MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 6, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Fredd Atkins (arrived at 6:11 p.m.), 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 6:03 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. The City Commission recessed at 6:04 p.m. into the Regular Session of the Community Development Redevelopment Agency and reconvened as the City Commission at 6:32 p.m. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0984) through (1030) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove under Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. IIIA-4, 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., per the request of Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer B. Remove under Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. IIIA-5, Approval Re: North Trail Landscaped Median Project, per the request of City Manager Sollenberger C. Add to New Business, Item No. VIII-5, Approval Re: North Trail Landscaped Median Project, per the request of Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer Commissioner Pillot requested that the following item be added: Book 36 Page 10556 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10557 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. D. Remove under New Business, Item No VIII-2, Discussion Re: Pesticides, and reschedule the discussion for the next agenda, per the request of the Sarasota County Health Department. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, 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. Mayor Patterson stated that public hearings are advertised for 6:30 p.m. Since it was past that time, the Commission will proceed to public hearings. 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. 2. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3804, AMENDING CHAPTER 29.5, SITE IMPROVEMENTS, TO PROVIDE FOR DRAINAGE RE- QUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND INDIVIDUAL DUPLEXES; TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF FILL ONTO SUCH PROPERTIES; TO REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF FILL ONTO SUCH PROPERTIES; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR REWRITE (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1033) through (2478) William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed ordinance provides controls for drainage and fill requirements on new single- family and individual duplex lots; that controls on single-family and individual duplexes are not included in the Engineering Design Criteria Manual adopted by the City Commission which controls drainage on commercial properties; that this proposed ordinance was developed in consultation with the Engineering Department; that a cost and benefits examination was performed; that a property- owner's cost of complying with this proposed ordinance will range from $300 to $3,000 based on the individual lot; that the drainage benefits received by the property owner and surrounding properties far exceed the cost to the property owner. Commissioner Atkins asked what size dwelling could be built on a small 50 X 100 foot lot. Mr. Hewes stated that this proposed ordinance will not change the size of the home which can be built; that the normal setbacks would have to be maintained; that swales, gutters or other conveyances for water would have to be incorporated to prevent runoff onto adjacent properties. Commissioner Cardamone asked if a specific area of the City would be more affected by this change than another? Mr. Hewes stated that problems arise in various areas of the City annually; that it has been difficult to remedy these situations without an ordinance in effect. Commissioner Cardamone asked what was included in the $300 to $3,000 estimated property owner cost? Mr. Hewes stated that the cost includes designing and physically completing the work; that the $3,000 estimated cost will apply, for example, to a property which has a natural flow of drainage which needs to be piped off of the property; that this ordinance will require all newly constructed single-family homes to have swales, gutters or other conveyances. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if this ordinance will apply to additions? Mr. Hewes stated that additions were not included. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that this ordinance amends the existing City Code which already provides for an exemption of additions or modifications smaller than 1500 square feet. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the four-foot perimeter requirement for fill in this ordinance could create redevelopment problems if a hurricane or natural disaster situation occurs. Mr. Hewes stated that this prososed ordinance allows fill only to be brought onto the property to fill a depression, fill the section of the property where the house will be constructed, or use fill to cause water to flow away from the propertyi that the City is encouraging alternative options to bringing unnecessary fill onto newly constructed single-family properties; that problems are created when drainage control is not properly controlled. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that this proposed ordinance may impact many areas of District 3 in a negative way. Commissioner Atkins stated that his concern is for the smaller lots; that the City of Sarasota has affordable housing needs; that the additional cost generated by this proposed ordinance concerns him; and that he has not heard any complaints regarding this issue. Mr. Hewes stated that a major drainage problem was experienced with the Habitat for Humanity houses which were built in Commissioner Atkins' district; that the problems occur in all districts of the City. Book 36 Page 10558 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10559 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that an ordinance for this purpose should be developed to give the Building Department discretion to address only properties with a documented need for the requirement. Mr. Hewes stated that this proposed ordinance requires flat lots to have a small, unnoticeable swale, whereas it requires large homes with a lot of concrete to have larger swales; that the Building Department would work with the property owners to determine the required conveyance. Commissioner Pillot asked if the proposed ordinance provides for a zero requirement or is it a blanket requirement? Mr. Hewes stated that there would not be any zero requirements. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he is concerned with the blanket restrictions; that he supports the suggestion to develop an ordinance giving the Director of Building the discretion to address properties that need the requirements. Commissioner Cardamone asked how this proposed ordinance will affect the mega structures with patios, driveways, etc., being built on higher ground in the waterfront neighborhoods to meet Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA requirements? Mr. Hewes stated that this proposed ordinance will give the City the right to control those situations. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the problem areas can be identified and should be addressed at the time site and development plans are submitted; that adopting a blanket ordinance could cause additional burden and expense to lower-priced housing which may not be contributing to a drainage problem. Mayor Patterson stated that she has pushed for an ordinance to address the drainage problems in the waterfront areas where houses are required to be built up 10 or 12 feet by FEMA requirements; that adjacent property owners whose properties are damaged as a result of these FEMA requirements turn to the City for relief; that there is currently no City ordinance which addresses this situation. Mayor Patterson continued that the wording "to the greatest extent possible" as included in the proposed ordinance is speculative; that the County's ordinance specifies clearly in which instances their ordinance applies; that in the County's ordinance, a subject parcel is defined as a parcel of land "with a proposed change to the grading of the site that will produce a surface slope which exceeds one foot vertical rise in six feet horizontal distance within five feet of any property line." Mayor Patterson further stated that incorporating a clause similar to the County's subject parcel clause would limit the expense for more affordable homes and the homes that aren't under the gun of a FEMA regulation; however, it would also mandate that property owners control excess drainage. Mr. Hewes stated that the County's ordinance is more comprehensive and detailed, and would be more expensive on an individual lot basis; that improvements can be made to the City's proposed ordinance; that a subject parcel clause can be added; however, alternative criteria should be used. Commissioner Pillot asked if the proposed ordinance 1) gives the Building Department authority to protect the neighbors and general public, and 2) gives the City's Building Department the flexibility to apply common sense? Mr. Hewes stated that "to the greatest extent possible" was included to provide flexibility to act within reason to deal with various situations. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that members of the public do not want to rely on a Building official's common sense; that hard and fast rules are needed for public application prior to submitting plans to the Building official; that he supports incorporating a subject parcel approach into the City's proposed ordinance. Mayor Patterson stated that her interpretation of the County's ordinance was that the expense will affect only applicable properties; and asked why Mr. Hewes made the statement that the County's ordinance would be more expensive? Mr. Hewes stated that the County's ordinance requires that more work be completed on the qualifying properties. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City's proposed ordinance should be referred back to the Administration for a rewrite; that she is concerned with placing additional expense on individuals to build in the City of Sarasota. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Commission may want to continue the public hearing if changes will be made to the proposed ordinance. City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed ordinance should be referred back to the Administration and readvertised for public hearing if a substantial rewrite of the proposed ordinance is planned. Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. Book 36 Page 10560 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10561 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to refer Ordinance No. 94-3804 back to the Administration for a rewrite to incorporate the concerns expressed by the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 3. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 16, 1994, AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 26, 1994 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (2480) through (2500) 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 May 16, 1994, and minutes of the Special City Commission Meeting of May 26, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson asked whether the Commission was agreeable to move to Item 1 of Scheduled Presentations since there were numerous individuals signed up to speak regarding the Mission Harbor site. There was a consensus of the Commission to move Agenda Item V-1 forward to be addressed at this time. 4. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION RE: MISSION HARBOR = NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM V-1) #1 (2500) through #2 (3378) Vice Mayor Merrill stated that this presentation was not scheduled to express his view; that he placed this item on the agenda at the request of a group of individuals who wished to express their opinions together rather than during citizens' input. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the person making the presentation will be allowed seven minutes to speak; that additional speakers will be limited to five minutes each. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Board of County Commissioners, not the City Commission, has the authority to determine whether to use the Mission Harbor site for a library or economic development; that the City Commission passed a resolution requesting that the County make the Mission Harbor site available for economic development; that the Board of County Commissioners instructed the County Administrator to explore the issue and identify alternative sites for the library which was planned on the Mission Harbor site; that the County Administrator should be completed with this task shortly; that the decision on the Mission Harbor site rests with the Board of County Commissioners since the County owns the property. Commissioner Pillot stated that the only status the City Commission holds with regard to this issue is in expressing an opinion and/or request to the Board of County Commissioners. The following people came before the Commission: Joe Marconi, representing Nello's, 234 Sarasota Quay, and Sarasota retailers, distributed a copy of the proposed Mega Mall's Impact on Retail Sales (a copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) and stated that the purpose of the presentation is to apply retail sales numbers to the discussions regarding the proposed Courtelis shopping development; and that the existing businesses will be heavily impacted if a mega mall is constructed on the Mission Harbor site. Various slides were displayed on the overhead projector and Mr. Marconi stated the following: that 1994 projected retail sales of $135,337,000 for soft goods, footwear, and jewelry are based on total retail sales generated within a seven-mile radius of 10th Street and U.S. 41. that projected retail sales for the Courtelis mega mall are $75 million to $125 million based on information provided to the City of Sarasota's Finance Department by the Courtelis Company. that a national survey states that 70% of the retail sales for a regional shopping center are generated from within a seven-mile radius. Commissioner Pillot asked if the data applies to areas which are heavily dependent on tourist and other itinerant trade or other areas which are dependent on local trade? Mr. Marconi stated that itinerant trade was included; however, that the data is more heavily based on the time factor associated with the length of time an individual is likely to travel in order to shop in an area. that the mega mall will take 39% to 64% of Sarasota retailers projected retail sales. that Dave Denslow, Economic Professor, University of Florida, stated "A new mall will grow at the expense of existing business at first, but existing business should survive as well, based on growth prediction. I Mr. Marconi stated that Mr. Denslow stated "should" survive not "will" survive; that Mr. Denslow may not be comfortable with stating "should" if the retail sales numbers were reviewed. Book 36 Page 10562 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10563 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Marconi requested that a five-minute portion of a videotape exhibiting Steve Carr, Architectural and Environmental Designer, Harvard University, making a presentation at the March 5, 1994, Vision Plan meeting be viewed at this time for the benefit of the audience. Mayor Patterson stated that there was a consensus of the Commission to deny the request for videotape viewing; however, another individual signed up to speak would be allowed to use their 5 minutes to have the video shown, if so desired. Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Marconi to what the buttons stating "Build it Now" refer? Mr. Marconi replied that the buttons refer to the library planned for the Mission Harbor site. Harriet Oxman, 888 Boulevard of the Arts, read a prepared speech which expressed her reasons why the central library should be located on the Mission Harbor site. Ms. Oxman stated that the central library should be located near the central business district; that the library would provide various technical, administrative, business, and automated services under one roof and serve as the main hub of the library delivery system; that the library would bring many members of a diverse community together and add a cultural enhancement to the existing arts area. Roy Smith, 5149 Boca Raton Avenue, stated that he is representing Sarasota North Action Group (SNAG) i that SNAG supports redevelopment of the 93 acres of land encompassed within Fruitville Road, 10th Street, U.S. 41, and Orange Avenue, a/k/a Downtown North; that the Commission has publicly supported economic development on the Mission Harbor site, so he is confused why this item is on the agenda; that the Downtown North and the City of Sarasota tax base need the "mega bucks" that come from the type of economic development proposed by the Courtelis company. Mr. Smith presented the Commission with a copy of a petition signed by 198 petitioners which reads as follows: We the undersigned residents of Sarasota County and the City of Sarasota petition the Friends of the Library and the Sarasota County Library Advisory Board to build a new Central Library on the proposed Mission Harbor property. The high traffic and public safety problems that currently exist in that location will discourage area residents from using the new library to its maximum potential. This valuable piece of property has better utilization that will create tax revenues rather than a public facility that will not. Sonny Sears, 4121 Roberts Point Road, stated that he is a retailer and a native of Sarasota; that overdevelopment, commercial or residential, causes vacancies; that Sarasota County is at maximum retail space; that his business and many other businesses are struggling; that the proposed development would impact retailers regardless of its location; that Delray, Boca Raton, and Palm Beach were all viable areas, similar to Sarasota, which now have numerous strip centers with vacancies and malls that are emptyi that he requests his point be taken into consideration. Mayor Patterson recognized the Boys Scouts of America Troop 14 who entered the Commission Chambers at 7:45 p.m. William L. Carman, representing W.L. Carman & Sons and Carman Shoes, stated that his family is a land and business owner on St. Armands Key; and that his father formerly served on the Zoning Board, Board of Rules and Appeals, and City Commission. Mr. Carman read a letter written by his father which expressed opposition toward a regional shopping center development on the Mission Harbor site and stated that such development would negatively impact U.S. 41 traffic, the businesses located downtown and on St. Armands Circle, and the City of Sarasota tax base since the property values on St. Armands Key account for 3% of the entire tax roll. Barbara Cherry, representing North Trail Association, stated that her family has owned the Royal Palms Best Western Motel on North Tamiami Trail for 25 years; that support for the mega mall is not in conflict with the proposed libraryi that the Library Advisory Board decided that the Mission Harbor site was actually too large for the library; that the Mission Harbor site is a chance for economic development which is badly needed; that foreign tourists enjoy shopping at various malls; that the value of her family's property is decreasing because no economic development exists to draw people into the area; that a mega mall would attract more people to the area and enhance the hotel/motel, restaurant and theatre industries; that the Commission should continue supporting the issue. Philip M. Dasher, representing 888 Marina Suites, stated that many Commission decisions made in the last five years have caused negative impacts in the area; that many promises have gone unfulfilled; that major issues have not been addressed; that the increase in crime can be attributed to the attraction of new places in the Sarasota Quay; that the noise ordinance which went into effect in February 1994 is not being fully enforced; that the consequences of the change in density approved with the Ringling Towers properties are still unknown; that traffic conditions are cumbersome for 6th Street and Boulevard of the Arts travellers to access U.S. 41; and that adverse affects on residents from a mega mall should be taken into consideration. Book 36 Page 10564 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10565 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Myra Dasher, 926 Boulevard of the Arts, stated that she would donate her five minutes for the videotape viewing. A videotape of a portion of the presentation given by Steve Carr, Architectural and Environmental Designer, Harvard University, at the March 5, 1994, Vision Plan meeting was shown in the Commission Chambers in which the following was stated: "Don't rush in pell- mell to develop this area n and "It's much better and more organic if it (development) moves up there gradually rather than establish something here (Mission Harbor) that suddenly is going to draw all the growth out of downtown into this (Mission Harbor) area.' I Dea Grownow, 810 Central Avenue, stated that she was disturbed by the comments made at the March 5, 1994, Vision Plan meeting regarding the artisan live/work district. Ms. Grownow read a letter written by John O. Doggett, Creative Director and Founder of the CDOVA Foundation, (a copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk), which stated that a tax- producing entity should be developed on the Mission Harbor site; that the Downtown North has been ignored for years; that a policy of indecision has plagued the area for three decades; that the future of all Sarasota demands a decision; that a vote of yes should be cast for economic development and a future of progress with purpose. Zeta Hayes, representing Share a Neighbor Coalition, read a prepared speech which suggested various names for libraries on the Mission Harbor site and implications of what should be done with Alec Courtelis' proposal. Tom Maus, representing Maus & Hoffman, stated that his family owns a business and property on St. Armands Key; that Alec Courtelis and the Downtown North, and North Tamiami Trail may benefit from the proposed regional shopping center; that his family's business welcomes competition; however, many of the existing shopping areas can not handle such competition at this time; that Southgate Mall, Main Street, Sarasota Quay, and St. Armands Circle will suffer from construction of a regional shopping center. Mr. Maus referred to a show of approximately 25 hands in the audience who were retailers that opposed the proposed regional shopping center, but did not plan to speak. Robert Levy respresenting SNAG, and Tony Picciano, representing Triple A Auto Air, Inc., came before the Commission. Mr. Picciano read a prepared speech, (a copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) which expressed support for development of an upscale mall on the Mission Harbor site and stated that the development would provide various benefits including jobs, real estate tax revenue, sales tax revenue, savings in law enforcement dollars, attraction of hi-tech industry and tourism, and encouragement for future residential development, that placement of a library on the Mission Harbor site would subject young children to the existing crime element of the area; that the major highway frontage should be used for commercial development; and that the time for action is now. Mr. Levy stated that the majority of the supporters for the library are wealthy neighborhood patrons who like the aesthetic appeal of a central library on the Mission Harbor site; however, the majority of Sarasota citizens need jobs, reduced taxes, and elimination of crime, all of which an upscale mall proposal would instrumentally provide. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission has a lengthy agenda to address; that more than an hour has been spent on this item over which the Commission has no authority. Mayor Patterson requested the courtesy of the remaining speakers to state their opinions but to put forth only details which have not previously been expressed. Lorry Eible, 853 Siesta Key Circle, stated that she supports placement of a library and any other cultural development on the Mission Harbor site; that a mega mall would have a devastating affect on the local, resident shop owners; that visitors frequent Sarasota for the small, fun, personal boutiques and stores that make Sarasota special. Mayor Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 8:15 p.m. Fred Kellerman, 1265 Tree Bay Lane, stated that he is a member of the Merchants Association of Siesta Keyi that many of the members express the same negative view on the mega mall; that substantial investment has been made by The Downtown Association and the City of Sarasota to revive the downtown section of Sarasota; that this revival and other small businesses would be destroyed by a mega mall. Victor Calderon, representing V.M. Calderon Inc. and self, stated that many people have long-term investments in the area; that it is disconcerting to hear the Commission state that this issue is not a Commission decision; that citizens expect the Commission to make decisions for the good of all; that the Commission should fully support any immediate redevelopment on the north side of Sarasota. Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:18 p.m. Melissa Muench, 408 Cocoanut Avenue #5, stated that she is a 13- year old member of the National Junior Honor Society who resides with her family at Cocoanut Avenue and 4th Street. Ms. Muench read Book 36 Page 10566 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10567 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. a prepared speech, (a copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) which expressed support for library placement on the Mission Harbor site and stated that children, the world's future, need supplemental help outside of school; that support from City leaders for a library is needed; that education promotes good self esteem; that a library would provide a safe, alternative place for children to go in the afternoon rather than going to an empty home; that a mega mall could reverse the positive progress which has occurred in the Downtown North areas; and asked "Are sales and revenue more important than the minds which belong to the children of tomorrow? Carl Muench, 408 Cocoanut Avenue, stated that the Downtown North area is an arts and theatre area; that a library, not a mega mall, would support the arts and theatre interests; that the price that the City would have to pay on a business and individual level for a mega mall is much to high compared to the welfare and educational benefit gained by a library; that school children need help to help themselves attain higher grades; that the Commission promised the citizens a library not a mega mall on the Mission Harbor site; that a library should be delivered. Ellen Maloff, representing ReLEAF, stated that the quality of life in Sarasota should be preserved; that ReLEAF is a volunteer, non- profit organization; that an important part of the ReLEAF program addresses the protection of trees and educating the public on the benefits and importance of trees; that an environmental impact study should be conducted on the result of paving 30 acres of land; that the Mission Harbor site contains 284 trees; that the only known source of the oxygen that humans breathe is vegetation, i.e., trees; that the trees on the Mission Harbor site consume 7500 pounds of carbon dioxide per year; that on a percentage basis Florida is losing trees faster than the Amazon Rain Forest; that an acre of trees removes 13 tons of dust, gases, and pollutants from the surrounding atmosphere each year; that each tree transpires 88 gallons of naturally filtered water per day; that 26,840 pounds of moisture per day will be lost if the 284 trees on the Mission Harbor site are destroyed; that a 50% tree canopy reduces stormwater run off by 25%; that trees are an inexpensive solution to stormwater runoff. Ms. Maloff presented the Commission with a copy of an article on the potential cash value of urban greenery from the April 12, 1994, edition of the New York Times . Ms. Maloff stated that the Commission should honor the commitment made to place a library on the Mission Harbor site. Thomas Price, 1814 Caribbean Drive, stated that he supports placement of the library on the Mission Harbor site. Paul Thorpe, representing The Downtown Association, read the following statement from a letter which was sent to the Commission by The Downtown Association: As you all are well aware, The Downtown Association of Sarasota has gone on record stating that we did not feel that the Mission Harbor property was the best utilized for the library site when it was possible to have some other use that would be of economic development importance to the City and County. Mr. Thorpe stated that Steve Carr who was featured in the videotape did not state that the library was the best possible use for the Mission Harbor site; that figures have never been presented to support why the present Selby library is defunct after less than 25 years; that the Mission Harbor site should be included and studied as part of the Vision Plan. Dan Loebeck, 450 S. Shade Avenue, stated that he moved to the City of Sarasota in search of a better way of life; that an alternative site for the proposed Courtelis development would be back in Miami; that over redevelopment creates traffic and pollution; that taxes increase with intense development; that the proposed mega mall is half the size of the Sarasota Square Mall and four times the size of the previously proposed retail development on the site. Mr. Loebeck continued that the County Commission would restore the commitment made to develop a central library on the Mission Harbor site if the City Commission rescinded its motion which approved the resolution supporting retail development on the Mission Harbor site; that the City runs the chance of losing the central library because the County is considering alternate sites outside the City limits; that a mega mall on the Mission Harbor site will make U.S. 41 traffic a nightmare and redirect frustrated travellers through neighborhood streets; that the stormwater management which runs off of a development such as this will degrade Sarasota Bayi that the mega mall will be a magnet for crime which will increase police protection expenses; that the public and local business sectors are coming together to express opposition to a mega mall because it makes no sense; that a mega mall will change the entire character of Sarasota. Mr. Loebeck continued that the City Commission does have decision authority on this issue; that the project cannot occur without decisions made by the City Commission concerning rezoning issues, road improvements, and the use of eminent domain to purchase private properties for the development. Mr. Loebeck requested that the City Commission act for the people rather than the vested few and rescind the motion approving Resolution 94R-716 so that the Mission Harbor site can be used for a central library, a public interest use, and not a mega mall, a Book 36 Page 10568 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10569 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. use that will be destructive to the public in every conceivable way. Vice Mayor Merrill asked how this type of development would generate traffic? Mr. Loebeck stated that it does not generate traffic, it concentrates traffic; that currently shoppers are shopping in various retail locations; that people will be attracted to the mega mall to shop at one location and traffic will concentrate in that area. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the location is a central location with mass transit. Mr. Loebeck stated that people prefer the convenience of their automobiles. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the traffic conditions of other areas will be alleviated by the diversion of traffic; therefore, a mega mall should not generate congestion for the community. Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue, presented the Commission with a reference packet of information and stated that local retailers in Sarasota are struggling and a mega mall will add to this struggle; that the citizens of Sarasota should support the local retailers rather than bringing in 400,000 square feet of more retail space; that the Library Advisory Board confirmed their endorsement and the Selby Friends' endorsement of the Mission Harbor site as the best location for the new central library in a letter to the Board of County Commissioners dated March 9, 1994; that the zoning on the Mission Harbor site is residential; that residential zoning allows the library, not a mega mall; that construction of a mega mall would require numerous special exceptions; that the $449,000 allocated for redevelopment of Central Avenue has been placed on hold because of the proposed Courtelis development; that the library is a $12 million project which will create redevelopment in the neighborhood; that the mega mall requires 50 acres of land which will cause the neighborhood to be wiped out. Ms. Quillin stated that the following three things are respectrully requested of the Commission: 1. Rescind Resolution No. 94R-716 sent to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Mission Harbor property. 2. Direct the Administration to mend the burned bridges with the Library Advisory Board and keep the central library at Mission Harbor site which is in concert with the votes of both the Library Advisory Board and the Board of Commissoners. 3. Direct the Staff to work cooperatively with all in the Downtown North for redevelopment and a future. Wendy Taddio, 2514 Milmar Drive, stated that several people have waited to have an opportunity to express their opinions; that the Commission showed disrespect in asking those individuals to limit their statements; that the Commission often allows lengthy speeches by a Commissioner although citizens are awaiting to speak in the audience. Ms. Taddio continued that she has a struggling new business in Sarasota; that the mega mall will not generate new tax dollars; that the tax dollars will be diverted from one area to another; that the majority of the dollars generated will initially be spent to recover the City's costs expended to satisfy the developer's needs. Jim Ford, 2265 Clematis Street, stated that he is a City resident and the Growth Environmental Organization's President; that his concerns are with traffic congestion, environment and pollution of Sarasota Bay, success or failure of existing local business, and community values; that the Commission should rescind its resolution to the County, stop seeking commercial redevelopment on the Mission Harbor site, and build a library. Susan Olson, 218 Sarasota Quay, stated that her mother had a dream and opened Peggy's at the Sarasota Quay; that there are dreams and excitement along Main Street and Palm Avenue; that Sarasota is about dreams and personalized shopping; that this should not be taken away from Sarasota by a mega mall. Richard White, Joanne Heiland, and Jack Conway were signed up to speak, but did not come before the Commission. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson distributed two letters to the Commission and stated that the letters in opposition to the mega mall were received today from Ernest Babb and Ed Beasley. (A copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk). 5. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONSI PRESENTATION RE: GILLESPIE PARK PHASE II REDEVELOPMENT = REFERRED THE LIST OF REQUESTED ACTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR EXAMINATION (AGENDA ITEM V- 2) #2 (3339) through #3 (1227) David Steiling, President, and Linda Holland, Vice President, representing the Gillespie Park Association, came before the Commission and presented a Requested Action to Implement the Priorities Identified by the Neighborhood Association. (A copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk). Mr. Steiling stated that Phase I of the cooperative effort between the City, the County, the Community Housing Corporation and the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA) to redevelop Book 36 Page 10570 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10571 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Gillespie Park has reached a close, and the GPNA would like to initiate Phase II. Mr. Steiling stated that the GPNA's major concern is with the fast travelling and commercial traffic transversing 10th Street between Orange Avenue and U.S. 301; that the section of the street adjacent to the park should be closed with the resulting space reincorporated into the park. Mr. Steiling stated that the following Phase II requests pertain directly to the City: 1. the City begin working with the neighborhood on a phased closure of Tenth Street between Osprey and Gillespie Avenues and the development of a neighborhood traffic abatement plan to focus on 6th, 7th, and 10th Streets. Mr. Steiling stated that the neighborhood association will file relevant petitions for traffic abatement on the affected streets; and that alternatives for the traffic currently using 10th Street as a connector between U.S. 41 and U.S. 301 should be explored. 2. the City consider the construction of an architecturally appropriate police ubstation/community center using Law Enforcement Trust Funds and to be located in an appropriate area around or within the park. 3. the City to work with the neighborhood to develop an environmental study of the park pond to provide for a reconstruction of its natural resources. Mr. Steiling stated that grant funding for this project may be available. 4. the City to work with the neighborhood and the County to help create a permanent Summer Recreation Program for the Gillespie Park Neighborhood. 5. the City create an incentive program that would encourage City employees to purchase homes in the City's urban neighborhoods. 6. the City to establish a program to allow police officers who live in the City to bring police cruisers home at night to broaden police visibility in City neighborhoods. Ms. Holland stated that the GNPA has set these goals and priorities; that discussions have been held with Gordon Jolly, Chief of Public Safety Police Services Bureau, regarding the ubstation/community center and additional information will be presented to the Commission on the issue in the future. Mr. Steiling stated that the broader, holistic approach used in the redevelopment of Gillespie Park neighborhood has worked; that the City's funding for the improvements in the park was well spent; and that the sidewalk construction and repair in the neighborhood with an emphasis on movement to and from the park has created a positive difference. Commissioner Pillot stated that request 1 may be the most difficult; that requests 2, 3, and 4 cannot be negated by the Commission since they ask for the City to consider and work with the GPNA. Commissioner Pillot continued that the City did have an incentive program for Police Officers to purchase homes in city neighborhoods; however, there were no takers. Commissioner Pillot stated that request 6 should be implemented immediately. Mayor Patterson asked City Manager Sollenberger if the City currently allows police officers to bring police cruisers home nightly? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the policy could be implemented administratively if it is not currently in effect. Mayor Patterson stated that there was consensus of the Commission to have the Administration establish a program to allow police officers who live in the City to bring police cruisers home at night. On motion of Commissioner Pillot it was moved to endorse and refer to the Administration request items 2, 3, 4, and 6 for a report back to the Commission. Motion died for lack of second. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he has concerns with request 2 and the benefit of having the community building associated with the police when the park is only 1.5 miles away from the main Police station; however, he will support the item for consideration; that the GPNA has the right to petition for request 1; that he has advocated request 5 in the past; that he supports reviewing and considering all of the requests. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to support the requested actions by the GPNA and refer the requested action plan to the Administration. Commissioner Cardamone stated that request 1 is an important part of the Gillespie Park redevelopment; that the City needs to protect the neighborhood and the investment made in the park. Book 36 Page 10572 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10573 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that 10th Street is one of the only through streets which enables traffic to transverse between U.S. 41 and U.S. 301; that the Commission does not plan to revisit widening 10th Street; but she will not support closing 10th Street unless other major traffic adjustments are made to the north segment of town; that she can support traffic abatement on 6th and 7th Streets; that she is opposed to closing streets in principle. Mayor Patterson continued that the Commission needs a report on request 2; that a police substation currently exists in that area which should be used as a concentric area from which the area police operations should radiate; that the expense of building a community center is not her concern, the cost of staffing it is; that a County decision on staffing would be necessary before a decision could be made. Mayor Patterson further stated that the County is preparing for its budget; that the Administration should request that Walter J. Rothenbach, Director of Sarasota County Parks and Recreation come before the Commission to address the possibilities of including a Summer Recreation or after school program at Gillespie Park; that Law Enforcement Trust Funds may be applicable for such a project. Mayor Patterson further stated in reference to request 5 that the Administration should survey police officers to find out what would entice them to move into the City neighborhoods. Commissioner Pillot stated that he interpreted the motion as to include a report back from the Administration on the request at which time the Commission would set policies; that he agrees with Mayor Patterson's comments on 10th Street; and that request 5 includes all city employees, not just police officers; that he supports encouraging city employees to live within the City limits if the budget permits such an incentive. Mr. Steiling stated that he expects there would be a number of alternatives which would be applied prior to a vacation on 10th Street; however, the problem of what 10th Street is needs to be examined; that any type of development on the Mission Harbor site will negatively impact the Gillespie Park neighborhood portion of 10th Street; that the long-term problem of increased traffic on 10th Street must be addressed in some fashion. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the fast travelling and commercial traffic should be diverted to Fruitville Road; that a feasibility study should be performed on the various alternatives available to accomplish this. Mayor Patterson stated that she will not support a feasibility study of something that is clearly shown on a map; that 10th Street is the only through access street for U.S. 41 to U.S. 301 between Fruitville Road and Myrtle Street. Mr. Steiling stated that the City could develop another 10th Street using the City's right of way north of the area. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to refer the GPNA requested action plan to the Administration for examination. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the use of former school portable units should be investigated for the initial community center building. Commissioner Atkins stated that he does not support using portables for a community facility; that he voted to support consideration of the requests although he is not fully in support of some of them; that the requests should be reviewed individually once a report is received from the Administration; that consideration should be given to modifying the currently existing substation in the area to provide a meeting room and community center. Mayor Patterson stated that there was a consensus of the Commission to hear Citizens' Input at this time. 6. CITIZENS' INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (1229) through (1418) Ed Harding, 1212 Ben Franklin Drive #306, came before the Commission, and stated that he had the following questions: 1. What are the minimum and maximum dates that demolition will occur on the Three Crowns property? 2. What is the likelihood of a lawsuit that would delay demolition? City Attorney Taylor stated that the demolition process is on hold because of an administrative appeal which has been filed and is scheduled to be heard on June 16, 1994; that the decision from that hearing can be appealed to the Circuit Court; that Circuit Court proceedings take approximately six to nine months; that an appeal could then be made to the District Court in Lakeland; that the entire process could potentially last 1.5 to 2 years. Mr. Harding asked if a bond has been received by the property owners? City Manager Sollenberger stated no. Mayor Patterson stated that a planned scheduled has been received, but the Commission has not interrupted the process. Mr. Harding stated that the noise coming from the south side of the Lido Beach Club is very disturbing on Saturday and Sunday Book 36 Page 10574 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10575 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. afternoons; and asked if anything could be done to control the noise level? Mayor Patterson stated that this is not the first complaint received on the noise level at the Lido Beach Club; and asked Mr. Sollenberger if it could be addressed. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the police department can address the situation under the noise ordinance if they are notified; however, in order to enforce the noise ordinance the officer must hear the sound and make a judgement on whether it is considered loud. Mr. Harding stated that he previously approached the Commission and proposed a consolidation study; that Commissioner Atkins had stated that the information requested was public record; that he paid the City $126 and the County $56 for that public information; that he received less information from the City, but paid a higher cost; that he feels the City is overcharging citizens by assessing a labor cost in addition to 15 cents per copy. Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission was agreeable to move to Item 4 of Unfinished Business since there was a citizen signed up to speak on that item. There was a consensus of the Commission to move Agenda Item VII-4 forward to be addressed at this time. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH PIERCE GOODWIN ALEXANDER & LINVILLE, ANNA MARIA, FLORIDA, TO PERFORM THE FACILITY AND THEATRICAL STUDY FOR THE VAN WEZEL PERFORMING ARTS HALL = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #3 (1429) through (1717) Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, and Alexandra Jupin, Director of Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall, and George Dietz, Chairman of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall Advisory Board, came before the Commission. Mr. Gerkin stated that a request for proposal (RFP) was issued to obtain a consultant to provide architectural services for a facility and theatrical evaluation of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) i that a selection evaluation committee was comprised to review the eight submittals received; that four firms were selected to present oral presentations May 16 and 17, 1994; that based on the evaluation criteria, outstanding credentials, and qualifications presented during oral presentations, the committee recommended that Pierce Goodwin Alexander & Linville of Anna Maria, Florida, be selected as the consultant. Mr. Gerkin stated that the committee recommended that the Administration be authorized to negotiate a professional services contract with Pierce Goodwin Alexander & Linville to provide the services described in the RFP; and that the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk be authorized to execute same. City Manager Sollenberger stated that this study was an important factor of VWPAH's long-range plan; that funding assistance has not been determined; that the fund balance of VWPAH or the capital improvements surcharge fund have been recommended as funding sources; that the Administration recommends using the fund balance of the VWPAH as the source. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to authorize the Administration to negotiate a professional services contract with Pierce, Goodwin, Alexander, & Linville to perform the facility and theatrical study for the VWPAH and to authorize the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute same. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is glad that the weighted process was used to determine a local consultant. Mayor Patterson stated that correspondence has been received concerning the architectural design of the VWPAH being preserved; that the RFP emphasized that the shell of the VWPAH and its architectural design would not be disturbed. Mr. Dietz stated that preserving the architectural design of the VWPAH was foremost on the minds of the selection committee. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 8. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS - APPROVED THE WORK PLAN; AUTHORIZED PROCBEDING WITH THE SELECTION PROCESS OF CONSULTANT SERVICES AND ADVERTISING FOR ONE SENIOR PLANNER AND ONE SENIOR ZONING ANALYST LIMITED TO THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #3 (1759) through (3565) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and displayed various slides on the overhead projector. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he will present ways to finance this project at the upcoming budget sessions by utilizing the fund balance; that this expenditure will be a non-recurring expenditure, one that is isolated in time and not repeated; that the need for the update will be presented at this time so that the Book 36 Page 10576 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10577 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. discussion will not have to be held during the budgetary process. Ms. Robinson stated that a project has been planned for several years and is necessary to 1) update the City's 20 year old Zoning Code, 2) review the Engineering Design Criteria Manual, City Code, Building Code, and Zoning Code for redundancy and to eliminate conflict over land development regulation issues, and 3) unify all the land development regulations into a single user-friendly document. Ms. Robinson stated that many changes have occurred in residential neighborhoods and commercial areas since 1974 which call for different zoning techniques; that the Zoning Code has been amended 241 times since 1974; that the amount of amendments over the past two years has increased substantially; that a decrease in amendments is not anticipated. Ms. Robinson stated that recurring issues and problems which have been associated with the City's land development regulations can be addressed by the proposed project; that 16 major issues have been identified for review; that no rezonings will result as a part of this process. Mr. Taylor stated that the project is proposed as a comprehensive update and overhaul of the land development regulations; that the process will include input from all stakeholders, i.e, citizens, staff, and the City Commission anyone who is affected by or uses the Zoning Code; that an Internal Management Team is proposed to comprise representatives from all affected departments in the city; that professional services will be used to provide expertise not currently available in-house; that regular communication with the stockholders is imperative; that the City Commission will be requested to make decisions at key stages of the update; that six tasks and an 18 to 24 month tentative schedule have been defined. Mr. Taylor presented the following estimated cost of the project: $150,000.00 Professional Services (maximum) 39,219.00 Senior Planner Position (FY 94-95) 39,219.00 Senior Planner Position (FY 95-96) 39,219.00 Senior Zoning Analyst Position (FY 94-95) 39,219.00 Senior Zoning Analyst Position (FY 95-96) 20,000.00 City Attorney Time (FY 94-95) 20,000.00 City Attorney Time (FY 95-96) 15,000.00 Production Costs for Codification and Printing 5,000.00 Advertising/Postage (FY 94-95) 5,000.00 Advertising/Postage (FY 95-96) 5,000.00 Duplicating (FY 94-95) 5,000.00 Duplicating (FY 95-96) 1,757.00 Clerical Overtime (FY 94-95) 1,757.00 Clerical Overtime (FY 95-96) $385,390.00 Total Estimated Cost Mr. Taylor stated that the professional services could consist of a consultant, a land-use planning firm, a legal firm with engineering and land-use background, and a facilitator to assist at public workshops and various meetings; that the existing City staff is currently over-utilized and two new positions would be required for the duration of the project; that City Attorney's office would have to expend time to be in a position to assist at meetings; that the remaining costs are for production. Mr. Taylor continued that $159,685 in funding is available as follows: $ 51,685.00 State grant received to update the LDRS 20,000.00 Vision Plan funds for implementation 30,000.00 FY 92-93 Planning budget carry-over 20,000.00 FY 93-94 Planning budget for special services 13,000.00 FY 94-95 Planning budget for special services 10,000.00 FY 95-96 Planning budget for special services 5,000.00 FY 93-94 City Clerk budget for codification 5,000.00 FY 94-95 City Clerk budget for codification 5,000.00 FY 95-96 City Clerk budget for codification $159,685.00 Total Available Mr. Taylor stated that a total of $225,705 in funding program over two years is being requested. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the two years of work would be funded based on a one-time budgetary presentation and appropriation. Ms. Robinson stated that it is estimated that the 4000 hours, of staff time, approximately $96,000, which has been expended annually on code amendments should be reduced by 50% after completion of this comprehensive update; that code amendments will still be necessary due to State mandates, etc., however, a $48,000 annual cost savings is anticipated. Commissioner Cardamone asked what expense the City has incurred through the City Attorney's office in regard to the continuous code amendments? City Attorney Taylor stated that he will present the exact figures during the budget sessions; however, a savings of approximately $1,500 per month should be experienced. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that ideas and development change; that incorporating future ideas into a comprehensive update would be difficult; that issues will surface and a future increase in Book 36 Page 10578 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10579 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. amendments will be necessaryi; that he does not see the potential for savings. City Attorney Taylor stated that consultants would be hired to rewrite the comprehensive regulations and many of the problems caused by the addition of previous amendments would be eliminated; that the savings would not compensate the cost for the service; however, a substantial savings in legal fees would be experienced over the next couple of years. Virginia Haley, representing the City Coalition of Neighborhood Associations, came before the Commission and stated that neighborhood groups are trustrated with the inaccessibility of the City codes; that the inconsistencies are very confusing and difficult for neighborhood associations to understand; that owners with older non-conforming garages abandon renovation and allow their properties to become run down because of the substantial investment necessary to overcome the bureaucracy to complete the renovations. Ms. Haley continued that the Coalition met last week and voted unanimously to request that the Commission make this real investment in the City's future and the future of City neighborhoods. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to 1) approve the work plan as outlined in the May 25, 1994, memorandum from Mike Taylor, and 2) authorize staff to proceed immediately with the selection process of consultant services and advertising for one Senior Planner and one Senior Zoning analyst position limited to the duration of this project. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that changes made in the Zoning Code to encourage various types of development in the City have not worked; that Zoning Codes are developed to restrict inappropriate behavior; that his argument against this project is that new ideas constantly arise and changes for which amendments will be necessaryi that the $385,390 expenditure should be voted on during the budget sessions; that he does not support allocating these funds. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to 1) approve the work plan as outline in May 25, 1994, memorandum from Mike Taylor, and 2) Authorize staff to proceed immediately with the selection process of consultant services and advertising for one Senior Planner and one Senior Zoning analyst position limited to the duration of this project. Mayor Patterson asked for clarification of the Administration's recommendation notation "Final approval would be subject to FY 1994-95 budget being approved." Mr. Sollenberger stated that no commitments would be made to a consultant or to staff until the budget process is completed; that the process for selection of the consultant and staff hiring is lengthy; that the selection process would not commence until the Commission made a determination on whether to include the item as part of the FY 94-95 budget. Mayor Patterson stated that staff time should not be expended on preparing a request for proposal until after the budget workshop process is complete. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated for the record that a letter was received by him today from Ernest Babb regarding this item. Mayor Patterson stated that she was impressed with the format of the Code received by the Planning Department from San Bernardino, California; that review of that easy-to-read format made her more supportive of the proposed project. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to approve the Administration's recommendation. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 9. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, AND 8 APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A-1, -2, -3, -6, -7, -8) #3 (3566) through #4 (0050) Mayor Patterson stated that Item Nos. 4 and 5 were removed in the Changes to the Orders of the Day. 1. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3798, amending Chapter 30, Sarasota City Code, to delete therefrom certain designated interstate highway connectors; to add, alphabetize, and modify certain designated interstate highway connectors to include both streets names and route identification numbers; making findings as to need; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. 2. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3799, amending Chapter 30, Sarasota City Code, to alphabetize and modify thereto the names of certain minor arterial streets; making findings as to need; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. 3. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3800, amending Chapter 30, Sarasota City Code, to delete therefrom certain designated major arterial streets and by adding, modifying, and alphabetizing certain designated major arterial streets; making findings as to need; Book 36 Page 10580 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10581 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Professional Services Contract with Burton & Associates, (R.F.P. #94-80) to provide consulting services relative to automated utility/solid waste billing system evaluation 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to M.L. Boyer Construction, Inc., Bradenton, Florida, (R.F.P. #94-79) for the construction of curb, sidewalk and shore restoration at Indian Beach 8. Approval Re: Acquisition of property located at 1641 8th Street On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 10. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2 - ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-720) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-738) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3782) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3793) - ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3801) = ADOPTED; AND ITEM 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3802) - ADOPTED; (AGENDA ITEM III-B-1,-2,-3,-4,-5,-6) #4 (0050) through (0160) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 94R-738 in its entirety and proposed Resolution No. 94R-720 and Ordinance Nos. 94-3782, 94-3793, 94-3801, and 94-3802 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-720, 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) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-738, ap- propriating $10,000 from the Unreserved General Fund Balance to pay the Police overtime costs and the Public Works and Solid Waste charges involved with the July 4, 1994 Suncoast Offshore Grand-Prix celebration; etc. 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3782, amending the procedures for processing proposed amendments to the Local Government Comprehensive Plan, as set forth herein; making findings as to need; amending the regulations pertaining to said amendment procedure; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3793, to rezone from ILW Zone District to CI Zone District the following described property: Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, less Right-of-Way, Block B, second addition to Roseland Park as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 99, of the Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 94-CO-04, Middleton) 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3801, amending the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; adopting by reference a Small Scale Development Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designated: 94-PA-01, as more particularly described herein; stating various findings of fact concerning the preparation and adoption of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 94-PA-01, Boston Chicken) 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3802, amending the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; adopting by reference a Small Scale Development Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designated: 94-PA-02, as more particularly described herein; stating various findings of fact concerning the preparation and adoption of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 94-PA-02, Evangelical Free Church of Sarasota) On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 6 inclusive. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried Book 36 Page 10582 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10583 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 11. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION: PRESENTATION RE: PROPOSED LITTLE FIVE POINTS PARK CONCEPT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET - APPROVED THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET; AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS (AGENDA ITEM V-3) #2 (0165) through (0732) Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, and David Johnston, Landscape Architect, came before the Commission and displayed the conceptual plan of Little Five Points Park. Mr. Mountain stated that the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Board recommends Commission approval of the conceptual plan. Mr. Johnston stated that the park is proposed at the intersection of Orange and Pineapple Avenues; that a civil engineer has been engaged to assist in the reconstruction of the underground drainage to resolve the drainage problems at the location. Mr. Johnston continued that the park is proposed as a central focal point with a water fountain and sculpture surrounded by landscaping, a brick paver patio, and antique lamp posts; that a City-owned water sculpture depicting two boys and a fish which is currently in storage is proposed as the sculpture for the fountain; that the paver brick area could serve as an outdoor dining area; that a raised median with low shrubs, groundcovers less than 30", and tall palms is proposed on Orange Avenue between the Orange/Pineapple Avenue intersection and Oak Street for safer traffic control; that lighting, benches, pedestrian cross walks, raised curbing, and street trees with low massed shrubs and accent plants are also proposed around the park area. Commissioner Pillot asked if the City would be providing the furniture for the outdoor dining on the brick paver patio? Mr. Johnston stated that the business owner will be responsible for providing furniture if an outdoor dining capability is desired; however, benches for the park have been included in the budget proposal. Commissioner Pillot asked why the sidewalks north of the area toward Kentucky Lane have not been repaired? Mr. Mountain stated that one of the business owners south of Oak Street has requested that those sidewalks be left in tact; that the property owner feels that the existing sidewalk adds architectural value to their property; that the existing sidewalk which is dangerous or would inhibit foot traffic will be repaired. Commissioner Pillot stated that he has received inquiries from the business owners located between Oak Street and Kentucky Lane regarding a scheduled date of completion for the sidewalk repairs. Mr. Mountain stated that sidewalk repairs in the area are scheduled for completion by the end of July. Commissioner Cardamone asked if any type of low railing around the park was planned for safety? Mr. Johnston stated that no railing is proposed around the park; that four 36" to 42" posts are proposed on the handicap ramps to prevent vehicle intrusion. Commissioner Pillot asked how the fountain water would be maintained? Mr. Johnston stated that painting the bottom of the fountain black and using water lilies has been discussed as a low maintenance alternative. Commissioner Pillot stated that the newspaper's art critic should be notified that the proposed water sculpture is one that is City- owned and was displayed previously for many years in the City of Sarasota. Mr. Mountain stated that the Public Art Committee has approved the use of the City-owned sculpture; and that he has been unable to reach the art critic who has already attempted to contact him. Commissioner Cardamone requested that a plaque be placed at the base of the fountain denoting the age and history of the sculpture. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the conceptual plan of Little Five Points Park and authorize the Administration to proceed with preparation of plan and specifications. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: SUPPORT RE: PROPOSED SARASOTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY RATE STRUCTURE ORDINANCE - (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #4 (0750) through (1324) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer; J. P. Marchand, Sarasota County Stormwater Environmental Utility; and T. Duncan Rose, III, of Dyer, Riddle, Mille & Recourt, Inc., came before the Commission and presented the Commission with Stormwater Book 36 Page 10584 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10585 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Environmental Utility Rate Structure Review packets. (A copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk). Vice Mayor Merrill stated that a thorough presentation is included in the Agenda packets. Mr. Daughters stated that the proposed County ordinance included in the Agenda packets is based on the content and formatting of the proposed rate structures as presented to the Commission at the March 14, 1994, workshop; that the County representatives are prepared to make a presentation if the Commission sO desires. Commissioner Pillot asked if any major, substantive changes have been made to the rate structure since the workshop? Mr. Marchand stated that there are no substantive changes; however, numbers have been applied to the proposed rate structures. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to support the proposed Sarasota County Environmental Utility Rate Structure ordinance. Commissioner Cardamone asked City Manager Sollenberger for comment on the letter sent to the Sarasota County Administrator on May 25, 1994. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Commission had expressed concern at the March 14, 1994, workshop with having only three tiers for rate structure classification of lots; that this concern was not conveyed to the County Commission during their recent presentation on the rate structures; therefore, a letter was written to the County Administrator requesting that the City Commission's concerns be brought to the attention of the County Commission. Mayor Patterson stated that she was not pleased that the City Commission's concern was not mentioned when the drainage utility rate structure was presented to the County Commission; and that no discussion on the three-tier approach for single-family residential properties was initiated by the County Commission. Mayor Patterson asked if the $29.00, $32.62, and $52.96 rates reflected in the operating costs section of the proposed revised rate structure represent the actual rates that the citizens within the maintenance area will pay for the next fiscal year? Mr. Marchand stated that the proposed County ordinance authorizes the establishment of the stormwater utility; that it does not set rates or set up the method for calculating the rates; that a rate resolution will be prepared for adoption of rates; that the County Commission will be requested to adopt the ordinance and an initial rate resolution at a public hearing on July 12, 1994; that the final rates will not be set until September; and that approval of the rates as presented is anticipated. Mayor Patterson asked what budgetary impacts this revised rate structure would have on the City. Mr. Marchand stated that there would be no impacts to the City's budget for FY 94/95; that the data is not available to add more tiers to the single-family category or to include any assessment on public property; that these issues will be addressed further for FY 95/96. Mr. Rose stated that the proposal contains two components: the operating costs and the capital improvements cost; that the County's proposed budget does not include the capital assessment for FY 94/95; therefore, the operating costs represent an estimate of what the fees will be in September; that additional rate increases incorporating the capital improvement charges will be included in FY 95/95. Mr. Rose continued that the City Commission's concerns and interests were discussed individually with the County Commissioners; that the initial reaction of the County Commission was to initiate a three-tier approach and revisit the tier issue next year. Mayor Patterson and Commissioner Pillot reiterated their concern that additional tiers be included in the rate structure for future fiscal years. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to support the proposed Sarasota County Environmental Utility Rate Structure ordinance. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO CITY COMMISSION CANDIDATE ELECTION PROCESS - APPROVED TO SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE TO PLACE ON THE BALLOT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO HAVE THE AT- LARGE AND THE DISTRICT COMMISSION SEATS DECIDED BY MAJORITY RATHER THAN PLURALITY VOTE (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #4 (1400) through (2987) City Attorney Taylor stated that two draft ordinances are being presented to the Commission; that the first proposes a City Charter amendment changing the voting requirement for all five seats on the City Commission to a majority vote requirement and the second proposes a City Charter amendment applying only to the two at-large seats; that it was the direction of the City Commission to bring back ordinances which pose both questions. City Attorney Taylor continued that Joanne Koester, Supervisor of Elections, does not like presenting the question in a multiple-choice format; that Ms. Book 36 Page 10586 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10587 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Koester has reviewed the two proposed ordinances and considers them acceptable. Mayor Patterson asked if two questions could be on the ballot: 1) approve or disapprove that the voting requirement should be changed from plurality to majority voting for the district seats; and 2) approve or disapprove that the voting requirement should be changed from plurality to majority voting for the at-large seats? Mayor Patterson stated that these two questions address both issues; that the voters have the option of doing one or the other or both and the question is not in a multiple-choice format. City Attorney Taylor stated that he believes these two questions would be acceptable; that Ms. Koester had proposed a third alternative which is to pose the question of preserving the status quo; that the two questions suggested by Mayor Patterson considers that option because the voters could disapprove both questions, thus preserving the status quo. Commissioner Pillot stated that the consultant's report regarding this issue presented various options; that the consultant made recommendations as to the best course of action which was supported by various court orders and other good and sufficient reasons; that the consultant's recommendation was to consider changing only the voting requirements for the two at-large seats and nothing else. Mayor Patterson stated that the consultant indicated that changing the voting requirements for only the two at-large seats is the most supportable. City Attorney Taylor stated that the consultant also indicated that the weaker option is to change the voting requirements for all five seats. Commissioner Pillot stated that he supports the option to change the requirements for just the two at-large seats. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission could vote on the items individually right now if the Commission does what she is suggesting; that the Commission could first address the at-large seats by putting a motion on the table. Commissioner Pillot stated that he is thinking of the voters at the voting booth; that if the Commission supports changing the voting requirements to majority vote only for the two at-large seats and continuing to allow a plurality vote for the district seats, the issue should be placed on the ballot in precisely that fashion; that the voters would then know exactly what is happening when they vote. Mayor Patterson stated that Commissioner Pillot is correct if that is the will of the Commission; that two votes were taken when the consultant made his report: 1) to support changing the voting requirements for the at-large seats, and 2) to make the same change on the district seats; that both motions passed although the votes could be rescinded; that the Commission directed the City Attorney to prepare both ballot items; that the Commission supported changing the voting requirements for the at-large as well as the district seats and, therefore, she suggests addressing the two issues one at a time. Mayor Patterson asked City Attorney Taylor if the questions can be put separately before the public if that is what the Commission supports? City Attorney Taylor stated that the wording proposed by Mayor Patterson makes a great deal of sense; that in all probability Ms. Koester would not have a problem with the ballot question as proposed. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to put on the ballot the question of changing only the two at-large seats from plurality to majority voting. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the public would be confused if two different questions concerning voting requirements are placed on the ballot and most people will not know the difference; that most of the public will be for majority voting for all seats or none; that it will not be an issue on which the public will focus a great deal of attention; that the issue of elected officials being elected by a voting majority is a fundamental value most people hold; that there is extra expense to the City and to the candidate to elect district representatives with a primary; that there is a distinct problem in the at-large election because there are multiple candidates running against each other for two (2) seats and the field is much more divided; that the Commissioners know these issues but the public will not research and understand them in the depth the Commissioners do; that there is a very real chance of winning with less than the majority vote in the at-large elections and less of a chance for the district seats; that changing the voting requirements is an unnecessary expense to impose on the district representatives. Commissioner Cardamone stated that everyone elected to office in America should be elected by a majority of the voters; that there should be no difterentiation between the district and at-large seats nor should expense be a factor; that the expense is probably greater in the at-large than the district campaigns; that expense is not the issue but rather the fact of being elected by a majority vote; that she yielded during the last discussion on the fact that the at-large candidates should run for a specific seat, but she is firm in her belief that all elections should be decided by majority Book 36 Page 10588 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10589 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. vote and will not give up the argument that all Commissioners should be elected by majority vote. Mayor Patterson stated that she agrees with Commissioner Cardamone; that there is a possibility of a number of candidates running in a district race and a person being elected with a very small percentage of the vote. Commissioner Pillot stated that the proposed ordinance implies that the at-large candidate is qualifying for a particular seat rather than for a specific seat; that if the Commission does not want candidates running for a particular seat, there will have to be a change in the wording to specify that the top number of candidates, whatever that number may be, would go into a runoff election. Mayor Patterson stated that the definition of what constitutes the majority of the at-large vote will have to be determined because the candidates are not running for individual seats. City Attorney Taylor stated that the language referencing a designated seat is currently in the City Code; that the seats are referenced as designated, I i.e., they are designated as "at-large" seats; that the language in the ordinance will be changed to "two designated seats". Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he will vote to have one issue on the ballot. Commissioner Pillot stated that the result of the motion will be to retain the current voting requirements of plurality vote for the three district seats. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to prepare an ordinance for public hearing that would place on the ballot a question which addresses only at-large seats and specifies that only the at-large seats will be determined by majority vote; that if this motion passes, the voting requirements for the at-large seats would be the only issue on the ballot. Motion failed (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, no; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to place one question on the ballot to change the voting requirements to majority vote for the at-large and the district seats. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the public will vote "yes" for any question on the ballot to have majority vote; that this is one of the fundamental values and one question should be on the ballot for simplicity. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the ballot language would be "Do you approve of all City Commissioners being elected by a majority vote?" City Attorney Taylor stated that the question could be phrased as "50% plus 1" rather than "majority" in order to make the question as clear as possible. Commissioner Pillot asked if the consultant commented that this could run afoul of the courts? City Attorney Taylor stated that the view of the consultant was that changing the voting requirements for the district seats would weaken the City's position; that the consultant did not absolutely turn "thumbs down" on the question but stated that changing the voting requirements for district seats was not part of his main recommendation. City Attorney Taylor continued that his opinion is that to pose the question in this way makes the action more susceptible to challenge than only changing the requirements for the at-large seats. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with Commissioner Cardamone that everyone elected to public office should be elected by a majority vote, however, he does not want to vote for something that will run afoul of the court order the City received some years ago because the City may run into difficulty again. Mayor Patterson stated that it was not a court order; that the City was under court order to do something and the action taken was to reach a settlement on the issue. Commissioner Atkins asked if this is different from a court order? Mayor Patterson stated yes because the City is not violating what the City was told it must do. Commissioner Atkins stated that he believes the City is definitely operating under a court order; that the least expensive way to go through this process is to request in advance a review by the District Judge of these potential changes which would save the City a tremendous amount of effort. City Attorney Taylor stated that the case litigated by the City is over and the Court has no more urisdiction; that what Commissioner Atkins is proposing is for the City to seek an opinion from the Federal District Court which does not give advisory opinions, therefore, the City will need a statement from one of the parties in the old litigation that the litigants challenge the proposal to change the plurality vote; that based upon the previous controversy, the City would seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for a declaratory action to determine in Book 36 Page 10590 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10591 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. advance what is right and what is wrong; that it is discretionary with the Court to take jurisdiction sO it is possible the Court would turn the City down and not allow the City to proceed on that basis; that it would take time to pursue this avenue so the issue would not be resolved in time for this election but perhaps for the next election. Commissioner Pillot stated that this is why he fears the current motion; that, at best, there would be a long delay and, at worst, the potential to change at least the two at-large seats would be lost; that his inference from the consultant's presentation is the City would be on fairly strong ground to change just the two at- large seats which is a step forward; that for this reason he has difficulty with the current motion; that he fears the issue will be litigated which will delay or result in losing what could be gained in changing the at-large seats. Mayor Patterson asked if the ordinances extend the terms of the current Commissioners by a month? City Attorney Taylor stated this is correct. Mayor Patterson asked what will happen if the change were made for one type of seats and not the other? City Attorney Taylor stated that he did not know the City's preference as to whether the primary should run at a different time than that proposed in the ordinance in order to keep the election on the same schedule. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that if the primary were moved to February and the regular election held in March, the qualifying period would probably move to immediately before Christmas. Commissioner Pillot stated that the overlap would occur only once; that the same situation existed when the term for Commissioners was changed from three to four years. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has difficulty believing that a court would overturn a vote of the people to elect their representatives by a majority vote, particularly if nothing else were changed in the election process. City Attorney Taylor stated that back in 1984, it was the opinion of the legal staff the City would end up with five (5) residency districts when the City entered this case based upon where the law stood at the time and the facts as life existed in Sarasota; that this was the result of most court decisions at the time; that there was a willingness on the part of the Commission at the time to change to a split election system as currently exists in an effort to avoid five residency districts which a majority of the Commission at that time did not want; that a split system had to be sold to the court because the court was leaning towards five residency districts; that plurality voting was added in order to enhance the selling of the position. Mayor Patterson stated that it is now 11:30 p.m. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to continue the meeting and complete the agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that it was not the consultant's recommendation to change the voting requirements for all seats; that the consultant's analysis is that if the City wants to retain the at-large seats, it is more legally defensible to retain plurality voting for the district seats; that the consultant was strong in his opinion that it is defensible to take the plurality vote away from the at-large seats; that the second item in the consultant's recommendation was the removal of plurality voting for the district seats; that although the consultant felt there is enough history to support it, there is not as much strength with this recommendation as for the at-large seats; that ultimately the question is the likelihood the City will end up in court when a system such as this is changed and there is always that possibility. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Commissioner Pillot makes a strong argument; that he is willing to vote to change the at-large seats but in the absence of three votes to pass that motion, he suggests changing the voting requirements on all seats. Mayor Patterson stated that she will support the motion. Commissioner Atkins stated that he believes the Commission is missing the most important part of the judge's decree; that the overall package made the system acceptable to the federal courts in 1984; that a problem is created when the pieces are separated; that the court has already decided the system was not in the best interest of the disenfranchised people of this community; that when the Commission decides it wants 50% plus 1 in one area and a plurality in another, it must be remembered that the judge looked at the total package and accepted it; that the Commission is trying to change the judge's decree and, at that point, the Commission is in violation of the basic court order and a challenge is inevitable; that the City has gone through this process once and spent nearly $500,000 to defend a losing position; that if the Commission is repealing the system, it may be going back to Reconstruction in Sarasota; that he believes that the Commission is masquerading a reversal of the decision of the courts in 1984. Book 36 Page 10592 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10593 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Atkins stated that he did not hear a response to whether a decision should be sought from the federal court. Commissioner Atkins asked if it should be determined if the City is spending money for nothing or should the Commission take the "bull by the horns" and destroy democracy? On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to call the question. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to put on the ballot one item to determine whether elections for both at-large and district seats should be by majority instead of plurality vote. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, no; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Atkins asked if there is support of the Commission to check with the courts to determine if the City has a valid position in the proposed reterendum? Commissioner Pillot stated that he would be in favor of checking with the courts but, based upon the vote which just passed, it would seem foolish because the Commission just voted to place the issue on the ballot much sooner than a response could be expected from the courts. Commissioner Atkins stated that it is not known how long it will take the courts to respond; that if the court responds in an expedient way, more credibility would be given to the question. City Attorney Taylor stated that Ms. Koester must have the ballot question for printing purposes by mid July; that the question could always be pulled from the ballot; that he does not believe that the City will receive a response from the federal courts in a couple of months but the papers could be filed if the Commission wishes. Mayor Patterson asked if the City had spent $500,000 on this court case? City Attorney Taylor stated that he does not recall the costs; that the case was a civil rights litigation and, therefore, the City paid its own legal expenses as well as attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs; that the combined fee could have been well over $100,000. Mayor Patterson stated that she is not totally convinced the Commission has embarked on the right path; that she is hearing there is a likelihood of challenge no matter what is done; that she is also hearing that to confine the issue to only the at-large seats is a much more winnable question. Mayor Patterson asked what happens to the disposition of attorney's fee if the question is won? City Attorney Taylor stated that first it must be assumed the City is being sued and it is the same type of suit as before and, therefore, there is a question of attorneys' fees; that if the case is won, the City does not get attorney's fees from the other party but must pay its own expenses and the other side pays its own expenses; that plaintiff's counsel is awarded fees only in the event the plaintiff in the litigation prevails. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he switched his vote from the conservative approach to placing the question on the ballot; that he voted this way to return to democracy; that the public has let courts distort the democratic process which is supposed to be the will of the majority; that somehow the determination has been reached that whites cannot represent blacks and blacks cannot represent whites and the ability to govern is based on race; that he disagrees with this position which was the reason he voted for majority voting; that he believes this is the right approach and he is willing to incur the possibility of lawyer's fees to stand up and say that sometimes judges do things that are not right; that every so often someone should say "no, democracy should mean what it is supposed to mean. I Commissioner Pillot stated that the vote has been taken and he was opposed to it but, in response to Commissioner Atkins request for a consensus, the Commission should move forward without going to the courts for an opinion. Mayor Patterson stated that the presumption is not just people's ability to govern being defined by race, but also that people's votes are necessarily defined by race which she does not believe is true; that there have been black governors in states where there were not a majority of blacks; that there have been black mayors in at-large elections by majority vote; that she does not believe that in Sarasota today one could not run for a district or an at-large seat which requires a majority vote and not achieve office because of race. Commissioner Atkins stated that in the City of Sarasota until 1985 and with the help of the courts, there was no opportunity for people of color to win an election; that there has not been a person of color to win with the plurality vote other than in District 1 since 1985; that Mayor Patterson does not have support for her position of freedom of expression as it relates to the voting process because the voting process has proven that black people do not get elected in the City of Sarasota; that perhaps people are more open to voting for people of color in other cities but not in Sarasota; that this is the history of Sarasota and this Book 36 Page 10594 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10595 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. is why the judge issued the decree; that there is no question about that fact because it is the truth. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: STATUS OF MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - REPORT MADE (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #4 (2987) through (3119) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the Main Street Improvement Project has begun; that the dead trees have been removed and replaced; that two companies have been retained by the bonding agency to complete the contract; that one company will complete the area from Orange Avenue to Gulfstream Avenue with a completion date of three to four weeks; that the project will include benches, trash racks, etc.; that the other company will complete the Main Street Plaza area by September 6; that the construction of pre-cast concrete work, i.e., the benches and the historic display, will be delayed due to the length of time required to furnish the supplies; that storm drains are being installed and the water line in the Main Street area is in the process of being relocated. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the benches had backs and, if not, could the benches have backs? Mayor Patterson stated that the original design of the benches presented to the Commission had backs. Mr. Daughters stated that some of the benches do have backs and some do not have backs. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a majority of the Commission wants all of the benches to have backs. Mr. Daughters stated that the benches have arrived; that the Commission will be apprised as to the type of benches in stock and the changes necessary for all the benches to have backs. 15. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: CABLE BDEVISION TELEPHONE COMPANY LEGISLATIVE - AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND SEND LETTERS TO REPRESENTATIVE DAN MILLER AND THE U.S. SENATORS FROM FLORIDA (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 (3120) through (3255) Mayor Patterson stated that there is a Bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to take away from the cities and counties the ability to collect franchise fees and to safeguard their rights- of-way and to dictate services from providers of cable-like television services; that there is a potential negative impact to cities and counties financially as well as in the quality of public services that cities mandate from cable operators; that the National League of Cities opposes this Bill and wants to have it substantially changed; that there is a U.S. Senate Bill which preserves the status quo for cities and counties regarding the ability to regulate a telephone company if the telephone company enters the cable business; that the ManaSota League of Cities voted to send letters to the State's Representatives in the U.S. House and Senate; that she urged the members of the Manasota League of Cities to take these letters back to their individual cities so that City votes could be obtained to try to preserve their prerogatives and income; that the City of Sarasota should participate and send letters to the State's Representatives in the U.S. House and Senate. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to authorize the Mayor to sign and send letters to Representative Dan Miller and the two U.S. Senators from Florida. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 16. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-742, AMENDING, BY REFERENCE, PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR GENERAL EMPLOYEES AND CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA, EXCEPT AS MAY BE NEGOTIATED BY THE CITY MANAGER WITH RESPECT TO IMPACT, IF ANY, ON EMPLOYEES FOR WHOM COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS REQUIRED, PERTAINING TO DEFINITION OF TERMS (RULE 1), GENERAL PROVISIONS (RULE 2), PERSONNEL ACTIONS (RULE 7) EMPLOYEE REVIEW REQUESTS (RULE 14A), EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (RULE 14B); ALSO, ADOPTING THE ADDITION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLAINT PROCEDURE (RULE 19) AND A PROBLEM SOLVING PROCEDURE (RULE 20); ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #4 (3258) through (3330) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-742 by title only. On a motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 94R-742 by title only. 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. 17. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: NORTH TRAIL LANDSCAPED MEDIAN PROJECT = APPROVED THE ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION AS PRESENTED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT WITH "IN-HOUSE" PERSONNEL AS OUTLINED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-5) #4 (3331) through #5 (0260) Book 36 Page 10596 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10597 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance and Solid Waste Manager came before the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that the North Trail Landscaped Median Project extends from 10th Street to University Parkway; that when this project was put out to bid, the City did not receive a sincere interest from any contractor in bidding; that at the pre-bid meeting there was only one general contractor who had obtained plans and specifications; that a decision was made that the project would be constructed more economically and of higher quality if the majority of the work was done by the City; that part of the reason for not getting bids is that the City has been tough on landscape contractors in the last few years; that those contractors have not provided the City with the quality of plans and workmanship as required by City specifications; that there is reluctance on the city's part to bid a project of this size; that the Public Works Department will act as the contractor for the project; that portions of the project will be bid out from the Public Work Department and some of the work will be completed by the staff; that the recommendation is for the City Commission to authorize the Administration to complete the project with in-house staff as outlined; that authorization must be given in order to meet State requirements prior to July 1, 1994. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation as presented to complete the project with "in-house" personnel as outlined. Mayor Patterson asked if the statuary being bought for the project is new? Mr. Daughters stated this is correct. Mayor Patterson stated that there is statuary stored in the Ringling Museum of Art which has previously been on loan to the City for use in the medians in the North Tamiami Trail area; that this statuary has a history and a familiarity to the people. Commissioner Cardamone stated that statues should be borrowed for this location. Mr. Mountain stated that the City has an inventory of statues from the Ringling Museum of Art; that statuary was requested from the Ringling Museum of Art for the Tuttle Avenue project and there were no statues appropriate for that site; that with this information the staff proceeded with a list of new statuaryi that he will contact the Ringling Museum of Art to explore use of their statuary in order to save the cost of buying new statuary. Mayor Patterson stated that the statuary available at the Ringling Museum of Art will be more exciting than what could be bought; that the Commission does not want money spent for items that are available in the Community. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the statuary is historic and has value. Mr. Mountain stated that a memorandum will be sent to the Commission with an update on the statuary for the North Trail Median Project. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the trees presently in the medians on U.S. 41 are healthy and blooming and the City should be able to utilize and elaborate on this foliage. Mr. Daughters stated that the project consists of removing existing foliage and planting canopy trees in the medians; that the use of oak trees is being investigated for this purpose. Mayor Patterson stated that a prior Commission was told that viable existing plantings would be protected; that the trees presently located in the medians cannot be left intact with the addition of new oak trees. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she likes oak trees, but does not believe an entire strip of oak trees is necessary on U.S. 41 when there are old flowering trees available in the medians. Mayor Patterson stated that the medians will not be attractive with strips of oak trees, followed by low trees and then more strips of oak trees. Commissioner Cardamone stated that it will not be attractive for the medians to appear as a "boulevard of perfection" with everything the same size and in rows. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the beautification project will take a great deal of staff time to completei that he will vote for the project and Mr. Mountain is respected for his efforts in accomplishing the project. Commissioner Pillot stated that when the motion was made to approve the Administration's recommendation, it was assumed the project would continue as presented to the Commission and the only change was to complete the project with in-house staff rather than a hired contractor. Mr. Daughters stated the only difference in the project is the State has minimal requirements and the curbs and gutters do not have to be replaced; that this project is smaller than originally planned and will be almost entirely landscaping; that the City has Book 36 Page 10598 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10599 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. several median openings which will be closed and will require a small amount of curb, gutter and asphalt for completion. Commissioner Cardamone stated she is concerned about the opinion of the general public on removing the current trees and replacing them with new oak trees; that the statues were changed and the trees are being changed; that the City has decided to put trees instead of statues in the medians; that instead of removing the existing trees in the medians on U.S. 41, oak trees should be added to the foliage. Mayor Patterson stated that if the project is completed in-house, decisions can be made as the project progresses. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City should not pay for projects to be redone which do not need to be redone. Commissioner Pillot stated that the State asked to have statues removed from the medians for safety reasons. Mayor Patterson stated this is correct, however, an oak tree instead of a statue will be placed in the medians. Commissioner Pillot asked if putting the statues back in the medians is now legal when the State previously required the City to remove the statues? Mr. Daughters stated that the statues now can be placed in medians; that the City does not have a permit for the oak trees, but will acquire a permit soon. Commissioner Pillot asked if the statues were considered unsafe years ago, why are they not considered unsafe now? Mr. Daughters stated that the question is hard to answer; that the State regulations and the criteria have been revised and have become less restrictive. Mayor Patterson stated that the original rule prohibiting statues in the medians did not make any sense because, without the statues, a car jumping the median would not hit a statue but rather an on- coming car travelling in the opposite lane. Mayor Patterson continued that Mr. Daughters had stated that this project must be completed by July because of a new State statute which imposes new requirements; that the State Legislature recently passed a bill requiring competitive bid on any on-going projects; that when she was lobbying against this bill, she had received assurances from the various legislators that the new bill would provide an out by holding a public hearing; that the requirements of the new statute should be investigated, but the City may still be able to proceed with the project after July without going to a competitive bid by holding a public hearing. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to approve the recommendation to proceed with the project as planned and according to the established budget except the work would be performed in- house. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 18. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = POLICE CHIEF JOLLY TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING ON STATUS OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. WAY AND GILLESPIE PARK SUBSTATIONS (AGENDA ITEM X) #5 (0260) through (0610) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way (MLK) Police Substation is either closed or inactive; that she is concerned that the King Academy will be moved; that she can appreciate the issues involved in the budget cuts of the Sarasota County School Board, but the presence of the King Academy is important to the neighborhood and to those City youngsters who attend that school; that the substation is a deterrent to crime as there is a zone around the school which is crime free; Mayor Patterson requested a presentation at the next meeting from Police Chief Jolly regarding the MLK substation, the Gillespie Park substation and other concepts that Chief Jolly wants to discuss with the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would like to ask Dr. Charles Fowler, Superintendent of Schools, and the Sarasota County School Board not to make a determination on the King Academy until additional information can be obtained regarding the MLK substation if, in fact, the status of the substation was a factor in the School Board's decision to move the King Academy. Mayor Patterson stated that it should be determined if there is a link between the closing of the school and the inactive substation; that the Commission may want to request the School Board to reconsider its plan regardless, but the reasons for closing the school should be determined. B. stated that "We the People", a Political Action Committee, is sponsoring a petition drive to have placed on the ballot an amendment to the County Charter that would require a referendum to adopt amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan which would increase the intensity or density for any land being rezoned; that she Book 36 Page 10600 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10601 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. understands that the organization is also considering sponsoring a petition drive to place the same issue on the ballot as it relates to the city. Mayor Patterson stated that there are also legislative initiatives being considered which would require a ballot vote anytime the millage is increased. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that he is concerned about the lights along Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way; that the light poles are falling down due to parallel parking; that the poles are too Close to the curb; that a review should be conducted to find ways to protect the light poles. MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that the item in the Commission packet entitled "Ad Valorem Taxation/Sarasota Memorial Hospital" includes a memorandum from the City Attorney which states that if the Hospital is entering into a profit or business status with their properties, the Hospital will be taxed; that County properties are not taxed, but if true, Healthplex should be taxed; that an answer is needed if the Healthplex is being taxed and, if not, why. City Attorney Taylor stated that the information in the memorandum came from the Tax Assessor's Office. Commissioner Cardamone requested the Commission discuss how to approach the Hospital and other entities into making contributions to the City. Mayor Patterson stated that this will be an agenda item for discussion at a future Commission meeting; that a formal resolution by the Commission is necessary to approach those institutions. B. stated that calls have been received from citizens annoyed with prostitutes prevalent in neighborhoods; that it is difficult to make prostitutes leave neighborhoods even after being approached by the Police; that the process of arresting and removing prostitutes from the neighborhoods for any length of time is difficult; that several other cities have published the names of prostitutes and their customers; that one city had the local television report the names of the prostitute's customers; that there are things which can be done to make it an unpleasant task to do this type of business in the City and something should be done. Commissioner Cardamone stated that this is called eliminating the customers and destroying the business. Mayor Patterson stated that this sounds good and that she feels there is support from the Commission regarding this problem. Vice Mayor Merrill stated he keeps waiting to read about a sting on one of the lingerie shops. Mayor Patterson stated that she would like to see a sting operation in the adult entertainment facilities; that if prostitution exists in lingerie shops, it should be detected. Commissioner Pillot stated that Chief Jolly has given the Commission good reasons for the difficulties in setting up sting operations in lingerie shops. Mayor Patterson stated that other cities are performing sting operations. Commissioner Atkins stated that the newspaper reported that Charlotte County has just performed two or three sting operations, but the report was not clear as to how the police took action. Mayor Patterson stated that this is a distasteful thing for the Police to pursue and they would probably prefer not to do so; that even if the City does not obtain convictions, there is the question of making it unpleasant to do business in the City; that a plan should be developed for the City. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Police Department is investigating the techniques of successful programs in other cities; that the municipal prosecutor and representatives of the Police Department went to Ft. Myers to spend a day with their program operators; that the commitment is very onerous in terms of cost and the types of programs used. Commissioner Pillot stated that the ultimate cost of allowing the lingerie shops to continue to grow and flourish is greater than the cost of programs that may be instituted now. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission would like to hear the programs available and anticipated cost; that there is not a large cost of doing something serious with publishing the names of the customers of prostitutes; and that if it is known that your name may appear in the newspaper, it would make it unpleasant to come into the city of Sarasota to look for a prostitute. Commissioner Pillot stated the cost of putting the adult establishments out of business may turn out to be high; that the citizenry of the City would support the cost if the question were Book 36 Page 10602 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10603 06/06/94 6:00 P.M. put on the ballot for an increase of one- or two-tenths of a mill which would be devoted exclusively for this particular purpose. 19. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #5 (0611) through (0616) There were no comments. 20. ADJOURN #5 (0617) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the Regular Meeting of June 6, 1994, at 12:14 a.m. Hlora Atluion NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST: $ 3lly E: Robensan BILLY EJROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK