public comment at the budget workshops. 23. ADJOURN #4 (1157) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the Regular meeting of June 20, 1994, at 11:04 p.m. Move Rllaion NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST: 3illy E Relnsan BILLY E/ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK