Book 38 Page 12195 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1995, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Vice Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Commissioners Delores Dry, Nora Patterson, and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: Mayor David Merrill PRESIDING: Vice Mayor Mollie Cardamone The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME TO ANTHONY NESTY, THREE-TIME OLYMPIAN AND GOLD MEDALIST SWIMMER AND NEWLY SELECTED COACH OF THE "SWIM FLORIDA" SWIM TEAM AND AQUATIC DIRECTOR OF THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SARASOTA #1 (0037) through (0103) Vice Mayor Cardamone introduced and welcomed Anthony Nesty, the newly selected Head Coach of the "Swim Florida" Team and Aquatic Director of the Boys and Girls Club of Sarasota, who was born in Trinidad, came to the United States in 1985, attended high school at the Bolles school in Jacksonville, Florida, and graduated from the University of Florida in 1994. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that Mr. Nesty's athletic achievements include being: a four-time NCAA Champion swimmer for the University of Florida; a three-time Olympian, earning two gold medals in the 1984 and 1988 Olympics and one bronze medal in the 1992 Olympics; and a gold medalist of the 1990 World Games and the 1990 Goodwill Games. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that Mr. Nesty will be a great role model for the members and swimmers at the Boys and Girls Club of Sarasota; and thanked him for selecting the City of Sarasota as the place in which to continue his career. Vice Mayor Cardamone introduced Mac Reid, Director of the Boys and Girls Club of Sarasota. Mr. Reid came before the Commission and recognized in the audience Board members Robert Scheb and Roy McBean, Staff member Karen Caillouette, and "Swim Florida" Team parent/volunteer Louise Henderson. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 1995 - APPROVED AS REVISED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0103) through (0135) Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the following changes have been made to the minutes: the words "amendments processed" have been substituted for the word "presented" in the following sentence found on draft page 31: properties for annexation would be exempted under Section 2 (b) and presented under the EAR in the spring of 1996. the word "expired" has been changed to read "expire" on draft page 32. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no additional changes, the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of August 21, 1995, as changed are approved by unanimous consent. 3. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0135) through (0170) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add under New Business, Item No. VIII-3, Discussion Re: Appeal of Judge's ruling pertaining to the rezoning and site and development plan filed on behalf of BVP Associates, which provided for the construction of a Walgreens at the corner of U.S. 41 and Bahia Vista Street, per the request of City Attorney Taylor. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, yes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 3 AND 4 = APPROVED; ITEM NO. 2 = REFERRED TO PARKS, RECREATION. AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD FOR A REPORT BACK: EXTENDED THE LEASE UNTIL FINAL COMMISSION ACTION IS TAKEN: ITEM NO. 5 APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0170) through (0352) Book 38 Page 12196 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12197 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson requested that Item Nos. 2 and 5 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed 201 Facilities Plan Update Appendix C providing for the incorporation of the Urban Reuse Master Plan into the rban/Agricultural Reuse Program 3. Approval Re: Award of Contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to Tri- Tech Construction and Design Company, Inc., Bradenton Florida, (Bid #95-74) in the amount of $204,284, for renovations to the Public Safety Building 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to negotiate and the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute services contracts with Riscorp Administrators for Workers Compensation Claims adjusting services and Excess Workers Compensation Insurance; and with Johns Eastern Company, Inc. for Third Party Liability claims adjusting services. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items Nos. 1, 3, and 4. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, yes. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Sarasota Outboard Club Lease Renewal Agreement Commissioner Patterson stated that the memorandum from Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, dated August 25, 1995, recommends approval for a five-year extension to the existing agreement between the City and the Sarasota Outboard Club although the memorandum also indicates the price charged to the Sarasota Outboard Club for the 1.72 acres of leased land in Ken Thompson Park compares unfavorably to the per acre price charged to the Sarasota Sailing Squadron; that only 10 of the 75 Club members are City residents; that information which either supports a compelling interest for the City to extend the existing leasehold or provides alternative leasing options available to the City should be presented to the Commission for review. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the item could be referred to the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board for review and a report back; that the terms and conditions of the existing agreement could be continued until final action is taken by the Commission. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to refer to the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board the Sarasota Outboard Club Lease Renewal Agreement which would continue on a day-to-day basis until final action is taken by the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, yes. 5. Approval Re: Authorize the City Manager to issue a purchase order and written Notice to Proceed to David W. Johnston Associates, Inc., to provide professional landscape architectural services for Franklin Manor Park Commissioner Patterson asked for the costs expended for services previously provided by David Johnston Associates, Inc., on the Franklin Manor Park project. Mr. Gerkin came before the Commission and stated that approximately $11,000 has been expended for the conceptual planning of Franklin Manor Park; that the total cost of the project has been budgeted at $1.1 million; that the City has applied for grant funding to supplement the budget. Commissioner Patterson asked if supervision of the installation of the landscaping is included in the scope of services for which the City will expend $87,500 in funding? Mr. Sollenberger responded, yes. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 5. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, yes. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-834) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-835) = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-836) = ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-837) = ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3896) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0357) through (0714) Commissioner Patterson requested that Item Nos. 2 and 4 be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 95R-836 in its entirety and proposed Resolution No. 95R-834 and Ordinance No. 95-3896 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-834, accepting a gift from Douglas K. Chapman of an original painting by Frank Hopper entitled "The Shell;" etc. (Title Only) Book 38 Page 12198 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12199 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-836, appropriating $119,558 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to purchase new and upgrade electronics equipment for the Vice and Narcotics Unit 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3896, amending Chapter 16 of the Sarasota City Code, Recycling and Solid Waste, by prohibiting placement of Solid Waste containers or Recyclable materials containers at the curb or roadside any earlier than 5:00 p.m. of the day prior to regularly scheduled collections; by requiring the Solid Waste containers and Recyclable materials containers to be removed from the curb or roadside by no later than 9:00 p.m of the day regularly scheduled for collection; by requiring storage of the Solid Waste containers and Recyclable materials containers in side or rear yards and not front yards; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid; providing for repealing of ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1, 3, and 5 inclusive. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, yes. 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-835, appropriating $42,121.71 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to purchase two vehicles for the joint Sarasota Police Bureau/U.S. Customs Service Task Force 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-837, appropriating $44,240 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to serve as the local match for the on-going Federal Money Laundering Grant City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 95R-835 and 95R-837 in their entirety. Commissioner Patterson asked for clarification of the programs for which appropriations from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (LETF) are being requested. Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission and stated that matching funds are required for participation in the Federal Money Laundering Grant program; that the city of Sarasota has received associated grant funding for the past six years; that the request for FY 94/95 matching funds should have been submitted for approval approximately 10 months ago; however, sufficient funds were not available in the LETF at that time; that for the past two years, the Federal Money Laundering Grant has funded two detectives and one clerical position in the Vice Narcotics Division. Police Chief Jolly stated that the joint Sarasota Police Bureau/U.S. Customs Task Force is an organized crime and drug enforcement task force which performs major investigations involving the City of Sarasota; that the number of Sarasota Police Officers assigned to the task force is dependent on the investigation being conducted; that the LETF recently received $710,000 as a result of an investigation conducted by this joint task force; that future asset forfeitures are anticipated. Commissioner Patterson requested that an individual meeting with Police Chief Jolly be scheduled to provide her with further information on the programs and the benefits provided to City residents from the use of LETF dollars. On motion of Commissioner Dry and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 2 and 4. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3898, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGIN- NING OCTOBER 1, 1995, AND ENDING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996; SAID BUDGET TO INCLUDE THE GENERAL FUND, SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, DEBT SERVICE FUNDS, ENTERPRISE FUNDS, INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: PROVIDING FOR CURRENT EXPENSES AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, EACH BEING SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED HEREIN: ASSESSING AND LEVYING AD VALOREM TAXES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1995; SPECIFYING THE AD VALOREM TAX MILLS TO BE LEVIED AND ASSESSED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN BONDED-DEBT SERVICE; SPECIFYING THE AD VALOREM TAX MILLS LEVIED AND ASSESSED FOR BONDED-DEBT SERVICE; MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE AD VALOREM TAX REVENUES COLLECTED: IDENTIFYING THE BUDGETS AND AMOUNT OF THE AD VALOREM TAX REVENUES WHICH ARE APPROPRIATED FOR THE Book 38 Page 12200 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12201 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. PURPOSES ENUMERATED HEREIN: APPROPRIATING MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES AND SURPLUS REVENUES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED: INSTRUCTING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO KEEP ACCOUNTS so AS TO ASSURE THE PROPER UTILIZATION OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE; APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR OTHER EXPENSES AND EXPENDITURES: PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A RESERVATION OF FUND BALANCE FOR ENCUMBRANCES AND THE REAP- PORTIONING OF FUNDS AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 1995-96; PROVIDING THAT A NET SURPLUS, AFTER REAPPORTIONING OF FUNDS, SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR APPROPRIATION FOR THE ENSUING FISCAL YEAR: APPROPRIATING ALL FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR USES AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE LAW: APPROPRIATING ALL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES NOT OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED IN THIS ORDINANCE AND SURPLUS REVENUES FROM EACH REVENUE SOURCE FOR OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA UP TO AND INCLUDING THE TOTAL AMOUNTS APPROPRIATED HEREBY OR AS MAY BE SUBSEQUENTLY PROVIDED BY THE CITY COMMISSION: RESTRICTING THE USE OF DEBT SERVICE TAXES ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH APPROPRIATED INSTRUCTING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PROCEED TO COLLECT ALL REVENUES DUE THE CITY OF SARASOTA, INCLUDING AD VALOREM TAXES LEVIED HEREBY AND INITIALLY COLLECTED BY THE TAX COLLECTOR FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PAY OUT MONIES COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSES STATED: REQUIRING PAYMENTS ON WARRANT OF THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK: COUNTERSIGNED BY THE CITY MANAGER, WHEN REQUIRED BY THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; APPROPRIATING FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES AND ANY BALANCE REMAINING AT THE END OF ANY FISCAL YEAR AS FUNDING UNDER THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (0714) through (2800) Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that this is the first of two required public hearings for the adoption of the budget for the City of Sarasota for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1995, and ending September 30, 1996; that the proposed budget requires no increase in the current operating millage of 5.339 mills; that the debt service millage will be 1.1160 mills, a 6.07% decrease from the current debt service millage of 1.235 mills; that the total millage required to finance the proposed budget is-6.499 mills, a 0.75 mills reduction from the current year's total millage of 6.574; that the Truth in Millage (TRIM) bill requires that the millage rate for ad valorem taxes be measured in terms of the Rolled-back Rate; that the Rolled-back Rate is the millage rate necessary to yield the same ad valorem tax revenue generated in the 1994-95 fiscal year; that the Property Appraiser's Certified Taxable Value of 2,721,052,860 for the 1995-1996 fiscal year produces a Rolled-back Rate of 5.178 mills; that the millage rate of 5.339 mills which is 3.11% greater than the Rolled-back Rate will generate $374,000 of additional ad valorem tax; that the increase will be used to help fund the salary adjustment for City employees which totals $733,000. Commissioner Pillot asked if any changes have been made since the FY 95/96 City of Sarasota budget was presented to the Commission during the Budget Workshops? Mr. Mitchell stated that as the Commission was informed, the figures presented during the Budget Workshops for the Enterprise Funds did not include salary adjustments; that after consensus was reached by the Commission, the salary adjustments were included in the Enterprise Funds; that the percentage calculation based on personnel services which was performed for cost allocation resulted in a $73,000 increase to General Fund revenues; that the reduction in City Commission travel expenses reduced General Fund expenditures by $2,300; that, accordingly, the deficit of revenues over expenditures has been reduced to $134,000. Christopher Lyons, Deputy Finance Director, came before the Commission and stated that the Commission was provided with estimated cost allocation amounts in the preliminary FY 95/96 budget; that the proposed salary adjustments were provided verbally during the Budget Workshops; that the cost allocation calculations are not performed until the final budget is prepared to assure that accurate revenue data is reflected. Vice Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Harold Grabb, 2874 Davis Boulevard (34237), representing Bobby Jones Mens Association, distributed seven captioned pictures reflecting the interior condition of the cart barn and maintenance shed; and quoted the following from the National Golf Foundation (NGF) Report: The (cart) buildings are not unsafe, but replacement and reconfiguring should be addressed in a long-range capital improvement program. Mr. Grabb stated that all the revenues should be retained in the BJGC budget to address necessary capital improvements. Ken Kelch, 1520 Glen Oaks Drive East (34232). representing Bobby Jones Advisory Committee, stated that the $1.5 million American Course renovation project for which the City Commission authorized a bond issue in FY 87/88 was not necessary or requested by the golfers; that BJGC pays $200,000 annually toward the bond obligation, which including interest, totalled $2.5 million; that Book 38 Page 12202 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12203 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. a $10,000 study and operational audit of the BJGC by the NGF was authorized by the Commission in July 1992; that the BJGC, which has successfully attempted to address the findings of the operational audit, cannot afford to transfer $100,000 to the General Fund; that surplus funds are accumulated annually in the Manatee County Golf Course and the City of Bradenton Golf Course budgets for unforeseen circumstances and capital improvements; that those governmental entities do not require cost allocation for administrative services; that a firm, financial basis should be established for the BJGC prior to the Commission authorizing diversion of revenues to the General Fund. Mr. Kelch asked if other Enterprise Funds are subject to cost allocation transfers? Mr. Kelch cited the following from the Bobby Jones Advisory Committee August 17, 1995, report: The Advisory Committee expresses regret that the City Commission in its budget process is diverting $100,000 of golf course revenue to be used as undesignated general revenue. The NGF in its operational audit of BJGC dated July 1992 recommended a ceiling of 350 individual fee holders as a means of increasing revenue. The City Commission approved of this NGF recommendation, but is ignoring a related recommendation from page 17 which states: A related concern with the American Course rebuilding is that the funds to conduct the rebuilding come from the bond obligation. A golf facility should be able to cover its own capital needs through operating surpluses, especially given the financial opportunities presented by an asset such as the BJGC. Mr. Kelch stated that the BJGC should not be further burdened as efforts continue to improve its financial foundation; that cost allocation should be delayed until a solid, base foundation is established. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested a response from the Administration to Mr. Kelch's question regarding cost allocation transfers. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Water and Sewer, Mobile Home Park, Solid Waste Management, and Parking Management Enterprise Funds contribute cost allocations to the General Fund. Mr. Kelch asked if any of the Enterprise Funds mentioned have the burden of paying an annual bond obligation of $200,000? Mr. Sollenberger stated that burdens from the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Environmental Protection have been placed on the Water and Sewer Fund; that Solid Waste experiences the burden of increased "tipping fees"; that the Enterprise Funds which contribute to the General Fund have different yet similar financial burdens. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the $100,000 cost allocation figure included in the FY 95/96 budget for the BJGC is lower than the preliminary cost allocation figure included in the 1989 cost allocation plan prepared by an outside consultant; that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes approximately $300,000 for scheduled improvements to the BJGC; that the cart barn and maintenance shed are scheduled for replacement during FY 95/96. Laura Alexander, representing All Faiths Food Bank (AFFB), 717 Cattlemen Road (34232), stated that $20,000 of funding in the FY 95/96 City of Sarasota budget was requested to support providing food assistance to non-profit agencies in the City and to assist in the acquisition of a 20,000 square-foot warehouse and equipment for the AFFB on Cattlemen Road; that the request was denied by the Administration; that reconsideration of that decision was requested at the August 7, 1995, Commission meeting at which she distributed a handout informing the Commission that in 1994 the AFFB provided 860,000 pounds of food, valued at $1.2 million, to qualified, non- profit agencies who feed the needy. Ms. Alexander distributed a handout and explained the AFFB's justification for requesting funding assistance from the City. Ms. Alexander stated that the majority of the 104 non-profit agencies served by the AFFB reside in the City; that the County Social Service Department recently announced that budget cuts to the Federal Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) would result in an inability to provide monthly food assistance to 4,000 residents Countywide; that the program was cut 65% last year and has the potential for elimination when a Congressional vote is taken in October 1995; that elected officials have proposed that non-profits, i.e., food banks and their network of feeding programs, fill the gaps where food assistance is needed; that non- profit organizations in the Sarasota area report up to a 70% savings in food cost overhead by utilizing the AFFB; that the value of food assistance provided by the AFFB to the Sarasota community in one year is $1.2 million or 575,000 meals. Ms. Alexander continued that the most recent estimates indicate the AFFB is serving approximately 30,000 people per month Countywide; that overwhelmingly, the people requesting food assistance are working, poor families many of whom are homeowners and many of whom are one or two paychecks away from being homeless. Ms. Alexander further stated that food assistance requests are increasing; that the ability of the AFFB to store and distribute Book 38 Page 12204 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12205 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. food assistance was limited at its former location on School Avenue; that at its current location on Cattlemen Road, the AFFB can more cost effectively and efficiently meet the food assistance needs of the community; that funding assistance to the AFFB has been included in the County's FY 95/96 budget; that an allocation of $20,000 in the City of Sarasota budget for the AFFB is requested. Commissioner Pillot asked if the AFFB is planning to operate refrigerated vehicles to transport food from area super markets and restaurants that would otherwise be wasted? Ms. Alexander stated that prepared food recovery is a resource which has not been adequately addressed; that Sarasota Memorial Hospital, the Hyatt, and many caterers and restaurants have approached the AFFB; that an attempt is being made to facilitate those resources. Virginia Haley, 1646 South Orange Avenue (34239), representing the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA), stated that the limited staffing in the Planning Department has adversely affected the ability of the public to obtain information; that members of the CCNA feel that the inclusion of the Senior Planner and Senior Secretary positions as proposed in the FY 95/96 budget will help resolve the communication difficulties currently being experienced. There was no one else signed up to speak and Vice Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3898 by title only. Commissioner Patterson asked if funds are accumulated for the replacement of police vehicles? Mr. Lyons stated that funds are annually allocated in the Public Safety Department budget under the line item entitled Equipment Replacement Fund; that the Equipment Replacement Fund for FY 95/96 will fund the acquisition of vehicles totalling $250,000 for the Police Services Bureau. Commissioner Dry asked if funds for acquisition of other vehicles have been included in the budget? Mr. Lyons stated that the Equipment Replacement Fund for the Building and Zoning Department includes $25,000 and Solid Waste Management's Equipment Replacement Fund includes $240,000; that two refuse vehicles will be purchased in FY 95/96; that three streetsweepers will be purchased this year. Commissioner Patterson stated that streetsweeper models are available which sweep streets without curbs; that a portion of the drainage problems experienced Citywide can be attributed to vegetative debris that accumulates on and in drains; that the Administration should research and consider purchasing a newer model of streetsweeper. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if surplus funds are accumulated and maintained in the BJGC Enterprise Fund for unforeseen circumstances? Mr. Lyons referred to the summary page in the budget for the BJGC Enterprise Fund; and stated that the Available Fund Balance in FY 93/94 was ($414,388); that the negative fund balance has been reduced in the past two years through good financial management; that the Projected Ending Balance for FY 95/96 is ($113,917); that Capital Expenditures for FY 95/96 are budgeted at $292,050; that a CIP for the BJGC has been established to replace the major, structural elements; that a portion of the replacement costs for the structural elements are budgeted annually and accumulated; that, for example, if the life expectancy of the air conditioning system is 10 years, one-tenth of the estimated replacement cost is included; that structural elements scheduled for replacement in FY 95/96 include the cart paths and the cart barn. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to amend the budget to include a $20,000 allocation to the AFFB funded as the Administration deems appropriate as an expenditure or from budget reserves. Commissioner Patterson stated that the work of the AFFB and its ability to leverage funding for non-profit organizations by providing food assistance and reducing overhead expenses for food is understood; however, City of Sarasota residents as County residents contribute an equal share to the funds expended by the County Social Service Department; that the agencies located within the City which the AFFB assists in maximizing their services to citizens are part of the non-tax based real estate supported by the taxed properties in the City of Sarasota; that the AFFB building is not located in the City; that the AFFB is making an appeal to the citizens who currently pay the highest amount of tax in the County; that she has consistently voted against funding services provided Countywide for which City taxpayers contribute through County taxes; that she will not support the amendment. Commissioner Pillot stated that the data shows that the services to people within the City are greater than the tax dollar share City residents pay into the County Social Services fund; that the AFFB provides the most essential need to people who otherwise would go hungry; that the expenditure is justified as means to assure that Book 38 Page 12206 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12207 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. the AFFB is able to operate with the efficiency for which they have become known. Commissioner Dry stated that she accepts the rationale stated by Commissioner Patterson, but agrees with the comments made by Commissioner Pillot; that people in the City will be most affected by the reduction in Federal funding for food assistance. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that last week she toured the AFFB facility whose operation is efficient, impressive, and includes volunteers who enjoy their work. Vice Mayor Cardamone cited the following a letter received by Ms. Alexander: Although City taxpayers do contribute modestly to the County tax base, I believe you will agree that the value of food assistance leveraged to the City non-profits and the City residents supersedes the level of contributions generated by the County support. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that City residents paying taxes to the County do not contribute modestlyi that City residents and County residents with the same property values pay an equivalent amount of property tax to the County; that City residents pay for the municipal services provided to the non-profit agencies located within the City, e.g., streetsweeping and police protection; that the $20,000 expenditure would be in addition to the many services City residents already provide to the non-profit agencies; that she will not support the amendment. Vice Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the amendment to include $20,000 for the AFFB in the FY 95/96 budget. Motion failed (2 to 2): Dry, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, no. Commissioner Pillot announced his intent to make a similar motion at the second public hearing for the FY 95/96 budget at which time a full Commission will be present. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the second public hearing on proposed Ordinance No. 95-3898 will be held on September 18, 1995. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3898 on first reading. Commissioner Pillot stated that assuring people do not go hungry is of great importance to him; that he will not support the budget until and unless the $20,000 allocation to the AFFB is included. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the request for $20,000 in funding is to be used towards the acquisition of the AFFB building which is currently leased; that her previous vote was against further City participation in the purchase of a building. Commissioner Pillot stated that the facility is essential to providing food to the needy; that food cannot be stored, secured in refrigeration, or provided to the needy without the facility; that purchasing two mobile units to administer prepared food recovery is a capital expense for which the $20,000 of funding could be used; that mobile, refrigerated units would enable the AFFB to recover quality prepared food from resources, i.e., Sarasota Memorial Hospital and local restaurants, and provide food to the needy that otherwise is wasted; that the Commission should do all it can to support the operation of the AFFB. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1) : Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; no; Cardamone, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 95R-831, APPROVING A PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD TO A PUBLIC STREET FROM A CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS HOWARD COURT PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF 6TH STREET, WEST OF ADELIA AVENUE, NORTH OF 4TH STREET AND EAST OF ORANGE AVENUE; SAID PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD WOULD PROVIDE ACCESS FROM THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION TO ORANGE AVENUE; IMPOSING CONDITIONS DIRECTING THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (2800) through (3472) David Waugh, Chief Building Inspector, came before the Commission, and stated that Preliminary Site and Development Plan 95-PSD-I to permit a cluster housing subdivision to be known as Howard's Court in an RMF-3 Zone District was approved by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) on July 5, 1995, with a condition that the petitioner obtain approval from the city Commission for a private access road from the cluster housing subdivision to Orange Avenue; that proposed Resolution No. 95R-831 approves the private access road. Mr. Waugh displayed on the overhead projector the preliminary plat for Howard's Court to identify the proposed private access road. Bruce Franklin, ADP Associates, Inc. and Jack Conway, Community Housing Corporation (CHC), came before the Commission. Mr. Franklin distributed copies and referred to a board display of the Preliminary Site Plan for Future Construction of Historic Howard's Court to identify the proposed access road and briefly Book 38 Page 12208 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12209 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. explained the project. Mr. Franklin stated that the petitioner is requesting approval of a private drive to access Orange Avenue. Mr. Franklin cited the following from a memorandum dated August 28, 1995, from Debbie Marks, Sr. Planning Technician/Development Review Committee (DRC) Coordinator: The placement of the private access road on to Orange Avenue should be an improvement for the neighborhood in that it will reduce the number of trips on a local street, 6th Street, and place them on a major collector, Orange Avenue. Further, the approval of the private access road will allow the Community Housing Corporation to implement their plans to renovate and upgrade Howard's Court which will enhance the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Conway stated that similar to other CHC projects in the downtown area, the Howard's Court project will be accomplished without any public funds; that SunBank is participating, as the financial institution for the project; that public/private partnerships have been successful in the downtown area; that the CHC is expanding its operation and is now pursuing development projects in the County. Mr. Conway distributed a handout entitled "Historic Renovation" and stated that a partnership between the CHC and the Historic Preservation Company, a non-profit entity formed by Brian Bishop, has been arranged which will permit mutual assessment of older housing structures prior to arriving at a decision point of demolition or rehabilitation, and will also permit salvaging and storing of materials by the Historic Preservation Company at is own expense when the decision is made by the CHC to demolish one of its properties; that the salvaged materials from demolished structures on site will be used for the Manor House and the Carriage House in Howard's Court; that salvaged materials will also be stored and used in other rehabilitation efforts, i.e., the Community Church in Laurel and the building known as the Hermitage located on Manasota Key; that the request for historic designation of the Manor House is scheduled for presentation at the next Historic Preservation Board meeting. City Manager Sollenberger stated that approval of the private access road will enable an important project to proceed which will be of significant benefit to the downtown area; that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Resolution No. 95R-831. Vice Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Vice Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R-831 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 95R-831. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3887, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, PERSONNEL, ARTICLE II, PENSIONS, DIVISION 2, FIRE, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; AMENDING SECTION 24-44 OF THE CODE TO PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO EMPLOY SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR DISABILITY HEARINGS; EXTEND THE TIME FOR ISSUING A WRITTEN ORDER AND MAKE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS AMENDING SECTION 24-29 OF THE CODE TO CLARIFY THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF DISABILITY BENEFITS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (3472) through #2 (0070) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson, Firefighters' Pension Board ecretary/Treasuret, stated that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3887 amends the Fire Pension Code for three purposes: 1) to specifically authorize the use of a special counsel for disability hearings, 2) to extend the issuance time of a written order for a disability from 60 days to 75 days, and 3) to clarify the effective date of a disability pension. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the attorney for the Firefighters' Pension Board currently serves as the advocate against granting a disability pension and as the legal advisor to the Board; that approval of the proposed ordinance is requested to address the potential conflict created by the dual role of the attorney by authorizing the Board to use special counsel as necessary. Vice Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Vice Mayor Cardamone Closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 95-3887 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3887 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3887 on first reading. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor Book 38 Page 12210 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12211 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, yes. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: DRAINAGE ON ANGLIN DRIVE AND THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SARASOTA COUNTY FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF SARASOTA - CITY MANAGER TO CONTACT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXPRESS THE COMMISSIONIS DISMAY ON THE COUNTY'S SLOW PROGRESS IN ADDRESSING ANGLIN DRIVE; ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT BACK ON THE RESULTS OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT EVALUATION (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #2 (0070) through (0800) Commissioner Patterson stated that the Anglin Drive drainage project should be resolved; that the Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County should be discussed; that numerous efforts to advance drainage projects, including Anglin Drive, have occurred since she has been on the Commission; that the situation on Anglin Drive was brought to a previous Commission's attention; that residents of the area have been asking for help for many years; that the engineering work has been completed for the drainage project on Anglin Drive, and the Commission funded the balance of the project in April 1995; that Sarasota County put the project out to bid in May 1995; that the only bid received was for $150,000 which seemed inappropriately high for the work to be performed; that the bid was not pursued and no further action has been taken since May 1995. Commissioner Patterson continued that the Anglin Drive drainage project seems to have completely stalled; that efforts should be made to move Sarasota County along if the City is to continue to work with the County on drainage projects; that the Anglin Drive project was one of four top priority projects in the City which have yet to be accomplished; that Sarasota County's lack of movement is not specific to the Anglin Drive drainage project; that the drainage maintenance which the County is paid to administer is not adequate; that all residents in the Phillippi Basin tax district received notices of substantial increases for FY 95/96; that drainage maintenance cost increases of $80 for a house with a $50,000 assessment value is substantial; that she is concerned with the City's mutual stormwater arrangements with the County. The following people came before the Commission: William Sterka, 3446 Anglin Drive (34242), distributed photographs of his residence on Anglin Drive, and stated that the drainage situation has been tolerated for many years; that the issue should have been resolved long ago but continues to exist; that Mr. David Lafleur will present a history of what has transpired to date. David Lafleur, 3438 Anglin Drive (34242), stated that the engineering plans have been developed; that the County received one bid for the drainage project in the amount of $150,000 was received; that other organizations should have been approached for competitive bids which is customary in private industry; that a plan using the $100,000 which has already been approved for the reconstruction of the Anglin Drive/Norsota Way areas should be initiated immediately; that two thirds of the work could be completed in the beginning of FY 95/96 with the balance addressed in the first quarter of the following year; that the financial issue would not be resolved, but a drainage problem for which the voters passed a referendum over eight years ago would finally be addressed; that the northern end of Norsota Way has been corrected; however, drainage problems still exist at the southern end of Norsota Way, where Anglin Drive is located. Commissioner Patterson stated that the drainage problem has been referred to the County Administration through the City Manager on several occasions with no resolve; that a resolve to this problem with which City residents have been dealing for over 12 years is imperative. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration is evaluating the terms of the Interlocal Agreement for Stormwater Management; that a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued for the Anglin Drive project, but only one bid was received; that a similar situation occurred when the only bid received for the City's Little Five Points beautification project was $80,000 over budget; that the City rejected the bid and will reissue RFPs; that he recommends that the Commission direct him to communicate with the County Administrator regarding the Anglin Drive project, expressing the City's dismay with the lack of progress, and request that the County reissue RFPS for the project. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that progress has been slow on a whole list of items; that the Anglin Drive issue has been brought to the Commission table three times in the 2.5 years she has been on the Commission; that the Commission is obviously dismayed. Commissioner Patterson asked if a specific motion is necessary or if this discussion will suffice? Mr. Sollenberger stated that this discussion will suffice. Commissioner Patterson stated that maintenance of stormwater drains in general is of concern; that complaints regarding flooding are frequently received from City residents; that, for example, six to eight months ago water accumulation on Freeling Drive was so deep that vehicles were parked in her yard because people could not drive through the water; that one vehicle sustained engine damage; that County staff inspected the area and stated the problem could Book 38 Page 12212 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12213 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. not be identified; that City Staff stated that resolving the problem was the County's responsibility; that County Staff returned to the site a second time and reported that collapsed drains and other problems were causing the water accumulation; that, finally, the City hired a company which used a giant roto-rooter to clean barnacles out of the drain; that even in the recent torrential rains, the area has not flooded again; that many of the flooding problems occurring in the City may be attributable to inadequate maintenance of the drains; that this Commission has a duty to address issues which will affect City residents; that based on the County's inadequacy in addressing smaller projects, the Commission should reconsider participating with the County on the large, multimillion dollar projects for which City residents will be assessed fees; that the assessments fees scheduled for City residents should be presented for review; that the City can opt out; that a decision by the Commission is necessary prior to bonds being issued. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Administration should present alternatives to participating with the County in stormwater projects. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for the status of the Interlocal Agreement regarding the stormwater maintenance. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the evaluation of the Interlocal Agreement being performed by the Public Works and Engineering Departments should identify specific inefficiencies; that adjusting the Interlocal Agreement or making alternative arrangements will be necessary to resolve the problems which clearly exist. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested that the amount contributed to the Stormwater Utility by City residents since the Interlocal Agreement was signed be provided. Mr. Sollenberger stated that figures will be provided. Commissioner Patterson asked if any other municipalities in Sarasota County participate in the Stormwater Management Interlocal Agreement or if the other municipalities perform individual stormwater drainage functions? Mr. Sollenberger stated that to the best of his knowledge other municipalities are not participating in the Interlocal Agreement; that unlike other local municipalities, the City of Sarasota is surrounded by unincorporated, urbanized areas of the County; that the Interlocal Agreement was developed to coordinate city and County approaches to engineering and planning of stormwater drainage and to consolidate a utility to manage the stormwater; that problems have been experienced with the adopted approach; therefore, an evaluation is being performed so remedies can be considered. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that areas of the City other than Anglin Drive have been affected with structural flooding; that some of the problem areas are finally being addressed, but progress has been slow in the north end of the City. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested that a report on the Interlocal Agreement be provided to the Commission as soon as possible. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A MORATORIUM ON PROCESSING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING INCLUDING LANGUAGE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #2 (0622) through (1044) Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission took no action at the August 21, 1995, public hearing on the proposed moratorium; that Staff has attempted to answer the concerns she raised at the public hearing; that she is not happy about a moratorium; however, the City Manager has indicated that the Planning Department is not adequately staffed to complete the statutory requirement for submission of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), address the Land Development Regulations Update, etc., if the City proceeds with Comprehensive Plan amendments next year; that this item has been agendaed for further discussion since her specific objections have been addressed. City Manager Sollenberger stated that although the Commission has supported the addition of two positions in the Planning Department, vacancies due to turnover will be filled with inexperienced staff; that the Planning Department has major planning responsibilities scheduled during FY 95/96; that if a moratorium is not approved, Comprehensive Plan amendments processed in 1996 would be based on the existing Comprehensive Plan rather than the Comprehensive Plan approved through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process. Mr. Sollenberger continued that a particular issue of concern is rezoning of annexed properties designated on the County's future land use map for a use other than that for which they are currently zoned; that Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's office, has prepared language which is consistent with Commission policy and addresses the future land use map designation of potential annexed properties; that Stephen Rees, the attorney representing Chapman Trust, has indicated that the proposed language adequately addresses the concerns he raised during the previous public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that copies of a letter dated September 1, 1995, from Stephen Rees to Sarah Schenk has been distributed to the Commission and made part of the record. Book 38 Page 12214 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12215 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends setting for public hearing an ordinance drafted with the language provided by the City Attorneys's office. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to set for public hearing an ordinance for a moratorium on Comprehensive Plan amendments which includes the language suggested by the City Attorney's Office regarding land use policy. Commissioner Dry asked if the proposed language only targets rezonings and related matters. Ms. Schenk came before the Commission and stated that the following language would be included in the ordinance: Petitions to amend the future land use maps, pertaining to annexed property, requesting zoning under the City of Sarasota Zoning Code equivalent to the exiting Sarasota County Zoning on the annexed property and/or the future land use designation applied to the parcel by the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Schenk stated that Attorney Rees' letter indicated his concern relative to the Chapman Trust property being able to conform to Land Use Plan Policy 1.5 which states all lands annexed into the City shall become Impact Management Areas (IMAs) designated for an appropriate City zone district; that the Chapman Trust property is currently designated as an Activity Center on Sarasota County's future land use map which would permit an option of five different Sarasota County zone districts; that Attorney Rees is attempting to preserve the options available in the County if the property is annexed into the City. Commissioner Dry asked if the IMA for the annexed property would be considered a Comprehensive Plan amendment and, thereby, defeat the purpose of the moratorium? Ms. Schenk stated that after annexation occurs, the Comprehensive Plan is amended to place the property in an IMA; that the third step is the actual rezoning; that the ordinance originally drafted only exempted properties being annexed into the city for which a zone district equivalent to the County's was being sought; that property zoned residential in the County could only be zoned residential in the City; that the revised language considers not only the existing County zone district but also a future zone district envisioned by the County's Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Taylor stated that the exemption would only apply to annexations. Ms. Schenk stated that the exemption is very limited, and the language is narrowly written. Commissioner Patterson stated that her understanding of the recommendation was that the affected properties would operate under the County's regulations until such time as the City's Comprehensive Plan was amended. Ms. Schenk stated that Florida State Statutes require that annexed property be placed immediately into an IMA under the Comprehensive Plan for inclusion in the City's zone districts; that otherwise property could be developed under the existing County zone districts. Commissioner Patterson asked if a complete exemption from the moratorium is being recommended for properties being annexed? Ms. Schenk stated that properties proposed for annexation are not being exempted where more intense zoning is requested. Commissioner Patterson stated that affected properties would be placed into an IMA to the extent that the properties have development capability within the County. Ms. Schenk stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the Activity Center classification in the County is similar to an IMA in the City. Ms. Schenk stated that the City's IMAS are more restrictive in that one or two zone districts are specified; that the County's Activity Center designation permits five different zone districts and, therefore, is broader. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if properties with an Activity Center designation on Sarasota County's future land use map that petition the City for annexation would be exempted from the moratorium? Ms. Schenk stated that is correct. City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed language is in response to a request by Attorney Rees who is concerned with a particular parcel of property; that the Commission could implement the moratorium excluding the proposed language if the request is viewed as offensive to the concept of a moratorium. Commissioner Patterson stated that the concept of a moratorium is offensive; that the Commission should not deny the ability of property owners being annexed into the City to use their property to the extent possible within the County. Book 38 Page 12216 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12217 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to repeat the motion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion as to set for public hearing a proposed ordinance for a moratorium using the language as presented by the City Attorney's Office. Vice Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, yes. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3894, AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, LICENSES, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE OCCUPATIONAL TAX LICENSES BEGINNING AUGUST 1 OF EACH YEAR AND CHANGING THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF TO SEPTEMBER 30 OF EACH YEAR; SETTING FORTH PENALTIES FOR ENGAGING IN BUSINESS WITHOUT A LICENSE; REQUIRING THE PROVISION OF A FEDERAL IDENTIPICATION NUMBER OR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IN THE APPLICATION FOR AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE; AMENDING THE TRANSFER FEE FOR TRANSFER OF AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TO A NEW OWNER OF A BUSINESS OR TO A NEW LOCATION FOR THE BUSINESS; ADJUSTING OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEES FOR ENGAGING OR MANAGING BUSINESSES, PROFESSIONS OR OCCUPATIONS WITHIN THE CITY; SETTING FORTH REQUIREMENTS REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES FOR COIN OPERATED OR TOKEN OPERATED VENDING MACHINES; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; PROVIDING FOR REPEALING OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #2 (1045) through (1184) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3894. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3894 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 95-3894. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that an extension from the State regarding the deadline for adopting changes to the Occupational License Fee Schedule is not likely: that the ordinance as drafted does not address the subject of equity in the occupational licensing of businesses within the city of Sarasota; that, for example, a major car dealer pays $185 per year to sell new and used cars in the City of Sarasota, while a small retailer may pay as much as $400; that the lack of guidance provided to the Equity Study Commission resulted in the Commission missing a major opportunity to provide equity to businesses in the City. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, no. The Commission recessed at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m. 12. NEW BUSINESS: RECOMMENDATION RE: SCHEDULING OF OUASI- JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARINGS - ADOPTED FOUR PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY; DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DEVELOP A FORMAL PROCEDURAL DOCUMENT (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #2 (1185) through (1922) City Attorney Taylor referred to his memorandum to David Sollenberger, City Manager, dated August 28, 1995, and stated that there is no legal prohibition against scheduling some or all quasi- judicial matters as part of a special meeting called for that purpose; that he recommends scheduling such special meetings for quasi-judicial matters unless the City Manager, with advice from the Offices of the City Attorney and the City Auditor and Clerk, determines the matter is of a routine nature that involves little or no demand on available time; that calling a special meeting for routine matters would not be necessary; that he also recommends that the Commission authorize immediate implementation of a procedure which would require that any party submit the written report or name and summary of the testimony of witnesses to the city Auditor and Clerk prior to scheduling the public hearing at which the testimony or written matter will be submitted; that the Commission has the prerogative to request such items in advance. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that discretion by the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Auditor and Clerk is necessary in determining how to schedule quasi-judicial public hearings; that special meetings will be scheduled exclusively if a protracted public hearing is anticipated; that certain quasi- judicial matters will not require a special meeting; that the private access road request heard earlier tonight is an example of a quasi-judicial public hearing which would not require a special meeting. Mr. Sollenberger stated that City Attorney Taylor has four recommendations; that three of the recommendations are guidelines for the Administration; that one recommendation is a guideline to be exercised by the City Commission regarding time limits and granting extensions of time to speakers; that an issue of concern is that the proponent is provided a disproportionate amount of time to present evidence while others who may have something to say do not have an equal amount of time; that the City Commission can determine if time limits should be articulated in writing; however, hard and fast rules are difficult to devise and apply to every situation; that some guidelines would be appropriate; that time Book 38 Page 12218 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12219 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. limits could be handled on an ad-hoc basis at each of the quasi- judicial public hearings. Commissioner Pillot asked if the following is an accurate summary of the four recommendations? 1) allow the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Auditor and Clerk discretion to determine whether or not a special meeting should be scheduled; 2) allow some discretion with time limits; 3) require that names of witnesses and written reports be presented in advance; and 4) require pre-submittal of the names of rebuttal witnesses with a summary of testimony 10 days prior to the continuation of a quasi-judicial proceeding. City Attorney Taylor stated that the summary cited is accurate. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to adopt the recommended procedures for quasi-judicial hearings including the special meetings and time allotments. Commissioner Dry stated that problems have been experienced with the new land use and property rights legislation; that the Commission should achieve some semblance of order in quasi-judicial procedures, recognizing the needs of the petitioners as well as neighborhood residents; that the time expended at taxpayer's expense is monumental for certain land use issues; that she agrees with a number of the recommendations presented; that the Commission should not be expected to deliberate and make decisions on voluminous documents without the benefit of having sufficient time to absorb the information; that expecting the Commission to make hasty decisions is equally unfair to the citizens; that the Commission's decision should be held in abeyance if additional information is presented during a quasi-judicial public hearing since sufficient time is necessary for the Commission to respond adequately; that the process should be streamlined; that authorizing the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Auditor and Clerk to make discretionary decision on scheduling special meetings is supported. Commissioner Patterson stated that a defined procedure clarifying that a decision may not be made by the Commission at a particular meeting should be articulated; that a monthly special meeting date should be established as a default date to which a public hearing can be referred if a particular hearing becomes complex or overly burdensome in terms of time; that the special meeting could be cancelled if there are no quasi-judicial public hearings to conduct. City Attorney Taylor stated that although the case law is explicit that the Commission is not required to make findings in writing, the order for the recent Court decision regarding the Walgreens petition implies that the judge's job would have been easier if written findings had been submitted; that a second, regularly scheduled quasi-judicial proceeding would allow the time necessary to develop a consensus finding for the record; that based on the Commission's discussions, a compilation of the findings would have to be stated prior to the final vote. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that providing a written consensus finding should be addressed; that the recommendations made by the City Attorney are supported; however, latitude should be retained to schedule a quasi-judicial public hearing for a regular Commission meeting which has a light agenda; that the remainder of an agenda could be postponed to the next regularly scheduled meeting if necessary. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked how the pre-submittal of rebuttal testimony will be addressed. City Attorney Taylor stated that a procedure could be established whereby the requirement to submit material in advance would be triggered by the type and quantity of material to be submitted for the rebuttal; that pre-submittal of rebuttal testimony would not be required if a simple rebuttal were to be made at the meeting; that the Commission would have the option to continue the deliberations in the event of unforeseen and complex submissions. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that as recommended the Commission will have an option to continue the proceeding for the decision? City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that conducting a quasi-judicial public hearing at one meeting, making the decision at a second meeting, and limiting the time the Commission deliberates in making the decision would provide an opportunity for the Commission to build consensus for the record. City Attorney Taylor stated that the suggested procedure also provides the opportunity for the Commission to engage in discussion as to whether or not additional information should be heard prior to closing the public hearing; that the County which has been conducting quasi-judicial proceedings in this manner recently had a favorable experience on an appeal; that the Board of County Commissioners made the determination as to what was necessary for Book 38 Page 12220 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12221 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. the record and continued the hearing until staff brought the necessary material back. Commissioner Patterson stated that the County Commission not only continued a public hearing involving a land use petition, but also instructed staff to come back with a recommendation for or against a lesser land use available in the County Sector Plan. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission may or may not rule at a particular hearing; that the Commission may recess the hearing to a particular time; that the procedures discussed at the table should be compiled with the City Attorney's recommendations and developed into a formal procedural document. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to amend the motion to include directing the City Attorney to develop a formal procedural document. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the full page of recommendations on how to conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing, which was presented during the presentation made by the Land Development Regulations Update consultants, should be considered for inclusion in the procedural document. Vice Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the amendment to the motion. Amendment carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the main motion to adopt the recommended procedures for quasi-judicial hearings including the special meetings and time allotments and to direct the City Attorney to develop a formal procedural document. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, yes. 13. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE "COPS UNIVERSAL HIRING SUPPLEMENT! APPLICATION - NO ACTION TAKEN: APPLICATION TO BE WITHDRAWN (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #2 (1939) through (2802) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission did not participate in the COPS Universal Hiring Supplement program in previous years due to concerns over future costs to the City; however, it is anticipated that this year will be the last year to apply for funding under the program; that the Commission should discuss its interest prior to receipt of any grant award; that there are no assurances that a grant award will be forthcoming; that a discussion would be more appropriate while awaiting approval rather than placing the Commission in the awkward position of having to decline federal funds in the event of receipt of an award. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the COPS Universal Hiring Supplement program would strengthen community policing and would add four officers to the walking beats on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Way and one officer to the community policing program; that several questions can be asked: Can the City get along without the COPS Universal Hiring Supplement program? Will the program add future cost to the City above what is currently experienced? Is the COPS Universal Hiring Supplement program worth undertaking? Will the COPS Universal Hiring Supplement program accomplish some results? Mr. Sollenberger further stated that these questions can all be answered affirmatively; that there are implications for the City as to continuing the COPS program after the expiration of the grant; that if the city is awarded the grant, continued funding of these positions will depend on the availability of funds in the City and a good faith effort to secure continued funding; that the Commission should decide if the COPS Universal Hiring Supplement program is to be pursued or the application should be withdrawn; that the Commission's direction on this issue is desired. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked the reasons the Commission opted out of the COPS Universal Hiring Supplement program a year ago. Gordon Jolly, Chief of the Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission and stated that the Federal Government first introduced the COPS Universal Hiring Supplement program 18 months to two years ago; that the idea of applying for the grant was brought before the City Commission at that time; that due to the funding obligation required at that time and funding difficulties in the City, the decision was made by the Commission not to proceed with a grant application; that the City received notification from the Justice Department in late July 1995 with a ten-day turnaround deadline of the opening of the final round of funded grants; that an opportunity was not available to come before the Commission to provide this information and request guidance prior to the deadline; that the decision was made to apply for a grant under the COPS Universal Hiring Supplement program in order to meet the deadline; that the application can be withdrawn if participation in the program is not desired; that guidance from the Commission is requested on whether to pursue the grant or withdraw the application; that there are no assurances that the grant will be received. Book 38 Page 12222 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12223 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Police Chief Jolly continued that the City's experience with foot patrols, particularly in the downtown area, is that a major change in the public's perception of safety takes place; that the lack of crime or the presence of crime is not necessarily what influences people to visit the downtown area; that the public's perception is most important; that to make business districts viable, the perception of safety must be provided. Police Chief Jolly further stated that the Commission's Goals include the reduction or elimination of crime and drugs in the City of Sarasota and the revitalization of neighborhoods; that the Police Services Bureau has been working with neighborhood task teams to accomplish this goal; that new task teams have been started in the East Sarasota and Newtown areas; that the partnerships between City Government, appropriate County agencies, and citizens are starting to have impacts on neighborhoods; that a major change has been seen on Central Avenue which is continuing; that a similar impact can be made in the business district on MLK Way; that the public must have the perception of a safe business district to come to shop or to draw in new business owners; that currently the Police staffing to accomplish the perception of a safe business district does not exist; that the purpose of this grant, if the Commission approves going forward with the application and if the Justice Department decides to award the grant to the City, is to provide extensive foot patrols on the MLK Way business corridor and surrounding streets; that the maximum grant is $75,000 over a three-year period for each officer approved or 75 per cent of their salary, whichever is less; that for the City of Sarasota the $75,000 is the lesser of the two; that the grant would provide a maximum of $375,000 for a three-year period, which would fund five police officers. Police Chief Jolly continued that the proposed plan allocates no local share for the first year; that the 95/96 fiscal year (FY) budget has already been approved at first reading and second reading is scheduled in two weeks; that it is too late to allocate any dollars for the local share this year; that the proposed local share for FY 96/97 is minimal at slightly over $37,000; however, the proposal would require paying the full cost in the third year and beyond; that the Federal Government has changed the initial requirement that local governments must guarantee continued funding beyond the life of the grant for any positions funded under the program, which was a major objection of the Commission when the program was discussed previously; that this requirement was one of the reasons the Commission previously decided not to proceed; that local governments met with representatives of the Justice Department, indicating they cannot guarantee future dollars; that the City cannot guarantee the Federal Government that these positions will be funded four years from now; that the Federal Government has changed the program to require a "good faith effort" by local governments to continue funding the positions; that the question is what will be considered to be a good faith effort, which is not yet known; that his interpretation would be a two-part definition: 1) that the financial ability to continue funding exists, and 2) that the political will to continue funding exists; that the proposal before the Commission will commit some local dollars, not in the coming year, but in the following two fiscal years; that a good faith effort would have to be made to commit future dollars beyond the grant period. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for the local share for years one, two, and three to be announced for the record. Police Chief Jolly stated that the total proposed local share over the three-year period is $262,915 allocated as follows: no local share would be expended in FY 95/96, $37,285 would be expended in FY 96/97, and $225,630 would be expended in FY 97/98; that these figures do not include any proposed or anticipated cost-of-living adjustments (COLA). Commissioner Patterson stated that assuming a 2.8 percent raise each year, which is quite low, the third year local share would equal $243,000; that a longevity pay increase occurs every couple of years for Police in the amount of approximately 2 percent. Police Chief Jolly stated that longevity pay increases are involved in the fourth year by union contract and by city rules and regulations from the fifth year. Commissioner Patterson asked if longevity increases occur in the first three years? Police Chief Jolly stated they do not. Commissioner Patterson stated that foot patrols would appear more useful on MLK Way than having officers sit in substations; and asked if foot patrols are already provided in that area? Police Chief Jolly stated that a part-time foot patrol for one shift is assigned to MLK Way; that the foot patrol has been drawn from the Patrol Division. Commissioner Patterson asked if the foot patrol is for one shift a day? Police Chief Jolly stated that is correct; that a night-shift foot patrol is provided when staffing is available; that a full-time foot patrol is not provided. Commissioner Patterson asked if it takes five officers to put one more officer on the street? Book 38 Page 12224 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12225 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Police Chief Jolly stated that is correct; that in order to staff one position for 24 hours a day, five officers are required. Commissioner Pillot asked if attrition will allow the City to cut back the positions after the third year in the event that the COPS Universal Hiring Supplement grant is received and the program cannot be continued after that time? Police Chief Jolly stated yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that committing a Commission three years from now to maintain this program at an additional cost of $243,000 is worrisome; that however reserves would probably be available if the political will or the financial ability is constrained; that the propriety of pursuing this grant is problematic. Police Chief Jolly stated that seeking guidance was the purpose for approaching the Commission with this item; that the grant entails committing future dollars; that the financial position of the City in three to four years is difficult to know. Commissioner Patterson stated that the positions will be paid in full with federal dollars in FY 95/96; that two years from now at budget time the Commission will be addressing whether or not the approximately $243,000 will be funded; that two years from now is the same as the third budget year; that any Commission would like to put more Police on the street, but this item is a struggle. Commissioner Pillot stated that the public's major concern is safety, which is continually heard at neighborhood meetings and workshops; that this item involves five officers over a period of three years for a total cost to the City of $280,000 to $290,000 or approximately $18,000 per year per officer; that there is a risk in two years when considering the FY 97/98 budget; that the funds are not unmanageable; that a major decrease in public safety costs is expected with the consolidation of the City and County Fire Departments; that an opportunity with a relatively minor financial risk at an average of about $18,000 per officer per year is available to provide additional public safety support. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the grant application which has been submitted. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Sollenberger asked if the Commission wants to direct the Administration to withdraw the application; and stated that no action has been taken as of this time. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that since the Commission did not move forward on the application, the application will be withdrawn. Police Chief Jolly stated that a letter will be sent withdrawing the application. 14. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: APPEAL OF JUDGE'S RULING PERTAINING TO THE REZONING AND SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FILED ON BEHALF OF BVP ASSOCIATES, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALGREENS AT THE CORNER OF U.S. 41 AND BAHIA VISTA STREET - APPROVED TO APPEAL RULING TO SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #2 (2822) through #3 (0165) City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commissioners should have received their copies of the judge's ruling in the case pertaining to the rezoning and site and development plan filed with the Circuit Court on behalf of BVP Associates with sufficient time for review; that the judge correctly states in his ruling that he, as the appealing authority at this level, is not entitled to reweigh the evidence and cannot substitute his judgment for that of the City Commission; that the main question presented in the judge's ruling appears to center on what is substantial, competent evidence; that the judge states and cites the authorities for his response; that substantial, competent evidence is the necessary quantity of evidence required to support the findings of the zoning authority; that the Office of the City Attorney is disappointed with this ruling; that no mention is made in the ruling that the plaintiff put on evidence through the plaintiff's own witnesses or that the neighborhood put on any evidence at all, although there was evidence in both of these respects; that the ruling seems to indicate that, because the City's Planning Staff took a position and the Development Review Committee (DRC), which is a technical review board, looked at the site plan, and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing and made a favorable recommendation, these activities in and of themselves were all the competent, substantial evidence necessary to meet the petitioner's burden of proof; that it was then incumbent on the City Commission to obtain or make a record of sufficient evidentiary quantity to rebut the City's own Planning Staff and PBLP; that no recognition is made of the three or four expert witnesses who came forward and testified on behalf of one of the neighborhood associations; that the judge, with his particular knowledge of the location and the record of the City's internal positive findings, may have simply come to the conclusion that the proposed land use was correct for the particular location. City Attorney Taylor continued that he suggests an appeal is appropriate in this particular instance; that nobody wants to waste the money or time of the judicial system or to impact the other Book 38 Page 12226 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12227 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. parties to this proceeding by taking an appeal where one is not supported by the order; however, in the case of a Snyder type decision and with the scant legal precedent available, an argument can be made that the judge may have substituted his judgment for that of the City Commission and reweighed the testimony; that it is in the City's best interest to proceed with an appeal; that an appeal would take this issue from the Circuit Court to the Second District Court of Appeals (DCA). City Attorney Taylor further stated that during the course of the trial, an oral argument was made before the judge and a brief submitted to the Court; that now a 30-day window exists to appeal and write the brief in support of the appeal. Commissioner Pillot asked if an appeal would go to the Second DCA? City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Commissioner Pillot asked if the Second DCA has the authority, with its three judge panel, to deny the appeal and let the Circuit Court decision to stand? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Pillot asked if the cost can be estimated if the Second DCA decides to hear the appeal? City Attorney Taylor stated that most of the work will be done based on the brief already filed; that the cost is estimated at about $2,500; that if a reply brief is submitted, the total maximum cost would be approximately $3,500. Commissioner Pillot asked if that cost includes any argument before the Second DCA? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that the reason is the record has not changed; that a brief has already been written and an oral argument already made; that the appeal would be a refinement of what was already presented, as opposed to building the record from the beginning. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Second DCA would be asked to decide the same arguments the Circuit Court has decided; that the judge's decision was a strong one based upon his reading as a lay person; that he has no optimism that the Second DCA will overturn the decision; that he voted to approve the petitioner's application as he felt that competent, substantial evidence had been presented by the petitioners which was not rebutted successfully by opponents; that he opposes an appeal. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that several members of the audience have signed up to speak. The following persons came before the Commission: Georgia Nicholson, 1839 Alta Vista Street (34236), representing the Avondale Residents Association, came before the Commission and requested that the Commission vote to approve this appeal, especially in light of the costs which are not excessive; that her neighborhood has expended at least twice this amount for a cause which is felt to be worth the effort. Virginia Haley, 1646 South Orange Avenue (34239), Chairman of the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations, came before the Commission and stated that the Commission is strongly urged to approve this appeal; that the decision has an impact beyond this particular project; that the lack of a written findings, which was criticized in the opinion, is of concern since this Commission took great care in enunciating its reasons for the vote; that the vote was not based on political preference; that the judge totally ignored the evidence brought to the Commission table by the neighborhood experts; that the higher court will look more favorably on the case; that the Commission's support is urged in asking for the appeal. Richard A. Ulrich, 1654 Prospect Street (34239), representing himself and the Prospect Street Neighborhood Association, came before the Commission and stated that he is an attorney with the law firm of Judd, Ulrich and Dean in the City of Sarasota, a resident of Prospect Street, and the Director of the Prospect Street Neighborhood Association; that he urges the Commission to vote to appeal the decision; that while he believes the judge is extremely competent, he believes the judge made a mistake in this particular situation for the reasons set forth by the City Attorney and the previous speakers and based on the evidence presented to and the comments made by the Commission; that numerous evidence in the record was overlooked in the decision; that his firm has prepared similar appeals; that the cost cited by the City Attorney to go forward with this appeal is perhaps high as a brief has already been prepared and filed with the Circuit Court; that so much of the work has already been done; that on behalf of himself personally and on behalf of the Prospect Street Neighborhood Association, a request is made to appeal this decision. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to authorize the City Attorney to proceed with an appeal on this case. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commissioners know how they will vote and she does not intend to persuade them; that one thing which disturbed her in reading the judge's ruling was the weight Book 38 Page 12228 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12229 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. given to the recommendation of the DRC as the DRC's recommendation was never intended as a Staff recommendation to the Commission; that in fact, no recommendation was ever given from the DRC to the Commission; that the actual role of the DRC must be clarified. city Attorney Taylor stated that is correct; that the misconception is that the DRC had an impact on making a determination about negative impacts on a neighborhood; that those determinations are not within the jurisdiction of the DRC, which is strictly a technical review board looking to ensure that codes are followed without getting into the more general policy-making determinations; that no matter what is done by the Commission, the Zoning Code should be amended to acknowledge the role of the DRC, what it does, and what its limitations are; that nothing is written in the Zoning Code concerning the operation of the DRC; that he proposes to formalize the DRC's role. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he was alarmed at the weight given to the information from the DRC as it is a technical review committee; that decisions regarding petitions involve an exercise of discretion; that technical reviews do not go that far into matters of discretion and are an interpretation of the application of existing standards to a particular project; that the DRC considers the right way to do a project rather than whether the project is the right project for the specific location. Commissioner Pillot stated that the charge of one of the previous speakers that the Circuit Court ignored the evidence from the neighborhood experts is not substantiated; that the judge's ruling refers to a review of the record and also points out that the Florida Supreme Court has cautioned the Circuit Court not to reweigh the evidence; that the court is not guilty of ignoring the evidence. Vice Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the motion to appeal the case to the Second District Court of Appeals. Motion carried (3 to 1): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; no, Cardamone, yes. 15. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: SARASOTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SBRVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL = APPOINTED COMMISSIONER DELORES DRY TO REPRESENT THE SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM IX) #3 (0154) through (0213) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners has established a Children and Youth Services Advisory Council which requires appointment of an elected representative from the Sarasota City Commission; that Commissioner Dry has expressed an interest in the appointment. Commissioner Dry stated that the Sarasota County Children Youth and Services Advisory Council is indirectly related to the Grant-in-Aid Committee on which she has served for the past two years; that she offers her service in representing the City Commission on the newly established Council. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to appoint Commissioner Delores Dry to the Children and Youth Services Advisory Council. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Cardamone, yes. 16. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: ADMINISTRATION. TO REPORT BACK ON A POLICY FOR SURVEY RESULTS AND DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING RE-INSTALLATION OF PIPING ON U.S. 41 (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (0220) through (1089) COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that she was not in attendance at the August 7, 1995, regular Commission meeting at which a formal vote was taken on a new policy for submission of sign up forms by citizens requesting to speak; that the vote was taken in light of a situation where a citizen had waited until the end of a public hearing to submit a request to speak so the speaker could speak last; that to prevent such activity in the future, a policy was established whereby citizens must sign up to speak prior to the beginning of a public hearing or discussion of the item; that the Commission's frustration at the meeting is understood; however, the decision should be reconsidered; that citizens may have other obligations and arrive after a public hearing or discussion has started; that often citizens decide to speak to rebut statements made during a public hearing; that the Commission has had a very friendly policy regarding public input; that the recently established policy will eliminate only a few speakers but will cause a number of accusations of arrogance that the Commission does not deserve. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to rescind the motion establishing the new policy whereby no citizen input sign up sheets on an agenda topic will be accepted once a topic has been introduced and the sign up sheets have been given to the Mayor by the City Auditor and Clerk. Commissioner Dry stated that a citizen's ability to address the Commission should not be limited; however, a sense of order regarding the sign up sheets is necessary; that citizens often make the decision to speak to a specific item prior to the date or early Book 38 Page 12230 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12231 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. in the meeting; that the City Auditor and Clerk is required to arrange and organize the sign up sheets and hand them to Mayor as the agenda item is being introduced; that requiring sign up sheets to be submitted prior to the start of an agenda topic will provide for more efficient administration of the meeting. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for comment by the City Attorney regarding the newly established policy. City Attorney Taylor stated that providing citizens a fair opportunity to be heard is the Commission's first and foremost responsibility; however, placing reasonable limitations on the submission of sign up sheets is within the scope of the Commission's authority. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with Commissioner Dry. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that from experience, she knows leaders who organize neighborhood involvement at Commission meetings strategically plan to have a closing speaker; that during the August 7 discussion regarding the newly established policy she had suggested implementation of a numbering system whereby the sign up sheets for each agenda item are numbered and speakers are called in the order in which the sheets are completed. Commissioner Dry stated that she would support implementing a numbering system for the sign up sheets on a trial basis. Commissioner Pillot stated that a numbering system would not prevent the problem for which the new policy was established; that a citizen could still sign up to speak after all other speakers have been called. Commissioner Patterson stated that she would support a numbering system; that closing submission of sign up sheets as the item is introduced prevents rebuttal to statements made during public input by citizens who did not intend to speak and therefore did not sign up. Commissioner Pillot stated that a citizen who may wish to rebut statements made during public input on an agenda item could sign up in advance and waive their right to speak if statements are not made which the citizen feels require rebuttal. Vice Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the motion for rescission. Motion failed (2 to 2): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; no; Cardamone, no. COMMISSIONER DRY: A. stated that the proposed Graffiti Abatement Ordinance will soon be presented to the Commission; that the ordinance may create a hardship for property owners; that the Administration should contact the Juvenile Justice Board, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), and other such agencies to incorporate work assignments for juvenile offenders to paint over the graffiti. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that utilizing community service assignments to have the graffiti removed or covered is supported. Commissioner Pillot stated that he supports community service assignments. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Administration should contact HRS and offer City participation in the Community Service Program. Commissioner Patterson stated that graffiti has been noticed on a Florida Power & Light (FPL) meter at Almeria Avenue and Siesta Drive. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the location will be investigated. VICE MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. stated that comments have been received regarding the exceptionally nice appearance of the landscaping planted in the medians on Mound Street/U.S. 41. B. stated that a letter was recently received from a citizen which indicated that Alexandrea Hay, Assistant City Engineer, had told the resident that if a resident failed to respond to the sidewalk survey, they would be counted as a yes vote. Vice Mayor Cardamone requested that the statement be verified and an item regarding survey results be agendaed for formal action by the Commission. C. stated that although she heard a rumor in June, the Administration has made no comment to the Commission regarding defective pipes which were installed on U.S. 41 in the vicinity of the Ringling School of Art and/or in front of Sarasota High School; that removal of defective pipes and reinstallation of piping would require another complete tear up of the U.S. 41 pavement in the referenced areas; and asked for comment by the Administration as to the validity of the rumor, the delay in informing the Commission, and the Administration's strategy to avoid disrupting the businesses and neighborhoods for a second time. Book 38 Page 12232 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12233 09/05/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the rumor is true; that defective pipe was purchased from the supplier; that complete reinstallation of piping is required; that the City will not bear the cost of reinstallation; that he will report back to the Commission on a detailed strategy to minimize the impact and inconvenience to the affected property owners. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she is annoyed with the Administration's delay in apprising the Commission of the situation; that numerous complaints were received regularly during the original pipe installation project; that the Administration should work diligently to complete the project at night, one block at a time, and to do everything possible to manage the project aggressively so the businesses and adjacent neighborhoods are not affected any more than absolutely necessary. Commissioner Patterson stated that performing the construction at night will not alleviate the pavement being torn up during the day; that timing is important; that construction should start as rapidly as possible since tourist season begins in November. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration was awaiting the resolve of the dispute between the pipe supplier and the pipe installation contractor prior to bringing the item to the Commission; that the dispute has recently been resolved, and the project may proceed; that a detailed report will be provided to the Commission. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Administration should provide the report as soon as possible. 17. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #3 (1092) There being no further business, Vice Mayor Cardamone adjourned the regular meeting of September 5, 1995, at 9:40 p.m. lanlls Cin Lc. - MOLLIE CARDAMONE, VICE MAYOR ATTEST: BirlyE Rabesori BILLY ECROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK