BOOK 53 Page 24787 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2003, AT 2:30 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Carolyn J. Mason, Vice Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer, Commissioners Richard F. Martin, Mary J. Quillin, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: : None PRESIDING: Mayor Mason The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 2:30 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED CD 2:30 through 2:31 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Change Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. IV-B-2, Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1595, appropriating $500,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to fund the services of special legal counsel, experts and costs related to litigation and claims arising out of the Van Wezel renovation, etc., to Unfinished Business, Item No. VI-2 per the request of City Manager McNees. B. Change Unfinished Business, Item No. VI-2, Report Re: City Commission direction of January 21, 2003, to review the Laurel Park land use issue and. develop recommendations on how to proceed to Unfinished Business, Item No. VI-3, per the request of City Manager McNees. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 2. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 2:31 There was no one signed up to speak. 3. APPROVAL RE: : MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 2003 APPROVED AS REVISED (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 2:31 through 2:33 Mayor Mason asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Commissioner Servian stated that the phrase "two lanes" should be changed to "one lane" in Agenda Item No. XIII-1 concerning approval of a letter to the Mayor of Longboat Key regarding US 41 to result in the following: Commissioner Servian stated that people are concerned US 41 may be reduced to one lane in both the north and south directions Commissioner Martin stated that the phrase "in City revenues" should be added to Agenda Item No. XV regarding Remarks of Commissioners, Announcements and Items for Next Agenda to result in the following: COMMISSIONER MARTIN: A. Stated . that $4.5 million will be generated in City revenues by the end of fiscal year Mayor Mason stated that hearing no other changes, the minutes of the February 3, 2003, Regular Commission meeting are approved as revised by unanimous consent. 4. BOARD AÇTIONS RE : REPORT RE : CELEBRATE SARASOTA COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 12, 2003 = RECEIVED REPORT; APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE GRANT APPLICATIONS FROM INDIAN BEACH SAPPHIRE SHORES HOMEOWNER ' S ASSOCIATION, / PAVER PARK ASSOCIATION, 1 ROSEMARY DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BAY ISLAND / SIESTA ASSOCIATION, AQUARIAN QUEST, AND THE SARASOTA MILITARY ACADEMY ; REFERRED BACK TO THE COMMITTEE THE GRANT APPLICATIONS FROM CELEBRATE SARASOTA & MEMORABILIA COMMITTEE AND ART CENTER SARASOTA, BOOK 53 Page 24788 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24789 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOB MARTIN'S BEST MEMORIES TIME CAPSULE, AND THE SARASOTA CONCERT BAND ; APPROVED REMOVAL OF THE ESSAY STIPULATION FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL RENAISSANCE PROGRAM CELEBRATION (AGENDA ITEM III) CD 2:33 through 2:58 Thorning Little, Chair, Celebrate Sarasota Committee (Committee), came before the Commission and presented the following item from the February 12, 2003, Committee meeting: Recommendations of the Committee for grant funding requests Mr. Little continued that the original deadline of January 15, 2003, for requests for grant applications was extended; that subsequently, ten additional grant applications were received. Mr. Little referred to the minutes of the meeting which are included in the Agenda backup material and which include a summary of the additional grant applications; and stated that the Committee reviewed the requests and recommends the Commission approve the following grant applications: Grant Application/Applicant Amount Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Homeowner's Association $500 The Impenetrable Swamp and Surrounding Area Paver Park Association $500 Street Beautification Project Rosemary District Neighborhood Association $500 Rosemary Garden Party Bay Island/Siesta Association $500 Welcome Sign for Bay Island with Landscaping Celebrate Sarasota Art & Memorabilia Committee and Art $2,500 Center Sarasota Artwork Exhibition and Photo Competition Bob Martin $500 Best Memories Time Capsule Aquarian Quest $500 Sarasota Maritime Heritage Sarasota Military Academy $1,000 Veterans' History Project Sarasota Concert Band $1,000 Commissioner Quillin referred to the grant application submitted by the Paver Park neighborhood concerning the Street Beautification Project and stated that Paver Park is not known as being an organized or. active neighborhood association; and asked if the Committee determined which neighborhoods are active or inactive? Mr. Little stated that the Committee trusts the persons presenting grant applications are honorable individuals representing a group of people from a particular neighborhood district; that the Committee has not conducted additional investigation to assure the validity of the grant applications received. Commissioner Quillin asked if the Committee has a list of valid neighborhoods from the Neighborhoods Department? Mr. Little stated no. Commissioner Quillin stated that any individual could submit a grant application which may not be valid. Mr. Little stated that all grant applications received thus far have been submitted by reputable applicants. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Paver Park neighborhood has been struggling to reorganize; that the attempt by the neighborhood to reorganize is greati and asked for clarification of the grant application for a Best Memories Time Capsule submitted by Bob Martin. Mr. Little stated that the presentation given was interesting; that the goal of the project is to solicit and collect the best memories of the past 100 years in Sarasota; that 10 of the best submissions will be awarded based on the contribution to the community; that the top 10 submissions will be included in the time capsule; that a location and an appropriate ceremony for the time capsule will be determined; that additionally, a City time capsule has been discussed in conjunction with the reopening of the Federal Building; that a ceremony for the Best Memories Time Capsule could take place in conjunction with the City time capsule. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Best Memories Time Capsule is premature; that activities concerning a City time capsule are in process; that the belief is a location for the City's time capsule has not been determined; that providing funding of $500 for the Best Memories Time Capsule without a pre-determined location for the time capsule is a concern; that a time capsule was created in 1986, at the time of the Centennial Celebration, which ended up in BOOK 53 Page 24790 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24791 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. someone's garage; that the contents of the time capsule cannot be found; that the grant application for the Best Memories Time Capsule should be referred to the Administration; that the City is presently working towards a time capsule which will be considerably more costly than $500; that time capsules are expensive. Mr. Little stated that the Best Memories Time Capsule is a modified version of a time capsule and will contain only 10 individual thoughts. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Best Memories Time Capsule should be coordinated with the City's time capsule; that a time capsule independent of the City's time capsule is a concern. Commissioner Quillin referred to the grant application for Artwork Exhibition and Photograph Competition submitted by the Celebrate Sarasota Art & Memorabilia Committee and Art Center Sarasota and stated that the understanding is the exhibition includes a month long display of local artwork and a photograph competition for students; that the amount requested was $6,500; that the Committee recommended $2,500 which does not seem sufficient; and asked the reason the Committee is not recommending more funding? Mr. Little stated that the amount recommended is in consideration of the funds available in the budget after the first grant cycle and number of grant applications presented; that the hope is to have funds in reserve for grant applications anticipated from the Jewish community and the Newtown District. Commissioner Quillin stated that the hope is the Committee reviews the content of grant applications; that the content in the grant application for the Artwork Exhibition and Photograph competition is significant and includes a collection of art from the William Hartman Gallery; that the collection has never been displayed; that the cost to the Art Center Sarasota may exceed the amount recommended for funding; that the City will suffer a loss if the Hartman collection of art is not displayed. Mr. Little stated that a question was if the collection of art is appropriate for the Celebrate Sarasota theme; that the nature of the collection may have diminished the recommended amount; that a motion was initially made to approve $5,000 in funding which failed for lack of a second; that $2,500 was suggested as the recommended amount; that the amount is simply a recommendation. Commissioner Quillin stated that the hope is the Committee will reconsider the amount recommended; that the exhibit is noteworthy and involves local artists. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that a conversation was held with George Haborak who represents the Celebrate Sarasota Art & Memorabilia Committee and Art Center Sarasota regarding the exhibit; that the Mr. Haborak is encouraging young people in the community to have a photographic competition and exhibition; that the grant application concerning the competition and exhibition may not have been clear; that a suggestion was made to resubmit a request for reconsideration at the next Committee meeting; that a decision is not necessary at the present time; that the grant application can be reconsidered by the Committee at the next meeting. Commissioner Quillin asked if the Commission agrees to refer the application back to the Committee for reconsideration? Vice Mayor Palmer and Commissioner Servian stated yes. Commissioner Martin stated that conversations have also been held with Mr. Haborak; that the exhibition has great value to the Cityi that City Hall or another City facility could be provided as exhibition space which may reduce costs and provide a longer period of time for exhibition; that security is a concern since the Hartman collection of art is valuable; that referring the grant application back for reconsideration is supported. Commissioner Martin continued that the grant applications concerning the Paver Park Association Street Beautification Project and the Welcome Sign for Bay Island with Landscaping pertain to landscaping; that the connection with the City's 100th Anniversary and the reason for the recommended amounts are not clear; and asked if the Celebrate Sarasota logo is planned as part of the signage? Mr. Little stated yesi that the Committee has recommended the Celebrate Sarasota logo be included in correspondence and on plaques. BOOK 53 Page 24792 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24793 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Quillin stated that the grant application for the Best Memories Time Capsule should be referred back to the Committee to coordinate with the City's time capsule events. Commissioner Martin stated that Bob Martin, the applicant for the Best Memories Time Capsule, asked for suggestions for people who may wish to serve on a Committee for the project; that Mr. Martin is willing to work with others on the project, could be made aware of the work regarding the City's time capsule, and may be willing to become part of the City's time capsule project. Commissioner Quillin stated that providing funding of $500 for a project the City is already undertaking is not supported; that Mr. Martin is requesting 100 percent funding for the time capsule; that Mr. Martin does not represent a neighborhood; that the preterence is to coordinate the efforts of Mr. Martin's time capsule project with the City's time capsule. Commissioner Servian stated that the grant applications for the Paver Park Association Street Beautification Project and the Welcome Sign for Bay Island with Landscaping actually concern beautification or neighborhood issues; that the Committee should ensure the Applicants are using the Celebrate Sarasota logo in the neighborhood signage; that the Committee should also follow through with the grant application for the Rosemary Garden Party to ensure signage includes the Celebrate Sarasota logo; that the theme of the City's 100th Anniversary should be carried throughout; that the points raised by Commissioner Quillin concerning the grant application for the Best Memories Time Capsule are supported; that only one time capsule should be created for the whole community; that the effort should be coordinated; that the desire is for the applicant and the City to work together on one time capsule. Mr. Little stated that Fred Spence, Area High School Renaissance Coordinator, came before the Committee and expressed appreciation for the award of $3,000 for the grant application regarding the High School Renaissance Program Celebration event; that the Committee for the High School Renaissance Program Celebration event indicated the grant stipulations requiring the project to include an essay contest and prizes cannot be met; that the project recognizes over 4,000 high school students in Sarasota County for academic excellence and is anticipated as being one of the largest celebrations of its type in the US; that the project will require a total of $35,000 in funding; that other sponsors have been secured to donate the additional funds; that Mr. Spence indicated other sponsors also wish recognition for their contributions; that the City could not be recognized as the primary sponsor and have exclusivity in advertising unless the City chooses to donate an amount substantially higher than the originally recommended amount of $3,000. Mr. Little continued that an offer was made for removing the essay stipulation if Mr. Spence considered placing the Celebrate Sarasota logo on t-shirts, banners, and certificates for the event; that Mr. Spence agreed the Celebrate Sarasota logo could be placed on the items, along with the names or logos of the other sponsors; that the Committee voted unanimously to remove the essay stipulation and offer grant monies to the High School Renaissance Program Celebration provided the Celebrate Sarasota logo is placed on advertising and awards for the event with the City being listed as a sponsor. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the list of grant applications which the Commission is approving should be repeated at this time for clarification. Mr. Little stated that the Commission indicated approval of the following grant applications: Grant Application/Applicant Amount Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Homeowner's Association $500 The Impenetrable Swamp and Surrounding Area Paver Park Association $500 Street Beautification Project Rosemary District Neighborhood Association $500 Rosemary Garden Party Bay Island/Siesta Association $500 Welcome Sign for Bay Island with Landscaping Aquarian Quest $500 Sarasota Maritime Heritage Sarasota Military Academy $1,000 Veterans' History Project Sarasota Concert Band $1,000 Mr. Little stated that the grant application for the Veterans' History Project involves interviewing and videotaping local Sarasota war veterans; that the Committee's recommended stipulation was the veterans must be from the City at the time BOOK 53 Page 24794 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24795 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. of entering military service; that the Committee believes the recommended funding of $1,000 is reasonable and appropriate. Mr. Little continued that a presentation was made to the Committee by George McLain, representing the Sarasota Concert Band; that information concerning a Celebrate Sarasota event entitled "World War II United Service Organizations (USO) Show Dinner-Dance" was presented, which would be sponsored by the Sarasota Concert Band; that Mr. McLain is not requesting funding but wished to invite Committee members to the event being held March 28, 2003, at the Sarasota Exhibition Hall; that Stephania Feltz, Co-Chair, Multi Cultural Committee addressed the Committee concerning the status of the grant application award of $31,000 for a Hands of Heritage Celebrate Sarasota Finale; that Ms. Feltz indicated representatives of the Multi Cultural Committee met with the Commissioners; that the project has subsequently been approved; that the Multi Cultural Committee is prepared to move forward with the event; that the Committee voted unanimously to recommend $1,000 be provided for the Sarasota Concert Band to hold a performance in conjunction with the Hands of Heritage event on the weekend of October 18, 2003. Commissioner Quillin stated that funding of $31,000 was awarded for the Hands of Heritage project; that the Multi Cultural Committee has been requested to obtain corporate sponsorship to assist in defraying other costs; that the City has already paid the Sarasota Concert Band to put on a performance at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH); that the grant application of $1,000 to the Sarasota Concert Band should be referred back to the Committee for reconsideration. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approve the recommendations of the Committee for the grant applications from Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Homeowner's Association, Paver Park Association, Rosemary District Neighborhood Association, Bay Island/Siesta Association, Aquarian Quest, and the Sarasota Military Academy, to refer back to the Committee the grant applications from Celebrate Sarasota & Memorabilia Committee and Art Center Sarasota, Bob Martin's Best Memories Time Capsule, and the Sarasota Concert Band, and to approve removal of the essay stipulation for the High School Renaissance Program Celebration. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Commissioner Martin asked the amount of funding remaining? Mr. Little stated that $15,072.28 remains plus the $25,000 the Commission set aside for the City Auditor and Clerk to spend at his discretion, $2,622.21 of which has been spent. Commissioner Martin stated that the understanding is funding remains for the under represented communities which may still submit grant applications. Mr. Little stated that is correct. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Committee expressed a desire to extend efforts to contact and spark interest in organizations or groups playing significant roles in the City's history such as the Newtown area and the Jewish community; that the Committee had plans to target specific groups with hopes to involve the groups in the Celebrate Sarasota activities; that funding has been reserved in hopes of receiving grant applications from the specific groups. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that she and Commissioner Servian visited Temple Beth Sholom to attend the Annual Magen David Admon breakfast reception on February 16, 2003, and left a grant application and copy of the Committee's minutes for Rabbi Joel Mishkin; that the hope is a grant application will be forthcoming. Mayor Mason asked if Reverend Willie Holley has been contacted? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that several neighborhood associations have been contacted; that the original intent of the $500 grants was for events for neighborhoods to which to invite the rest of the City and in association with the Florida Neighborhoods Conference being held in September 2003. On motion of Commissioner Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to receive the February 12, 2003, report of the Celebrate Sarasota Committee. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yesi Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. The Commission recessed at 2:58 p.m. into a Special meeting as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and reconvened at 3:27 p.m. BOOK 53 Page 24796 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24797 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1 ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 AND 10 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM IV) CD 3:27 through 3:29 Commissioner Quillin requested that Item No. 5 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Set for public hearing proposed Ordinance No. 03-4457, amending Chapter 24, Article II, Division 2, Fire, of the Code of Sarasota, amending Section 24-43(c) pertaining to distribution of available funds to certain retired or terminated firefighters or their surviving spouse; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; etc. 2. Approval Re: Set for public hearing proposed Ordinance No. 03-4458, amending Chapter 24, Article II, Division 2, Fire, of the Code of Sarasota, amending Section 24-21 to provide for definitions; amending Section 24-22 to provide for certain lump sum payments to be defined as salary; amending Section 24-23 pertaining to requirements for service as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Firefighters' Pension Fund; amending Section 24-25 to provide for adjustment of overpayments or underpayments from the Firefighters' Pension Fund; amending Section 24-29 to provide for certain benefits in the event of the death or disability of a firefighter in the performance of duty and for certain benefits in the event of the death of a firefighter not in the performance of duties; amending Section 24-30 to provide for normal retirement under certain circumstances and to revise provisions pertaining to early retirement; amending Section 24-31 to provide for certain adjustments in limitation required by the Internal Revenue Code or otherwise; renumbering Section 24-37(a) as Section 24-26; amending Section 24-37 to provide for direct transfers of eligible rollover distributions; amending Section 24-38 pertaining to benefits in the event of layoffs, consolidation of fire and rescue service with another agency or voluntary termination; amending Section 24-40 pertaining to the power of the Firefighters' Pension Board to recall and re-examine a disability pensioner; amending Section 24-43 pertaining to cost-of-living adjustments and distribution of available funds; amending Section 24-48 pertaining to optional forms of benefits; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; etc. 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Department of Juvenile Justice Neighborhood Accountability Board Implementation Grant and Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Mayor's Drug Free Communities, Inc., for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003. 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the 6th Amendment to Minor League Baseball Facility Lease between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota Red Sox of Florida, Inc. (SRS), for an additional one year period for their 2003 championship season. 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Second Renewal to the Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Dufresne-Henry, Inc., (RFP #00-54H) for consulting engineering services relative to the City's sanitary sewer system for an additional one year period. 7. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Ajax Paving Industries, Inc., (Bid No. 03-12M) to install and complete the resurfacing with restoration for the 02-03 Pavement Milling and Resurfacing Project. 8. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Water Equipment Services, Inc., (Bid No. 03-05M) for the conversion of the overhead electrical distribution system to an underground electrical distribution system for the remaining Wells #31 through #39 at the Verna Wellfield (Phase 3). 9. Approval Re: Appropriate $30,000 from Tax Increment Financing funds to pay for an economic analysis of the proposed "Downtown Code, I direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare an agreement between the City of Sarasota and Economic Research Associates (ERA) to complete an economic analysis and authorize the Mayor BOOK 53 Page 24798 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24799 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an agreement between the City of Sarasota and ERA. 10. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Amendment to License Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Central Parking System of Florida, Inc., for a one year extension. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yesi Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., to design the Upper Main Street Streetscape Project under a continuing services contract in an amount not to exceed $85,500. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Consent Agenda No. 1 Item No. 5 will be considered under New Business as Agenda Item No. VIII-1 which will be heard in the evening session. Commissioner Quillin stated that the desire is to hear Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 5, during the afternoon session. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that according to the Commission's Rules of Procedure, Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 5, which was removed for discussion will be placed under New Business on the evening session's schedule. Commissioner Quillin stated that a motion will be to approve Agenda No. 1, Item No. 5, since the item cannot be heard at this time. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 5. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM NO. 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1582) ADOPTED : ITEM NO. 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4439) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-B) CD 3:29 through 3:31 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1582, appropriating $30,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the Tax Increment Financing fund to fund an economic analysis of the "Downtown Code." etc. 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4439, providing for the designation of the structures located at 1770 North Tamiami Trail, historically known as the Twin Motel (Northern Portion), as structures of historic significance pursuant to the historic preservation ordinance of the City of Sarasota; more particularly described herein; etc., (Title Only) (Application No 03- HD-01, Arnold Berns, as agent representing Colleen Cassidy, as owner). City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 03R-1582 in its entirety and proposed Ordinance No. 03-4439 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 and 2, inclusive. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Mason, yesi Palmer, yes; Quillin, yesi Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS : PRESENTATION RE: STATUS REPORT CONCERNING DISPUTES ARISING FROM VAN WEZEL RENOVATIONS = REPORT PROVIDED (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) CD 3:31 through 4:17 City Attorney Taylor stated that the presentation is being provided as a result of out of sunshine attorney-client sessions with the Commission in which case strategy and cost of litigation were discussed; that the Commission requested a status report be provided at a Regular Commission meeting prior to addressing the appropriation of the $500,000 required to fund the services of Special Legal Counsel, expert witnesses, and costs through trial. City Attorney Taylor referred to a February 18, 2002, Sarasota Herald-Tribune newspaper article entitled, "The Van Wezel BOOK 53 Page 24800 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24801 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) legal bill could top $1 million"; and continued that the article indicates the additional $500,000 is necessary to pay outside Special Legal Counsel and the cost of expert witnesses with construction and acoustic experience; that the City hired the Lakeland, Florida, law firm of Gray Harris & Robinson, P.A., in August 2001 since the firm is considered an expert in construction litigation. City Attorney Taylor further stated that the City Attorney's Office has been involved with the dispute concerning the VWPAH renovations since the time the VWPAH reopened in the fall of 2000; that David Sollenberger, the City Manager at the time, chose to utilize the City Attorney's Office as the primary source of addressing problem issues; that a great deal of time was spent on the matter; that a considerable amount of work was performed to investigate the difficulties encountered shortly after the VWPAH's reopening; that the work was necessary and has contributed to the litigation expenses; that the City Attorney's Office began with the thought of attempting mediation with the expectation mediation might produce a favorable result; that the City Attorney's Office participated in an eight day mediation which took place during 2001; that Special Legal Counsel was not involved in the eight day mediation; that the City Attorney's Office suggested hiring experts in construction litigation to address the matter after the eight day mediation failed to produce any results. City Attornèy Taylor stated further that the matter began with the City's initial demand on Taliesin Architects, Ltd. Corp. (Taliesin), through Taliesin's legal counsel in June 2001; that the demand was for $2 million; that as provided by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the State Statutes, two proposals for settlement were officially filed in the pending lawsuit against Taliesin; that each proposal to settle remains open for 30 days; that the last proposal to settle was mailed to Taliesin's Attorney on December 9, 2002; that no response was received; that the time to accept the proposal has expired; that after three settlement demands, Taliesin has not offered to pay any amount in settlement. City Attorney Taylor stated that a significant amount of effort in the case has since been put forth under the direction of Attorney Trohn and Gray Harris & Robinson, P.A.; that the hiring of experts to analyze and refine issues has provided the opportunity to review the positives and negatives of the case; that the process is ongoing; that based upon information available at the present time, damages total between $2 and $5 million; that more specific information cannot be provided; that being more specific at the present time is not beneficial as the matter is in litigation with Taliesin; that the hope is for a successful second mediation in March 2003; that the Commission should also be aware of other existing competing claims; that the following competing claims underscore the nature of the complex legal relationships: The City has sued Taliesin and two architects individually; - The City has claims against Dooley & Mack Forristall; Taliesin may have claims against the Cityi Taliesin may have claims against its four subconsultants; Taliesin may have claims against Dooley & Mack Forristall; - Dooley & Mack - Forristall has claims against City; - Dooley & Mack Forristall may have claims against its subcontractors; and One or more subcontractors of Dooley & Mack - Forristall may have claims against Dooley & Mack - Forristall. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission is not only being requested to fund ongoing litigation but is also being asked to fund the development of claims yet unasserted by the City in a court of law and also to prepare to defend against claims which may arise; that the hope is always a mediation process will sort out the matter rather than preparing for and going through a trial. Commissioner Servian asked if the appropriation of the funds is adequate for all potential claims? City Attorney Taylor stated no; that the process is global; that the City has not asserted any formal claim against Dooley & Mack Forristall; that similarly, Dooley & Mack - Forristall has not asserted any formal claim against the Cityi that mediation requires all the parties be present and prepared to settle all the claims sO the matter can be amicably resolved. BOOK 53 Page 24802 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24803 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. City Attorney Taylor referred to a February 7, 2003, memorandum to the Commission, included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the memorandum is intended to provide the breadth of issues involved and addresses the various complexities which must be addressed to resolve the matter through mediation or through trial; that the City has received notice the matter is tentatively on the Trial Court's docket for October 13, 2003, which is good news; that the expectation is the litigation team will do everything necessary to ensure the trial takes place during the week of October 13, 2003, if the matter continues to trial. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that all the parties have not been willing to participate in discussions in the past; and asked if all the parties are willing to participate in the mediation planned for March 2003? City Attorney Taylor stated that the understanding is Taliesin's Attorney has indicated one heating and air conditioning sub- contractor is not participating in the mediation since corrective work is voluntarily being performing at the VWPAH; that the understanding is all other parties are willing to participate. Robert Trohn, Special Legal Counsel for the City, came before the Commission and stated that Ed Savitz, Attorney for Taliesin, indicated one of the other parties involved in the matter has insisted on utilizing Michael Nuechterlein, a mediator with Carlton Fields, Attorneys at Law; that Attorney Nuechterlein has indicated time is available for mediation in early March 2003; that mediation is a process in which the mediator gets the parties together to state and attempt to settle the case; that as indicated from the outset, construction litigation is complex and very expensive; that many specialties are involved which require many experts; that construction litigation is expert intensive; that the first meeting was an attempt to settle with Taliesin since the process is expensive and since limitations exist as to the amount of Taliesin's exposure. Attorney Trohn referred to a February 7, 2003, letter to the City Attorney's Office included in the Agenda backup material, indicating Dooley & Mack - Forristall unilaterally rescinded the mediation agreement which was to the City's advantage since it had provided for a veto by Dooley & Mack Forristall on any settlement the City might make with Taliesin; that no reason is seen for Dooley & Mack Forristall to have a veto over an agreement the City may reach with Taliesin; that Dooley & Mack - Forristall was at liberty to deal with Taliesin or any other party; that an agreement was made to rescind the agreement and to attempt to renegotiate a mediation agreement involving all parties but without any party having a veto. Attorney Trohn continued that the Commission was informed at the outset construction litigation will not make the Commission or City heroes in the eyes of the press or the public; that the litigation is a result of a bad construction job; that the City desired a renovation of the VWPAH to accomplish a number of goals including a larger stage area, expanded storage area, acoustical changes, lighting, and a significant number of other changes; that the desire was to modernize the VWPAH to comply with the requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and to have a facility which is appropriate for Broadway shows; that the City spent $20 million on the renovations and received very little in return; that the Commission was informed construction litigation is expensive and complicated; that the expense would be tried in the press and in the news media; that the Commission had the choice of walking away from the matter or pursuing remedies against the parties at fault for the problems with the VWPAH; that the choice was not easy. Mayor Mason left the Chambers at 3:42 p.m. Attorney Trohn further stated that Dooley & Mack Forristall has threatened to sue Taliesin since the beginning of the matter and has threatened to sue the City; that the claim to file a demand for arbitration was made in a mediation statement on April 5, 2002; that a demand for arbitration has never been filed; that the judge presiding over the case has indicated the filing of a demand for arbitration would be nice since one forum would be provided which would allow resolution of all the controversies; that the belief is the City has a legitimate claim against Dooley & Mack Forristall for hundreds of thousands of dollars above any amount which may be claimed as owed; that Staff and the City Attorney's Office realized the legitimacy of the City's claim prior to his becoming involved in the matter; that many competing interests are involved; that attempts were made to resolve the claims through mediation; that in August 2002, a pre-mediation conference was held to assure all parties come to the table with insurance representatives and people authorized to commit to a settlement which is essential and for which provision is made by law; that otherwise, time and BOOK 53 Page 24804 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24805 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. money is wasted; that mediation agreements provide for the assurance all responsible parties will be involved; that a mediation agreement was circulated to all parties in August 2002; that the mediation is not a simple two party matter but is a staged mediation between Taliesin and sub-consultants. Mayor Mason returned to the Chambers at 3:49 p.m. Attorney Trohn stated further that a meeting was scheduled at Attorney uechterlein's office in Tampa in September 2002; that the meeting was significant since the procedure was to be outlined for the sub-mediations as well as an attempt for scheduling; that in addition to himself as the City's Special Legal Counsel, City Attorney's Office Staff, Taliesin's Attorney, and a representative of one of the sub-consultants attended the meeting; that the sub-consultants were not prepared to commit to any settlement; that a list of deficiencies was submitted to the other parties to afford an opportunity to properly respond; that agreement was reached at the meeting to respond to the list of deficiencies in writing by November 15, 2002; that Taliesin's Attorney indicated at the meeting no experts had been employed and no assurance could be provided the sub-consultants or any of their insurance companies would be present; that the one Attorney present representing a sub- consultant indicated scheduling problems; that the general agreement of the City's representatives was nothing would happen in the second mediation and the same shadow dance would happen as in the first mediation; that money would be wasted and nothing would happen; that the thought was to wait until November 15, 2002, to see if the parties would respond to the list of deficiencies; that nothing happened; that the realization was time spent in mediation would be wasted. Attorney Trohn stated that repeated reasonable offers of settlement have been attempted; that the offers have been serious and have been made pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; that neither Taliesin nor Dooley & Mack - Forristall have made any offers of settlement; that repeated efforts to settle the case have been attempted; that Taliesin's Attorney indicated an attempt to have the sub-consultants present at the March 2003 mediation with insurance representatives will be made; that Dooley & Mack Forristall will be present at the mediation and will request the money the City receives from Taliesin or the sub-consultants which is a problem; that the belief is Dooley & Mack Forristall is not entitled to the moneyi that his personal view as an Attorney is the City has a good case which should be pursued; that pursuing the case is not inexpensive; that the City will probably end up spending more on experts than on Attorneys' fees; that - $212,000 has been paid in Attorneys' fees thus far and $113,000 in costs for expert witnesses; that for example, one hour and ten minutes was spent in the City Attorney's Office on a conference call immediately prior to the current meeting with two experts and other Attorneys discussing the particular problems; that resolution of the construction problems is not simple but is essential for operation of the VWPAH; that experts are essential in identifying the nature and cause of each deficiency, the cost to correct the deficiency, and the damages resulting from the deficiency as well as who is legally responsible; that the process is not easyi that experts with knowledge of specific requirements and in specific fields are necessary; that experts in different fields have been employed; that the hiring of experts cannot be avoided; that the City's money has not been wasted; that personal representation of the City in the lawsuit was not solicited; that the hourly rate being charged to the City is less than charged to private clients; that time is not wasted; that the matter occupies a portion of his time each day almost to the point of distraction. Commissioner Servian stated that no assertions have been made indicating Special Legal Counsel has wasted the City's money; that the funds expended have been well spent; that the work being performed is world class and noteworthy; that the hope is some questions can be answered at the present time; and asked the City's anticipated total recovery by pursuing the lawsuit? Attorney Trohn stated that the City will recover a minimum of $2 million. Commissioner Servian asked if Attorneys' fees would be paid from the recovered $2 million? Attorney Trohn stated that Attorneys' fees are recoverable. Commissioner Servian stated that the Attorneys' fees which could be recovered would be determined by the courts; that recovered Attorneys' fees are generally not awarded dollar for dollar. Attorney Trohn stated that recovered Attorneys' fees are generally awarded dollar for dollar; that the typical agreement is the successful party would be reimbursed the actual amount paid in Attorneys fees or a reasonable Attorneys' fee; that typically, the court will award more; that Attorneys' fees being charged to the City are less than generally charged; that BOOK 53 Page 24806 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24807 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Attorneys' fees charged in the past have been considered reasonable by the court. Commissioner Servian stated that the understanding is potential recovery could be $2 million plus reimbursement of Attorneys' fees. Attorney Trohn stated that the recovery of $2 million plus reimbursement of Attorneys' fees is possible. Commissioner Servian stated that conversations concerning recovery of Attorneys' fees have been held with the City Attorney; that information was provided the courts sometimes reimburse Attorneys' fees at a small percentage on the dollar. City Attorney Taylor stated that reimbursement of Attorneys' fees has not been discussed with Attorney Trohn; that perspectives are different; that attempts to recover Attorneys' fees and costs for matters unrelated to construction litigation have not resulted in 100 percent on the dollar; that the reason may be the forum and environment is different in construction litigation; that court awarded reimbursement of Attorneys' fees relating to construction litigation is not known and is the reason for hiring Special Legal Counsel. Commissioner Servian stated that the recollection of the conversation with the City Attorney was recovery of Attorneys' fees was 10 cents on the dollar; that understanding the potential for recovery is important. City Attorney Taylor stated that 10 cents on the dollar is conservative and is considered an absolute worst case scenario. Commissioner Martin stated that while working as a planner addressing eminent domain cases, recovery of Attorneys' fees was typically 70 to 80 percent; that recovery of Attorneys' fees clearly depends on the type of case and the specialty of the law. Attorney Trohn stated that an opposing party has never contested the hourly rate in his experience. Commissioner Quillin stated that the information being provided is appreciated; that the discussions would not be taking place at the present time if the contract which was signed had been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the taxpayers; that the taxpayers have not received the benefit of good construction or the terms outlined in the contracti that the City Attorney's Office and Special Legal Counsel are working on the case for the taxpayers. Attorney Trohn stated that the VWPAH has a leaky roof; that the terms of the contract call for a storage space on the stage and an expanded stage; that more seating was desired and less was received; that the stage is defective; that the electrical problems are significant; that some of the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) problems have been corrected. Commissioner Quillin stated that the City spent $20 million for the original construction and will now have to spend more than $2 million for corrections to ensure the safety of the patrons. Ken Smith, 2221 Shadow Wood Lane (34240), President of Dooley &c Mack Constructors, Inc. (Dooley & Mack), stated that Dooley & Mack in a joint venture partnership with Forristall Construction were responsible for the renovation of the VWPAH; that Special Legal Counsel hired by the City Attorney's Office takes great delight for some reason in pointing out Dooley & Mack withdrew from the mediation agreement; that the factual statement made by Special Legal Counsel is not supported; that a true statement must be supported by three pillars which are: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; that Dooley &c Mack signed a mediation agreement in good faith after eight days of exhaustive mediation; that many concessions were made; that the principal effort by Dooley &c Mack and the sub-contractor in the mediation was an agreement to delay the receipt of payment until the City could exhaust claims against Taliesin and others involved which was the reason for entering into the mediation agreement; that a central theme in the mediation agreement was Dooley & Mack had the right to approve the settlement with Taliesin to ensure Dooley & Mack's sub-contractor was treated fairly and to ensure Dooley & Mack was compensated for the work performed on the project. Mr. Smith continued that the claims for defective construction appeared 18 months after the mediation; that $135,000 worth of claims were indicated as being the fault of the contractor or the architect; that the actual responsible party was not indicated; that Special Legal Counsel is publicly criticizing Dooley & Mack for not responding which is nonsense; that Dooley & Mack has never ignored any call received from the VWPAH; that BOOK 53 Page 24808 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24809 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Dooley & Mack responded to calls pertaining to roof and window leaks, inoperational doors, and various mechanical issues; that the reason for withdrawing from the mediation agreement is another statement made in writing which cannot be supported by the three pillars of truth; that Special Legal Counsel wrote a letter to the insurance bonding company for Dooley & Mack after a mediation agreement was signed indicating the job was not finished and Dooley & Mack was not responding; that the term "not responding" has significant legal meaning; that a meeting was held with the City Manager; that the City Manager was informed Dooley & Mack would not continue in the good faith effort agreed upon with the City to diligently pursue Taliesin if Special Legal Counsel continued to write false letters; that he was informed the letter to the insurance bonding company was simply a lawyer type matter; that lawyers are not required to tell the truth; that an indication was made the letter would not be rescinded since the letter is considered lawyer posturing; that Special Legal Counsel did not want Dooley & Mack to have veto power which is the reason for the absence of a mediation agreement; that the Commission is requested to ignore statements Dooley & Mack withdrew from mediation; that blood and sweat were given up in eight days of mediation to attempt to reach a mediation agreement; that Special Legal Counsel undermined the process. City Attorney Taylor stated that Mr. Smith has come before the Commission and made presentations in the past; that Mr. Smith has given a rebuttal at this time; that Mr. Smith's feelings concerning his friendly relationship with the City are not a concern; that the City is in an adversarial circumstance with Dooley & Mack Forristall; that addressing the matter further with Mr. Smith at this time is not productive; that the hope is Attorneys will not be required to come to the table and make public comments concerning a matter which is taking place in court and in which an attempt is being made to settle through the mediation process; that Mr. Trohn can provide rebuttal if the Commission feels rebuttal is necessaryi however, the suggestion is to move forward and carry on with the business of the day. Commissioner Quillin stated that a legal situation is present; that publicly airing legal issues is not normally a good idea; that situations should be addressed amicably; that having the discussion with Dooley & Mack at the present time is a concerni that the City should serve notice all communication pertaining to the matter must come through the City Attorney's Office; that publicly airing the issue is upsetting; that inaccurate newspaper articles are upsetting; that the Special Legal Counsel chosen by the City Attorney's Office is well known and well respected within the State; that the negative comments being made toward the Commission and the Administration are not appreciated; that the City is not responsible for creating the deficiencies in the VWPAH construction but must ensure the matter is remedied and not at an extreme cost to the taxpayers; that the points raised by Attorney Trohn and Mr. Smith are taken under consideration; however, the desire is to have no communication with any party participating in the lawsuit unless directed through the City Attorney's Office. Attorney Trohn stated that a personal goal was not to enter into a micturation contest; that the concern is the one year statute of limitations; that a contractor typically has no insurance to cover defective workmanship; that insurance policies normally provide coverage for builders' risk and various other defects but not defective construction; that the remedy for defective construction is through a bond; that bonds are typically valid for one year; that the parties were notified of the deficiencies prior to expiration of the one year bond; that the parties were informed a notice would not be filed with the insurance company if an agreement was executed indicating the bond expiration would not affect resolution of the deficiencies; that the offer was made a number of times; that a response was not received; that the notice was filed which was a legal judgment on his part; that filing the notice is not considered as lawyer posturing but rather an action to protect the City to ensure financial responsibility for defective workmanship; that he was not in attendance at the mediation at which the earlier settlement was reached; that City Attorney's Office Staff present at the mediation have not indicated recollection of any concessions made; that issues pertaining to performance of the job could be raised at the present time; however, the Commission Chambers is not the appropriate place for discussing the issues. Commissioner Servian asked the chance of the matter being appealed if the City prevails in court? Attorney Trohn stated that the chance would be slim; that the record in the case will be fairly lengthy; that the trial will be lengthy; that the cost of an appeal is a significant matter; that generally speaking the losing party is not well advised to take an appeal as the prospects of an appeal particularly after a long trial are not usually good; that per curium decisions are BOOK 53 Page 24810 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24811 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. frequently made by the Court of Appeals to affirm the trial court's decision, which results in the appeal no longer being valid; that a losing party must be very certain before attempting to appeal a case. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1595, APPROPRIATING $500,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO FUND THE SERVICES OF SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL, EXPERTS AND COSTS RELATED TO LITIGATION AND CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE VAN WEZEL RENOVATION, ; ETC. - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VI-2) CD 4:17 through 4:27 City Attorney Taylor came before the Commission and stated that Special Appropriation No. 1012 is to provide funding for the services of Special Legal Counsel, and the costs of expert witnesses for the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) litigation through trial; that on August 6, 2002, the Commission approved the hiring of Robert Trohn as Special Legal Counsel to the City for the legal disputes arising from the VWPAH renovation project; that the initial funding was $300,000; that the Commission has been advised an appropriation of $500,000 will be required to fund the services of Special Legal Counsel, expert witnesses, and costs through trial; that the amount relates back to the time period covered with the City Commission in closed attorney-client sessions which was $150,000 and an expanded cost estimate through trial of $350,000. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 03R-1595 in its entirety. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Vice Mayor Palmer, it was moved to approve proposed Resolution No. 03R-1595. Commissioner Martin stated that a lawsuit has never been personally experienced; however, the seriousness of litigation is known; that the discussions at the out of sunshine attorney- client sessions concerning the matter have been convincing; that the path being taken, the Special Legal Counsel engaged, and the work being performed by Special Legal Counsel is supported; that the support has not wavered; that the doubt expressed by fellow Commissioners and conversations held with adversarial parties is alarming; that the hope is the matter can proceed forward with the necessary seriousness of purpose to mediate the matter and bring forth a resolution at considèrably less expense and with satisfaction; that the citizens have paid the bill and are owed; that the matter must be resolved to the satisfaction of the City and the taxpayersi; that the VWPAH is a gem; that the desire is to assure the VWPAH can be enjoyed once again. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Commission is very unhappy about the condition of the VWPAH and the deficiencies and defective work which was performed; that the Commission has a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens to ensure the VWPAH is resuscitated and reclaimed; that the commitment of funding towards the matter is not particularly exciting for anyone; however, the amount is considered a maximum at this time; that the hope is the mediation will be successful; that great confidence is held in Attorney Trohn and his firm; that the belief is Attorney Trohn is embarking on the appropriate procedures and is addressing the matter in its entirety by involving all the parties; that involving expert witnesses to determine the construction deficiencies is supported; that the City Attorney has indicated the deficiencies are estimated at approximately $2 to $5 million; that the belief is the Commission would be irresponsible by not moving the matter forward. Commissioner Servian stated that appropriating $500,000 from the general fund for the services of Special Legal Counsel, expert witnesses, and costs related to litigation and claims arising out of the VWPAH renovation is not supported; that her personal responsibility is for being a good steward to the citizens and to the citizens' dollars; that a sufficiently compelling reason to move forward with the matter has not been heard; that repeated requests have been made for a specific financial analysis of the case indicating the maximum dollars minus the Attorneys' fees with the hope of receiving reimbursement of some or all of the attorneys' fees; that spending citizens' dollars in this manner is not convincing or proper; that the deficiencies at the VWPAH are realized; that the work performed by Attorney Trohn and the City Attorney's Office is respected; that the decision not to support the resolution is not a negative reflection on work product or work ethic; that moving forward with the matter does not provide a comfortable feeling; that the more the matter is heard the less comfortable the feeling becomes; that criticism has been personally received for dealing with parties who may be involved in the matter; that the belief is the parties are not yet part of the lawsuit; that the parties have not sued the City; that the City has not sued the parties; that personal decisions have been made in the best BOOK 53 Page 24812 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24813 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. interest of the citizens in attempting to move the matter towards mediation; that the belief is the matter will not be resolved through mediation; that additional funds will likely be required; that spending approximately $1.5 million or more in the hope of receiving $2 million seems foolish. Commissioner Quillin stated that a list of total costs has been requested; that a list of total costs has not been received; that the reason for not receiving the list is understood; that hiring experts is necessary prior to compiling a total list of costs; that appropriating $500,000 is necessary. Commissioner Quillin continued that a party building her home would be sued if not willing to remedy def fects; that the responsibility of the Commission is to ensure construction defects at the VWPAH are fixed; that the Commission did not receive many reports during the renovation of the VWPAH; that reports received were not accurate; that throwing away $20 million is not supported; that the costs to repair the leaking roof at the VWPAH are not known; that remedying the problem of the leaking roof will be expensive due to the style of the roof; that taking political heat for a $20 million project is preferred to not moving forward with the matter; that the City must be made aware of the total costs; that the hope is for mediation and for good, honest, reputable professionals to remedy the problems; that discussions of a lawsuit are distasteful; however, lawsuits are prevalent is today's society; that suing is not desirable; however, two years have passed and the matter must be addressed to protect the citizens' investment; that the appropriation of $500,000 is supported; that no other avenue is available. Mayor Mason stated that the appropriation of $500,000 is supported; that the hope is for resolution of the matter through mediation; that supporting a motion for additional funds in the future will be difficult. Mayor Mason . requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote to adopt proposed Resolution No. 03R-1595. Motion carried (4 to 1): Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, no; Martin, yes; Mason, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the deadline of 4:30 p.m. for the afternoon session has been met; that Unfinished Business Agenda Item VI-3, regarding the Laurel Park land use issue and develop recommendations on how to proceed, will not be heard during the afternoon session and will become Unfinished Business Agenda Item XII which will be heard at the evening session. The Commission recessed at 4:30 p.m. and reconvened at 6:00 p.m. 9. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE: THE PLAYERS KIDS PERFORMING CELEBRATE SARASOTA SONG (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) CD 6:00 through 6:09 Mayor Mason requested that Commissioner Quillin make the presentation. Commissioner Quillin stated that students from The Players Performing Arts School will sing a song written for the City's 100th Anniversary Celebration and requested that Steven Vincent, Director/Choreographer, The Players Performing Arts School, join her and the Commission at the Commission table. Mr. Vincent came before the Commission and stated that The Players Kids are an elite group of students from The Players Performing Arts School; that the school is a public school specializing in the performing arts; that the school is an outgrowth of The Players Theatre; that The Players Theatre is 70 years old and is the oldest community theater in Florida; that The Players Kids are a chosen group of children who excel in the disciplines of acting, singing, and dancing; that the children have a rigorous curriculum; that the disciplines benefit the community; that the children have performed in local parades; that the children perform in Sarasota, Bradenton, and Venice, Florida, in approximately 50 functions throughout the school yeari that the children are committed to performing during free time including most Saturdays; that Ray Goins, Music Director, The Players Performing Arts School, wrote a song entitled "Celebrate 100 Years" in honor of the City's 100th Anniversary; that The Players Kids have been pertorming the song throughout Sarasota as the opening act for various local theaters. The following students sang "Celebrate 100 Years" to the Commission and audience: BOOK 53 Page 24814 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24815 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Lexi Allen, Zoe Austin, Jason Bryant, Mackinzie Deets, Aly Foster, Jenna Froug, Emily Griffin, Austin Interial, Sarah Martinez, Jamie Ross, and Christy Skarulis Commissioner Quillin stated that the children are Sarasota's future; that the gift of song presented to the community by The Players Kids is priceless; that the acknowledgement of the City of Sarasota's 100th Anniversary is appreciated; and presented each child with an official coin and poster commemorating the City's 100th Anniversary. 10. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE: : PHOTOGRAPH OF THE JOHN RINGLING HOTEL (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) CD 6:09 through 6:12 Mayor Mason requested that Stanley Carter, Senior Vice President and District Manager of Legg Mason Wood Walker Inc. (Legg Mason), and George Haborak, Chair, Public Art Committee, join her and the Commission at the Commission table. Mr. Haborak stated that the performance by The Players Kids was a work of art; that a request was made by the investment company of Legg Mason to the Public Art Committee to participate in the Celebrate Sarasota 100th Anniversary activities by hosting an art exhibit; that an art exhibit took place at the office of Legg Mason in December 2002 through January 2003; that he was honored to act as curator of the exhibit; that 22 artists participated in the exhibit; that 80 works of art were on displayi that people, landscapes, and buildings of Sarasota during the past 100 years were exhibited. Mr. Haborak displayed a photograph of the now demolished John Ringling Hotel by Peter Silwinski on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the photograph which was part of the exhibit is a work of art; that Legg Mason wishes to present the photograph to the City as an addition to the City's permanent archive of historic photographs. Mr. Carter stated that the art exhibit was a great success; that approximately 300 local residents attended the art exhibit; that Legg Mason is honored to present the photograph of the now demolished John Ringling Hotel to the City to display at City Hall; that the now demolished John Ringling Hotel was a great building which unfortunately no longer exists; that Legg Mason intends to host an art exhibit each year demonstrating its commitment to the community; that the hope is the art exhibit will flourish in the coming years; and presented the photograph of the now demolished John Ringling Hotel to the Mayor on behalf of Legg Mason. Mayor Mason stated that the gift to the City is appreciated. 11. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS : PRESENTATION RE: MASTER COMPREHENSION AND MARKETING PLAN FOR ST. ARMANDS KEY REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CONSIDERATION DURING THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2003/04 BUDGET PROCESS; AND DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO SEEK CLARIFICATION REGARDING A MASTER PLAN FOR ST. ARMANDS KEY (AGENDA ITEM IX-1) CD 6:13 through 6:27 Martin Rappaport, Chair, St. Armands Special Neighborhood Improvement District, Carol Krohn, President, St. Armands Residents Association, and Diana Corrigan, Director, St. Armands Circle Association, came before the Commission. Mr. Rappaport thanked the Commission for the opportunity to make the presentation on behalf of all three St. Armands Associations; and requested additional time to make the presentation. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, additional time will be provided if necessary. Mr. Rappaport stated that the presentation is to request the City fund a Master Comprehensive Plan and Marketing Plan for St. Armands Keyi that tourism is the basis of Sarasota's economy and contribute to an ideal quality of life; that Sarasota has much to attract tourists; that the area's beaches are compared to the best in the world; that Sarasota's cultural community is emulated by many; that Sarasota is an artistic community offering theater, opera, ballet, symphony, and numerous galleries; that the John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art (Ringling Museum), the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens (Selby Gardens), and St. Armands Circle are examples of the area's major tourist attractions; that Sarasota has received recognition by Money Magazine as one of the best small cities in the US. Mr. Rappaport continued that St. Armands Key is indisputably one of Sarasota's most precious assets; that St. Armands Circle is the only area in the Commercial Tourist (CT) Zone District which BOOK 53 Page 24816 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24817 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. encompasses over a quarter million square feet with over 150 tenants; that St. Armands Circle provides Sarasota with a tax benefit of approximately 2.5 percent of the City's entire budget; that St. Armands Key is a magnet tourist attraction which fuels the hospitality community and benefits the community at large. Mr. Rappaport quoted a recent statement by Jeb Bush, Governor of the State of Florida: Remaining a leader in today's competitive national and global market requires not only flexibility but the ability to quickly change and adapt to market trends. Mr. Rappaport further stated that the tourist industry is beginning to show signs of weakening; the as a result, hotels, restaurants, and merchants are beginning to hurt; that Sarasota has survived thus far with a somewhat strong tourist trade; however, the competition is increasing; that the risk of facing a diminishing tourist industry in the near future is also increasing; that evidence has accumulated which warrants moving forward aggressively to protect St. Armands Circle; that other communities are taking the lead and are thus attracting tourists who would otherwise come to Sarasotai that the Ritz-Carlton Hotel provides transportation for guests to the International Shopping Plaza in Tampa, Florida, since the belief is St. Armands Circle does not offer the ambiance and quality of stores which Tampa is able to attract. Mr. Rappaport stated further that Naples, Florida, is an example of marketing success; that members of the Commission and Staff met with officials of the City of Naples to learn the manner in which success through wise investments, incentives, and marketing of commercial areas was achieved; that quality merchants have chosen Naples rather than other nationally recognized areas due to successful marketing efforts; that Naples has achieved national recognition as a tourist destination and has experienced tremendous growth; that the understanding is Naples is considering developing a second Master Plan to ensure continued success. Mr. Rappaport stated that St. Armands Key is a diamond in the rough compared to nationally recognized tourist destinations; that St. Armands Key has the potential of being one of the nation's top destinations but suffers from a lack of marketing; that additional competition from Naples and Tampa has caused St. Armands Circle to lose top retailers; that the recent closing of Jacobsons has placed St. Armands Circle in a critical position; that St. Armands Circle could quickly lose top retailers and deteriorate to a tourist tee-shirt type retailing area creating declining property values and loss of significant tax base unless properly nourished and marketed. Mr. Rappaport continued that in August 2002, the Commercial Landowners Association of St. Armands, Inc., hosted a presentation by Lehr Jackson of the consulting firm of Williams, Jackson, and Ewing (consulting firm); that Mr. Jackson proposed an extensive portfolio of successful retail redevelopment projects for St. Armands Circle; that the consulting firm has redeveloped such landmarks as Grand Central Terminal of New York City, New York, Union Station of Washington, District of Columbia, and Suburban Square of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; that the consulting firm indicated St. Armands Circle is a well designed geometric area but seems behind the times and lacked marketing; that for example, St. Armands Circle is not properly promoted on the City's website; that St. Armands Key is a great place to live and visit; that the future of St. Armands Key is dependent upon the adoption and implementation of a well designed master plan. Mr. Rappaport further stated that landowners and merchants of St. Armands Circle have demonstrated a need and willingness to participate in making the area a successi that other areas of Sarasota have received master plans and infra-structure improvements while landowners and merchants of St. Armands Circle has had to provide such improvements themselves; that for example, the City provided additional parking for the Downtown area whereas the parking provided for St. Armands Circle was a result of an agreement by the Commercial Landowners Association of St. Armands, Inc.), to a special tax of $140,000 per year for 20 yearsi that the Commercial Landowners Association loaned the City $300,000 interest free in fiscal year 2001/02 for sidewalks in the area; that the St. Armands Special Business Neighborhood Improvement District was recently formed to provide self help through self taxation to assist with future improvements and marketing of the area; that the City is requested to provide initial assistance with the guidance of a professionally designed Comprehensive Master and Marketing Plan for St. Armands Key; that other neighborhoods also compete for funding; however, the Commission is requested to consider an investment in St. Armands Circle is an investment in tourism and, therefore, an investment in the future of the community; that a Master BOOK 53 Page 24818 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24819 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Comprehensive Plan and Marketing Plan for St. Armands Key will protect Sarasota's economic future. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Palmer, it was moved to refer the request to provide initial assistance toward the development of a Master Comprehensive Plan and Marketing Plan for St. Armands Key to the Administration for consideration in the fiscal year (FY) 2003/04 budget process. Commissioner Servian stated that Mr. Rappaport, Ms. Krohn, and Ms. Corrigan are commended for their efforts; that St. Armands Circle appears tired; that several retail vacancies exist; that the new retailers at St. Armands Circle are not the quality of retailers desired for the area; that for the Ritz-Carlton Hotel to provide transportation for guests to the International Shopping Plaza in Tampa, Florida, is shocking; that owners of the multi-million dollar condominiums in Sarasota are not shopping at St. Armands Circle; that the City should take necessary steps to market St. Armands Key. Commissioner Martin stated that the motion is to refer the request to the Administration for consideration during the FY 2003/04 budget process; that the Commission must also consider a number of other master plans such as the City of Sarasota-Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan Through 2020 (Newtown Plan) and the Parks + Connectivity Master Plan; that the Commission can consider, not promise to fund, a Comprehensive Master and Marketing Plan for St. Armands Key. Commissioner Quillin stated that the St. Armands Special Business Neighborhood Improvement District was recently formed; that traditionally a Bid Improvement District funds a master plan; that the City can consider providing partial financial assistance for projects once a master plan is developed. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the presentation was excellent; that the request is related to the development of the City's Strategic Plan and should be considered during the FY 2003/04 budget process; that the motion is supported. City Manager McNees stated that concept of marketing St. Armands Circle is understood; however, developing a master plan for all of St. Armands Key is not understood; that Commission approval to seek further clarification regarding the development of a master plan is requested. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, the Administration can seek further clarification regarding the development of a master plan for St. Armands Key. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion to refer the request to provide initial assistance toward the development of a Master Comprehensive Plan and Marketing Plan for St. Armands Key to the Administration for consideration in the fiscal year (FY) 2003/04 budget process. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Mayor Mason requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan explain the public hearing sign-up process. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains; and repeated for the benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 12. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4416, AMENDING CHAPTER 20, SARASOTA CITY CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS; TO PROHIBIT UNREASONABLE SOUND ; TO SET FORTH SPECIFIC ACTS WHICH SHALL CONSTITUTE UNREASONABLE SOUND ; TO SET FORTH MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE DECIBEL LIMITATIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR EXCEPTIONS BY PERMITS; TO SET FORTH A PERMIT PROCESS AND FOR APPEAL; TO PROVIDE FOR WARNINGS BEFORE BEING CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, : PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF i ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING AS REVISED TO INCLUDE REFERENCES TO NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS (AGENDA ITEM X-A-1) CD 6:27 through 7:33 Mayor Mason opened the public hearing and requested that Staff come forward. BOOK 53 Page 24820 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24821 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Mark Singer, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that two related public hearings are before the Commission; that the first public hearing concerns proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 to extend decibel limitations to the entire City, revise and clarify Chapter 20, Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code), revise criteria for the granting of special permits, and provide for appeal to a Special Master; that the second public hearing concerns proposed Ordinance No. 03-4422 to repeal portions of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) concerning noise; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 moves all the definitions currently in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) pertaining to noise to Chapter 20, Sound Regulations, City Code, and extends the decibel limitations to encompass the entire City. Attorney Singer continued that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) currently allows limited amplified sound outside of a completely enclosed building during certain hours for Downtown, Newtown, and St. Armands Key; that Section 20-5, Maximum sound levels, City Code, incorporates all the existing maximum sound decibel levels from the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) and makes the same applicable Citywide; that Section 20-5 (b) (1), Maximum sound levels, City Code, which limits amplified sound outside of a completely enclosed building has been modified to extend the limitation period to 7. a.m.; that the established limit is up to 75 (dBA) for outdoor amplified sound; that the sound regulations are multiple-tiered; that the first part of the tier includes general regulations to prohibit unreasonable sound and does not require a measurement of decibel limits; that sound regulations can be enforced by law enforcement officers based on the determination a person of ordinary or normal sensibility would be annoyed or disturbed by the sound; that a warning can be issued prior to a citation if the law enforcement officer determines a sound violation is occurring; that the second part of the tier includes decibel levels; that law enforcement officers properly trained to utilize a decibel meter can measure decibel levels and issue a warning if a violation is occurring; that a citation can be issued if the violation continues. Attorney Singer further stated that a new Section 20-4 (a) (2) (k), Internal combustion engine, City Code, has been added to prohibit the revving of an internal combustion engine on the public rights-of-way; that the regulation will prevent a person from revving the throttle of an engine; that for example, an individual sitting on a motorcycle revving the engine will be prohibited; that the provision was added at the request of the Sarasota Police Department (SPD). Attorney Singer stated further that the provisions for exception by special permit have been substantially revised to establish the procedures and criteria for the granting of a special permit; that Section 20-6, Exceptions by permit, City Code, authorizes the City Manager to adopt Administrative Regulations as deemed necessary to implement the section; that an appeal of a denial of a special permit must be taken to the City's Special Master before an appeal to the courts is permissible; that the provision to appeal to the City's Special Master is a result of a recent Court of Appeals case ruling indicating local governments cannot provide for a direct appeal of an Administrative decision to the Counts, which first must be heard by a quasi-judicial board or a Special Master; that the City or the applicant may appeal the decision to the Circuit Court once the City's Special Master has ruled. Attorney Singer further stated that exemptions from the sound regulations contained in Section 20-7, Exemptions, City Code, have been significantly expanded as a result of the extension of the maximum permissible decibel level regulations to include the entire City; that the list of exemptions includes normal and everyday activities which are usual and customary and are not subject to any sound regulation; that at its January 8, 2003, meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing and voted unanimously to find Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 03-ZTA-01, repealing applicable provisions of Article II, Definitions and Rules of Construction, and Article VII, Regulations of General Applicability, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), consistent with the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, and recommended the following provisions to Chapter 20 of the City Code: Retain the definition of "noise sensitive area" and establish a mechanism by the City to declare certain areas as noise sensitive and subject to more stringent sound regulations; - Extend the police warning to last 90 days rather than 48 hours; and Amend Section 20-8(w), Warning and penaity, City Code, to delete the exception pertaining to events permitted by Sarasota County. BOOK 53 Page 24822 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24823 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Attorney Singer stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4116 has been further revised since the January 8, 2003, PBLP meeting to delete an exemption for religious institutions as unnecessary and delete the exception pertaining to events permitted by Sarasota County. Attorney Singer continued that the 90-day warning period provides for issuing of a warning by law enforcement prior to issuing a violation; that if a sound violation is occurring and a warning is issued by law enforcement, the sound must be turned down within the time provided by the officer; that the default provision is 15 minutes; that an officer can shorten the default provision if the circumstances warrant; that for example, an officer can direct a violator to lower the sound of a television or radio from a residence within two minutes if necessaryi that the 90-day period would begin once the warning is issued; that a citation would be issued immediately if the officer is called back to the location and the same individual is in violation; that previous recommendations to the Commission discouraged warnings; however, during the August 1, 2002, Workshop regarding noise, the Commission indicated warnings are appropriate and should be included in the proposed Ordinance; that discussions regarding warnings also occurred during Workshops in 1996 and 1997; that enforcing a warning includes an element of proof; that the warning period can be utilized in a successful way during the prosecution of violators; that a warning period limits a violator's claim of lack of knowledge of the violation once the citation has been issued; that the County Court's ruling concerning the City's citation issued to the County regarding the BluesFest held at the Robarts Sports Arena in the fall of 2000 resulted in a finding faulting the City's lack of a mechanism for issuing a warning; that the SPD has indicated the 90-day warning period is enforceable; that the previous recommendation of a 48-hour warning period may result in warnings being issues every three days. Commissioner Quillin asked the manner in which the warnings per address will be tracked? Attorney Singer stated that the understanding is the tracking will occur through the computer system handled by the 911 Central Communication Center; that the 911 dispatcher will have the information readily available for the officer responding to the violation. Commissioner Quillin stated that viewing the tracking process is desired; that tracking of noise violations has not occurred in the past. Attorney Singer stated that the City does not currently have a warning period provision. Commissioner Quillin stated that the manner in which a noise violation will be tracked other than through the recollection of the responding officer is unknown. Attorney Singer stated that a warning will be issued if the responding officer does not have a record of a previous warning; that the original recommendation from the City Attorney's Office was for a 48-hour warning period; that collective recollections of the responding officers should be sufficient regardless of tracking through the 911 Central Communication Center; that the concern is repeated calls to the same property will result in repeated warnings every three days. Commissioner Servian asked if the warning period could be reduced to 48 hours with additional language to indicate another call to the location within a certain period of time would warrant a citation? Commissioner Quillin stated that language to address multiple offenses should be added to the proposed Ordinance. Attorney Singer stated that the recommendation is for a 90-day warning period. Commissioner Servian stated that a citation should be issued to multiple offenders rather than continuous warnings if the warning period is reduced to 48 hours. Attorney Singer stated that the issue becomes a matter of proof; that an officer will document the incident in a report at the time a warning is issued; that the documented incident should be in the 911 computer system if a different officer responds to a violation at the same location a month later; that a warning must be issued if the responding officer does not have the previous information. City Manager McNees stated that a citation will be issued if a violation occurs within the 90-day warning period; that the proposed Ordinance provides one opportunity in a 90-day period to violate the noise ordinance and receive a warning; that a citation will be issued if the noise ordinance is violated more BOOK 53 Page 24824 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24825 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. than once; that a warning period of 48 hours would allow for a noise violation to occur every third day without a citation being issued. Commissioner Quillin stated that language regarding multiple offenses at the same location should be added to the proposed Ordinance to avoid issuing warnings to different individuals at the same location. Attorney Singer stated that a warning period does not currently exist; that the issue is the manner in which to enforce a warning period; that law enforcement should be seeking out the owner or the individual responsible for control of the property at the time a warning is issued. Commissioner Quillin stated that law enforcement must know who is leasing the property if the owner is not present. Attorney Singer agreed. Commissioner Quillin stated that the leasee or the property owner should be cited regardless of who is committing the violation. Attorney Singer agreed. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the citation is issued to an individual or for the location of the violation? Attorney Singer stated that the citation is issued to the individual. Commissioner Quillin stated that the citation should be issued for the location. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that a warning should be issued for the location from which the noise is emanating; that a citation should be issued for the location if a second violation occurs. Attorney Singer stated that the matter of proof is still the issue; that the City must prove who received the warning; that creating a procedural flaw sO an individual could indicate a lack of notice prior to the issuance of a citation is not desired; that cases are harder to prove if warning systems are more complex. Commissioner Servian stated that the County Court faulted the City in the BluesFest case for lack of a warning period. Attorney Singer stated that a warning period requires trained law enforcement officers knowledgeable in handling warnings or citations; that a warning system is flexible and can be changed. City Manager McNees stated that the situation involving the BluesFest does not involve a warning but rather the process by which the City Manager grants an exemption; that a citation rather than a warning should be issued for a violation if the BluesFest were refused an exemption. Commissioner Martin stated that providing additional flexibility for the City Manager to issue a special permit is supported; however, the requirement to apply for a special permit 45 days prior to the event and a provision allowing 30 days for the City Manager to grant or deny the special permit seems excessive and are concerns; that the permit process should be simplified; that a 30 and 45 day period seem to add to the difficulty in obtaining a special permit; and asked the reason for the 30 and 45 day periods. Attorney Singer stated that the intent of the 30 and 45 day periods are to provide a 15 day period for an individual who is adversely affected to appeal to the Special Master for a hearing which will be heard de novo; that the making of sound is a manner of freedom of expression; that the requirement for a special permit acts as a prior constraint according to decisions of the US Supreme Court as the City is restraining someone from doing a desired activity subject to the granting of a special permit; that the process for granting special permits must provide access to the court system; that the burden is on the government establishing the regulations to provide an avenue of appeal to the courts; that an appeal to a Special Master is added since a decision of the City Manager is not appealable to the Courts; that a 15 day time period is sufficient time for an adversely affected person to appeal to the Special Master and thereafter to the Courts; that providing too short of a time period may infringe upon an individual's due process rights to gain access to the appeals process; that the 30 and 45 day periods provide a decision two weeks prior to the event sO the affected person has time to appeal to the Courts if necessary. Commissioner Martin asked the reason the special permit process cannot be reduced to 7 days with a 21 day period to appeal to the Special Master and then to the Courts? BOOK 53 Page 24826 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24827 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that a simple permit for an exemption to the sound ordinance can be processed within two weeks; that an application for a special permit does not always include the extent of the event; that each City Department must sign off on the event prior to approval; however, a permit for exemption from the sound ordinance not associated with a special event permit can be shortened from a 45 to a 30 day time period. Commissioner Martin asked if the deadline for all permits can be shortened to 30 days? Mr. Schneider stated that only the deadline for permits for exemptions to the sound ordinance should be shortened. Commissioner Martin asked if more than two weeks is required to process a special events permit through the City Departments? Mr. Schneider stated yes; that the sponsor of the event must obtain approval from each City Department; that shortening the time frame will place a burden on the sponsors. Commissioner Martin stated that the sponsor may have the ability to move the application through City departments within one week; however, providing the 30 day period for the sake of the sponsor is understood. Mr. Schneider stated that 30 days has been the standard length of time for the special event permit process for years; that 30 days works well; that 15 days was added to allow for an appeal; that shortening the period of time will create more of a burden on the sponsor than on Staff. Commissioner Martin stated that abuse of the permitting process is a concerni that the length of a time to obtain a special event permit can be frustrating for a sponsori that a denial of a special permit precludes a sponsor from applying for another similar special permit for six months; that the lack of flexibility and ease to obtain a special permit are concernsi that the process seems selectively enforceable. Mr. Schneider stated that precluding a sponsor from reapplying within a six-month period for a special permit relates to reapplying for a similar event which was previously denied. City Manager McNees stated that the special permit process is an avenue to work with the applicant to make the event happen as opposed to a method to search for ways to deny a permit; that for example, some applicants do not understand the process involved to close a street if required; that the intention of the Administration is to work with applicants; that the time frames are considered maximums. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the proposed Ordinance does not indicate the number of times an individual can request an abatement from the sound ordinance; and asked if the applicant is limited as to the trequency for an event? Attorney Singer stated that frequency is not limited; that everyone has the right to expression; that the role of the government is to provide regulations which are reasonable for the community but at the same time reflect an understanding of the rights of expression; that limiting freedom of expression on certain days of the week or to certain times in a particular time period may raise a constitutional question as to the authority of the government providing the regulation; that a separate application and separate permit may be required each time an organization wishes to exceed the existing sound levels of the City. Commissioner Quillin left the Chambers at 6:58 p.m. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if an applicant can request a special permit for more than one day or week at the same time or is a separate request required each time? Attorney Singer stated that the City Manager can promulgate Administrative regulations to further the intent of the Commission concerning the handling of the special permit process; that allowing an applicant to apply for multiple days under one special permit is a decision for the City Manager; that the decibel limits are reasonable; that for example, representatives from St. Armands Circle are in the process of applying for changes to sound regulations to allow sound speakers on structures for background music; that the sound from the sound speakers before 10 p.m. will not violate the current decibel limit; that a special permit will not be required. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the City Manager will have the authority to grant a permit for multiple occurrences of an event? BOOK 53 Page 24828 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24829 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Attorney Singer stated yes; however, the City Manager should treat all applicants of such requests the same; that regulating the frequency of events is required. Vice Mayor Palmer referred to proposed Section 20-6, Exceptions by permit, City Code, included in the Agenda backup material as follows: The City Manager may adopt administrative rules, as he or she deems necessary, to implement the provisions of this section. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the City Manager will have the flexibility to establish criteria and guidelines to address regulating the frequency of events. Attorney Singer stated that is correct. City Manager McNees stated that raising the decibel level may be necessary if the Administration is continuously granting a weekly or nightly special permit which exceeds the decibel limit for a certain area in which the neighborhood is not complaining; that the provisions grant the Administration enough flexibility to provide reasonable conditions to monitor special permits. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the intent of the questioning is to provide clarity for the record. Commissioner Servian stated that the Jazz on the Circle event at St. Armands Circle occurs monthly; that the applicants should be able to apply one time to request the number of days and times for the event; that the City Manager should have the flexibility to decide frequency of the event. Commissioner Quillin returned to the Chambers at 7:03 p.m. Mr. Schneider stated that sponsors requesting a number of events are handled in a similar manner; that the sponsors of the Jazz on the Circle and the Friday Night Strolls on Palm Avenue filed a special event permit for the season one time; that multiple special permits were issued at one time. City Manager McNees stated that the flexibility inherent in the Administrative Regulations provides boundaries; that for example, if the sponsors of Jazz on the Circle booked a rock group such as ZZ-Top, the Administration can step in and indicate the event is no longer acceptable. Commissioner Martin stated that the same criteria for granting special permits for recurring events should be utilized throughout the City and not just selected areas. City Manager McNees stated that several factors may be different in each case; that the area must be evaluated to determine the number of neighbors affected, the time of day of the event, and the nature of the neighborhood. Commissioner Martin referred to proposed Section 20-6, Exceptions by permit, City Code, included in the Agenda backup material as follows: A fully complete special permit application must be submitted, on a form provided by the City Manager, at least forty-five (45) days before the special permit is needed. Commissioner Martin asked if a 45 day time period currentLy exists for any City regulations? Mr. Schneider stated that the time period to apply for a special permit is 30 days prior to the scheduled event; that a $100 late fee is charged if the sponsor applies within the 30 day period. Commissioner Martin stated that requiring an applicant to apply for a special permit 45 days prior to a scheduled event seems excessive; that 30 days is appropriate; and asked the reason for the 15 day increase? Attorney Singer stated that the 45 day requirement can be changed to 30 days. Mr. Schneider stated that the 45 day requirement benefits the sponsor; that the event may require insurance with the City listed as an additional insured; that an insurance company may take several weeks to provide the sponsor with a copy of the insurance; that a special permit cannot be issued until the proof of insurance is provided; that a tent request is a second example; that at times the sponsor has already entered into a contract with a tent company with a provision to pound spikes for the tents into the pavement which is not allowed in the City; that additional time is required for the sponsor to contract changes with the tent companyi that the tent company may require additional time to obtain different material necessary to put up the tent. BOOK 53 Page 24830 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24831 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Martin stated that the current time period to apply for a special permit is 30 days prior to the scheduled event; and asked if the permit would be denied if the sponsor met all the special permit requirements but did not apply 30 days prior to the scheduled event? Mr. Schneider stated no; that the 45 day requirement is the same as the 30 day requirement; however, 15 days are added for the new appeal process; that the actual review and processing time does not change. Attorney Singer stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 repeals references to noise sensitive areas; that the Commission can leave the references in the proposed Ordinance if the designation of noise sensitive areas is retained for use in the future. Attorney Singer referred to a February 18, 2003, electronic mail from Jennifer Wilson to the Commission asking the reason radio sound coming from occupied motor vehicles is not addressed in the proposed Ordinance and stated that Chapter 316.3045(1), Florida Statutes, governs the operation of radios and other mechanical sound making devices or instruments in vehicles; that the State Statute is enforced by local law enforcement and precludes local governments from making any changes to the regulation; that the State Statute applies to vehicles either occupied or being operated on streets and highways but does not apply to vehicles on private property or in City parks; that the City's sound regulations will apply to sound from vehicles on private property or in City parks; that operating boom boxes in vehicles while driving through neighborhoods is the largest complaint and must be enforced by law enforcement in accordance with State Statutes. Commissioner Servian left the Chambers at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Quillin stated that the understanding is the operation of boom boxes in vehicles while driving through neighborhoods is not being enforced; that the judges hearing the cases in which the drivers are cited are dismissing the cases. Attorney Singer stated that the City is precluded from enacting sound regulations which govern the operation of motor vehicles on the streets and highways. Commissioner Quillin stated that the blaring boom boxes from vehicles is one of the largest complaints in several neighborhoods; that the language of the State Statute should be copied into the proposed Ordinance; that individuals are being cited but the cases are being dismissed due to law enforcement's failure to measure the decibel level of the sound. Attorney Singer stated that the City Attorney's Office has not been contacted by law enforcement regarding any difficulty in proving cases regarding the blaring of boom boxes from vehicles. Mayor Mason stated that law enforcement has been witnessed enforcing the State Statute in the Newtown area. Commissioner Servian returned to the Chambers at 7:12 p.m. Attorney Singer stated that the Sarasota Chamber of Commerce requested the establishment of a noise or sound abatement board to grant variances from the regulations for specific properties; that recommendations relative to a variance process are not included in the proposed Ordinance; that a sample ordinance from Oregon which includes a sound abatement board which operates similar to the Board of Adjustment has been reviewed; that the question is the manner in which to determine granting or denying a variance and if a sound abatement board would be a loophole for businesses to obtain sound abatements; that the City Attorney's Office is willing to contact the community in Oregon to evaluate the success of the sound abatement board and provide a report back to the Commission if desired. The following people came before the Commission: John Tylee, Executive Director, Downtown Association of Sarasota, 1818 Main Street (34236), distributed a written statement of the position of the Downtown Association of Sarasota regarding the sound regulations and stated that the belief is no noise issues require immediate attention in the Downtown area; that the perception is the existing sound regulations do not encourage a vibrant Downtown; that changes to the sound regulations should abolish such a perception; that the Downtown area includes a diversity of all types of people, activities, income, and age levels as well as noise enjoyment and tolerance; that flexibility is necessary to allow the mix of such diversity in the Downtown area; that the Commission should provide as much flexibility as possible during the process of amending the existing sound regulations; that different people BOOK 53 Page 24832 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24833 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. with different needs must mix together to create a vibrant Downtown; that the process is often by trial and error; that the mechanisms to provide flexibility to the City Manager through the special permit process in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 are supported; that the City should consider reviewing the example from Oregon to address multiple permits for an event held up to one year, provided no complaints exist. Philip Dasher, President, Bayfront Condominium Association, 926 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), stated that the noise issue is 15 years old; that the peripheral issues should cease; that the basic issues should be resolved; that on August 1, 2002, the Commission held a Workshop regarding noise; that the Commission directed the City Attorney to provide information and an assessment of different areas of sensitivity regarding noise and a special events permitting process rather than draft an ordinance; that the role of the Commission, not the City Attorney's Office, is to make policy; that the City has spent over $150,000 for two noise experts; that a third noise expert, Fred Mince, lives in the City and volunteered information; that Mr. Mince is the leading noise expert for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nationally; that the experts supported a lower decibel limit than the existing limit; that the experts also supported separate sensitive noise areas and identified Downtown, St. Armands Key, and the basin at the Hyatt Hotel as noise sensitive areas with different requirements; that the expert recommendations have been ignored. Mr. Dasher continued that in August 1997, the Commission directed Staff to provide information regarding: Maximum permissible decibel level; Live music verses amplified music; - Noise sensitive areas; Provisions for noise abatement at St. Armands Circle; and Two different decibel levels for different times of the day. Mr. Dasher further stated that a report has not been provided to date; that the noise issue involves accountability; that representation on the City's Blue Ribbon Committee concerning Noise was not extended to residents on or near the basin at the Hyatt Hotel; that the level of sound penetration in residences has never been determined; that the Commission has not adhered to any of the recommendations of the experts; that the current Commission should review the information provided by the experts; that the idea of flexibility and subjective reasoning by the City Manager is ridiculous; that sound regulations must be based on scientific principles; that the current sound regulations include noise measurements at the real property line from which the sound is emanating; that the real property line of the Sarasota Quay is 85.5 feet into Sarasota Bay; that sound measurements of the noise from the Sarasota Quay have been conducted from his residence which resulted in a 4 decibel disadvantage; that many residents of the Bayfront have requested the disadvantage be corrected; that enforcement is non-existent; that during the August 1, 2002, Workshop, the Deputy Chief of the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) could not provide the number of officers trained to operate the decibel meters nor the number of meters the City owns; that over 2,000 complaint calls regarding noise at the Sarasota Quay are received annually; that less than half a dozen citations are issued; that less than 10 percent of the SPD Officers respond to the complaints with decibel meters; that the area of the Sarasota Quay at which to take decibel readings was never established; that the City over- reacted with noise limitations for the Downtown area which was the result of one business which the Commission failed to address; that the violations of one business has caused the entire issue of no noise and no music in the Downtown area. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236), stated that bringing a resolution to the sound issue is pleasing; that the confusion regarding enforcement for Citywide areas verses noise sensitive areas has been difficult; that the clarification concerning most of the changes to the existing regulations is understood and appreciated; that the understanding is the upcoming proposed regulations concerning the use of City parks will also address some of the noise problems at Gillespie Park; that she recently had to report amplified music on a Sunday afternoon at Gillespie Park; that the amplified music at Gillespie Park occurs every weekend; that having to call law enforcement every weekend is not desired; that the hope is proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 or the upcoming proposed regulations concerning the use of City parks will address the problem; that clarifying the use of sound making devices from motorized vehicles parked at private residences is appreciated; that horn honking at 6 a.m. is also a problem in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that the understanding is horn-honking is addressed under Section 316.3045, Florida Statutes; that the 90 day warning period is supported. BOOK 53 Page 24834 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24835 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 on first reading. Commissioner Martin stated that the City is an urban area; that changing the word "noise" to "sound" is pleasing; that some concerns regarding the changes to the sound regulations still exist; however, proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 is a great improvement; that expanding regulations concerning the maximum allowable decibel limits throughout the City is supported; that the special permit process is favored; that the hope is the special permit process will work to benefit the Downtown. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that references to phonographs were previously deleted; and asked if phonographs have been reincorporated into proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416? Attorney Singer returned to the Commission table and stated yes. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the references to noise sensitive areas should not be deleted; that Commission agreement to include references to noise sensitive areas as part of proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 is requested. Commissioner Servian, as the maker of the motion, with the approval of Commissioner Martin, as the seconder, agreed to amend the motion to include references to noise sensitive areas in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4116. Commissioner Quillin stated that the recollection is the City Attorney's Office was directed to provide a report rather than a new Ordinance to the Commission; that providing a report was to eliminate having to re-write an Ordinance; that the hope was to keep the Blue Ribbon Committee concerning Noise together; that a problem in one area may not be a problem in another area; that regulations do not exist for establishments desiring to have sound in the Downtown area; that the ability to enjoy outdoor dining in some areas of Downtown with a live band and a large crowd of people gathered at another restaurant across the street is difficult; that such an establishment should be required to keep their doors closed; that the music intrudes on other outdoor establishments; that the proposed Ordinance is disappointing; that many meetings regarding the noise issue have been attended; that a noise consultant gave a presentation at the October 18, 1999, Workshop concerning Noise; that subsequently, at the August 1, 2002, Workshop concerning Noise, the Commission directed Staff to provide a report rather than another ordinance; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 is not supported. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote to pass on first reading proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 as revised to include references to noise sensitive areas. Motion carried (4 to 1): Quillin, no; Servian, yesi Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes. 13. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4422, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.); TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPEAL OF VARIOUS DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO NOISE IN ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, ; DIVISION 2, DEFINITIONS; SECTION II-201, DEFINITIONS; TO REPEAL ARTICLE VII, REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY, DIVISION 10, ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS; SECTION VII-1002, NOISE, SUBPARAGRAPHS A AND B PERTAINING TO NOISE, ; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 03-ZTA-01, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM X-A-2) CD 7:34 through 7:38 Mayor Mason opened the public hearing, requested that Staff come forward for the presentation, passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Palmer, and left the Chambers at 7:34 p.m. Mark Singer, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 03-ZTA-01 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4422 repeals the provisions of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) concerning noise or sound and is a preparatory step to proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 to adopt provisions concerning noise or sound in the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code) creating a Citywide noise ordinance; that at its January 8, 2003, meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing, found proposed Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-ZTA-01 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4422 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), and voted BOOK 53 Page 24836 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24837 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. unanimously to recommend Commission approval of proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 subject to the following changes: - Retain the definition for noise sensitive areas Provide a longer warning period than 48 hours Require City and County permits for festivals and activities in the parks Attorney Singer continued that current regulations do not require a warning period; that a citation can be issued immediately if a violation occurs; that the proposed Ordinance provides for the issuance of a warning; that once a warning is issued, the violation must be corrected immediately; that the previous Agenda Item No. X-A-1 regarding proposed Ordinance No. 03-4416 to adopt sound regulations in the City Code provides for 48 hours in which the warning will remain effective; that the PBLP suggested providing a longer warning period such as 90 days; that under the PBLP recommendation, a warning will be issued if a violation occurs and a citation will be issued if a second violation occurs within 90 days; that law enforcement prefers 48 hours; that the Commission has the ability to shorten the amount of time of the warning period, if desired. The following person came before the Commission: Philip Dasher, 926 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), stated that a question is which ordinances are in conflict; that the noise issue in the outdoor dining ordinance has never been enforced; that the regulations are currently in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that a report was requested from Staff by the Commission; that a report was not forthcoming; that piecemeal work on ordinances to correct problems is not successful; that the expectations of both the public and the Commission have not been fulfilled; that the attempt to correct the motor vehicle noise problem is the same issue as the boat noise problem on Sarasota Bay; that the regulations concerning noise associated with boats are governed by the State Statutes as are the regulations regarding motor vehicles; that the State has not granted permission for the City to regulate the water; that repeated requests have been made to the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) to enforce the noise ordinances; that enforcement of noise ordinances on the water has been an issue for many yearsi that a marine patrol is currently assessing an illegal anchorage issue to determine appropriate enforcement measures; that responsibility for the repair and removal of a boat which has been on its side and sinking for two weeks should be determined; that the issue of enforcement has been a major issue in the City for a long time; that SPD has fine police officers; that the noise ordinances have been deliberately ignored; that a question remains if half of the noise ordinance will remain in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that accountability is the issue; that the strong mayor campaign in an earlier City election spoke to the issue of accountability or lack thereof. Attorney Singer stated that the recollection of events may differ among individuals; that Mr. Dasher referenced a report which was requested by the Commission; that Commissioner Quillin refers to the same report; that his recollection is based upon the perceived consensus of the Commission; that he has reviewed the minutes of the August 1, 2002, Commission Workshop concerning noise at which the Commission was informed an ordinance would be completed by January 2003; that a number of questions were raised relating to building codes during the Commission Workshopi that one consideration is the possibility of building regulations to create restrictions on interior construction; that his recollection is a report was not requested; that a report concerning the noise issue can be forthcoming or other options presented if the Commission sO desires. There was no one else signed up to speak and Vice Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4422 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4422 on first reading. Vice Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): Servian, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, no. 14. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4440, AMENDING THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, BY THE ADDITION THERETO OF A NEW SECTION 2-5, ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS, SETTING FORTH THE CONTRACTUAL MATTERS WHICH SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE CHARTER REQUIREMENT OF CITY BOOK 53 Page 24838 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24839 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. COMMISSION APPROVAL AND SPECIFYING THE POLICIES TO BE FOLLOWED TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE SUCH CONTRACTS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY IF ANY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ARE DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM X-A-3) CD 7:38 through 7:53 Michael Connolly, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4440 is to amend Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code) by adding a provision to address policies for administrative approval and execution of contractual matters; that on November 5, 2002, the electorate of the City adopted Section 19, Written Contracts, Article IV, Powers and Duties of the City Commission, as an amendment to the City of Sarasota Charter (1996) as follows: The City Commission shall approve all written contracts of the City except for specific contractual matters declared by ordinance of the City Commission to be exempt from the requirements of this article. An exempting ordinance shall specify the policy to be followed to approve and execute a contract exempt from the provisions this article. Attorney Connelly continued that the amendment requires Commission approval of all written contracts of the City except for contractual matters declared by ordinance as exempt from the requirements of the provision; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4440 sets forth the contractual matters which are exempt and the policies for administrative approval and execution of such contractual matters; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4440 establishes an effective date of March 17, 2003; that the reason for the delay in the effective date was to provide Staff an opportunity to analyze the impact of such a provision on the everyday business of the City and prepare proposed Ordinance No. 03-4440; that the General Services Department is an example of the need for the administrative approval process; that the General Services Department processes approximately 6,700 purchase orders annually; that a purchase order is a written contract between the City and another party; that 24 regular Commission meetings are held annually; that the Commission would have to approve approximately 279 purchase orders at every Commission meeting if purchase orders are not declared exempt. Mayor Mason returned to the Chambers at 7:40 p.m. Vice Mayor Palmer passed the gavel back to Mayor Mason. Attorney Connelly further stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4440 creates a new Section 2-5, Administrative Approval of Contracts, City Code, which is divided into four subsections; that the first three subsections list the responsibilities of the three Charter Officials; that the fourth subsection includes the policies and procedures which would be followed. Attorney Connelly stated further determining which contractual matters are under which subsection of the proposed Ordinance was discussed during the preparation of the proposed Ordinance; that proposed Section 2-5(d) (4), Administrative Approval of Contracts, City Code, addresses the issue as follows: The budget of the City as adopted by the City Commission shall determine whether a contractual matter is within Subsection (a), (b) or (c) of the Section 2-5. Attorney Connelly stated that for example, the City may require a maintenance contract with a company for a copier; that the budget utilized to pay for the maintenance would determine the appropriate Charter Official to make the decision; that each Department Head was provided an opportunity to determine the types of written contracts involved in each area; that the proposed Ordinance is not subjective and is very specific. Commissioner Quillin asked the reason for the proposed Ordinance if an item is budgeted? Attorney Connelly stated that the General Services Department is a good example; that every purchase order issued by the General Services Department has been approved by the Commission through the budget process; however, a purchase order is a written contract; that the new provision of the City of Sarasota Charter (1996) requires the Commission to approve all contracts unless declared exempt. Commissioner Quillin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4440 allows the Chapter Officials to approve up to $200,000 per item; that simpler language could have been written; and referred to proposed Section 2-5(c) (3), Administrative Approval of Contracts, City Code, included in the Agenda backup material as follows: BOOK 53 Page 24840 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24841 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Construction contract change orders, sO long as the cumulative total of all change orders does not increase the total contract cost by more than $200,000 or 10 percent of the contract cost, whichever is less, and sO long as the funding for said change order has been appropriately budgeted... Commissioner Quillin stated that the language could be simpler as follows: Construction contract change orders, sO long as the cumulative total of all change orders does not increase the total contract cost by 10 percent of the contract cost. Commissioner Quillin stated that a special appropriation would be necessary for increases of more than 10 percent. City Manager McNees stated that the most the Administration can approve on a change order with the contractor assuming the funds are budgeted is $200,000; that the reason for the inclusion of a percentage in the language is if a change order exceeds 10 percent of the project but is less than $200,000; that the intent is to avoid Commission approval of change orders of small amounts; that a change order is an amendment to a contract. Attorney Connolly stated that the change order becomes a written contract. Commissioner Quillin asked the reason to modify the internal process of approving change orders of a budgeted item? Attorney Connolly stated that the electorate of the City voted for the modification to the City Charter; that all contracts including change orders must be approved by the Commission unless declared exempt. Commissioner Quillin stated that the language regarding a budgeted item should be simpler; that contingencies exist within construction contracts; that the Commission should approve a change order once the contingency is exhausted and a special appropriation of funding becomes necessary. Attorney Connolly stated that the funding of a project may be confused with the actual contract of a project; that for example, a $1 million contract including a $200,000 contingency to construct a building means the contractor has $800,000 to construct the building; that a change order is necessary if the contractor must utilize any of the $200,000 contingency; that a change order is a written contract; that the electorate of the City adopted Section 19, Written Contracts, Article IV, Powers and Duties of the City Commission, as an amendment to the City of Sarasota Charter (1996) which allows only the Commission to approve and execute contracts such as a change order; that the intent of the proposed language referred in proposed Section 2-5(c) (3), Administrative Approval of Contracts, City Code, is to grant the Charter Officials the authority to sign change orders. Commissioner Quillin stated that the explanation is appreciated; however, the concern is another situation similar to the problems of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) remodeling project may occur; that an oversight process for change orders must exist. Attorney Connolly stated that the litigation involving the VWPAH is a different issue. Commissioner Quillin stated that language which indicates some type of reporting mechanism to the Finance Department or to the Commission concerning change orders should be incorporated in the proposed Ordinance. Attorney Connolly stated that the proposed Ordinance sets forth the contractual matters the Charter Officials are authorized to sign. Commissioner Quillin stated that accountability is necessary to avoid a situation similar to the VWPAH remodeling project. City Manager McNees stated that the Commission will continue to retain budgetary control; that a change order cannot be approved if the budget is not approved; that the accountability lies with the Charter Official responsible for the change order up to $200,000 or 10 percent of the project. Commissioner Servian stated that the subject of an oversight committee should be handled on a project by project basis. Commissioner Quillin stated that the proposed language may not be understandable to the general public; and referred to proposed Section 2-5(c) (9), Administrative Approval of Contracts, City Code, as follows: BOOK 53 Page 24842 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24843 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Equipment and vehicle rentals and purchases, up to $200,000 per item, sO long as the funding for same has been appropriately budgeted; Commissloner Quillin stated that such a provision is not related to a change order. Attorney Connolly stated that equipment rentals and purchases involve contracts with the City. Commissioner Quillin stated that simpler language is necessary; that the general public may not realize the amounts approved by the Charter Officials are budgeted. City Manager McNees stated that two processes must occur; that the first process involves the budget; that the Commission must approve a budget; that funding is appropriated once the budget is approved; however, items cannot be purchased until the City enters into a contract with a vendor; that the newly adopted provision to the City of Sarasota Charter (1996) indicates the Charter Officials cannot enter into a contract without approval by the Commission; that the proposed Ordinance delegates the authority to execute specific contracts and does not change the budget process. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4440 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4440 on first reading. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. Mayor Mason requested that City Attorney Taylor explain the quasi-judicial public hearing process. City Attorney Taylor stated that five quasi-judicial public hearings involving rezonings are before the Commission; that four of the rezonings involve 70 parcels annexed into the City in 1996, by Ordinance No. 97-3968; that the requirements of quasi-judicial public hearings were defined by the judicial process; that during the quasi-judicial public hearings, the Commission will be required to base any decision on competent, substantial evidence; that prior to opening the public hearing, Commissioners will be requested to disclose any ex parte communications concerning the subject property; that recommendations for time limits for the quasi-judicial public hearings will be made at the appropriate time; that Affected Persons are individuals especially interested in the proceedings due to proximity to or other special interest in the subject property; that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person; that speakers may request additional time which, if granted, will be determined at the discretion of the Commission; that Applicants and the City will be afforded the opportunity to present evidence and expert witnesses and the opportunity for cross-examination. 15. SECOND QUASI-JUDICTAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4432, TO REZONE t 2.5 ACRES FROM THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (CI) AND COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) ZONE DISTRICTS (COUNTY ZONING) TO THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE (POS) AND COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT (CGD) ZONE DISTRICTS (CITY OF SARASOTA ZONING) ; SAID PROPERTY HAVING BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF SARASOTA BY ORDINANCE NO. 97-3968; SAID NINE (9) PARCELS BEING LOCATED NORTH OF BEE RIDGE ROAD BETWEEN SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 41) ON THE WEST AND SOUTH SHADE AVENUE ON THE EAST, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, i SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT : PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM X-B-1) AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4434, TO REZONE +27.6 ACRES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY-1 (RMF-1), COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) AND COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (CI) ZONE DISTRICTS (COUNTY ZONING) TO THE OFFICE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (OND) 1 COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT (CGD), AND INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (ICD) ZONE DISTRICTS (CITY OF SARASOTA ZONING) : SAID PROPERTY HAVING BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF SARASOTA BY ORDINANCE NO. 97-3968; SAID TWENTY-EIGHT (28) PARCELS BEING LOCATED SOUTH OF BEE RIDGE ROAD, EAST OF SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 41), WEST OF SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE AND NORTH OF MILL TERRACE, L AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN BOOK 53 Page 24844 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24845 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4435, TO REZONE + 19.2 ACRES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 2 (RSF-2), RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 4 (RSF-4), RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY 1 (RMF-1), OFFICE PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONAL (OPI), COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (CI), AND COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) ZONE DISTRICTS (COUNTY ZONING) TO THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 2 (RSF-2), RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY 4 (RSF-4), COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT (CGD) I OFFICE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (OND), AND INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (ICD) ZONE DISTRICTS (CITY OF SARASOTA ZONING) ; SAID PROPERTY HAVING BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF SARASOTA BY ORDINANCE NO. 97-3968; SAID THIRTY (30) PARCELS BEING LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF BAY ROAD, WEST OF SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 41), NORTH OF GLENGARY STREET AND EAST OF FLORES STREET, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF, ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4436, TO REZONE A t .44 ACRE SITE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 1 (RSF-1) ZONE DISTRICT (COUNTY ZONING) TO THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 1 (RSF-1) ZONE DISTRICT (CITY OF SARASOTA ZONING), SAID PROPERTY HAVING BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF SARASOTA BY ORDINANCE NO. 97-3968; SAID PARCEL BEING LOCATED SOUTH OF BAY ROAD AND WEST OF RED ROCK LANE A/K/A 1220 BAY ROAD AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; : SETTING FORTH FINDINGS ; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT ; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 02-RE-15, APPLICANT, CITY OF SARASOTA) - ADOPTED CD 7:54 through 8:07 Vice Mayor Palmer left the Chambers at 7:54 p.m. City Attorney Taylor stated that the second of two public hearings regarding proposed Ordinance Nos. 03-4432, 03-4434, 03-4435, and 03-4436 is to approve the City-initiated rezoning of approximately 50 acres containing approximately 70 parcels; that one consolidated public hearing can occur for all four proposed Ordinances; that the Applicant is the City of Sarasota; that the recommendation is to allow 5 minutes for the City's presentation and 3 minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have 3 minutes to speak. Mayor Mason stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the time limits are approved; and requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Mayor Mason and Commissioners Martin, Quillin, and Servian stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation of the Applicant who is the City. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission, referred to a Proposed Zone District Map displayed on the Chamber monitors, and stated that proposed Ordinance Nos. 03-4432, 03-4434, 03-4435 and 03-4436 pertain to City initiated Rezone Application No. 02-RE-15 to rezone t 50 acres containing t 70 parcels in the vicinity of Bee Ridge Road and South Tamiami Trail previously annexed into the corporate limits of the City in 1996 by Ordinance No. 97-3968; that the existing Sarasota County zoning is the Residential Single Family 1 (RSF-1), Residential Single Family 2 (RSF-2), Residential Single Family 4 (RSF-4), Residential Multiple Family 1 (RMF-1), Office Professional Institutional (OPI), Commercial General (CG), and Commercial Intensive (CI) Zone Districts; that the proposed City Zone Districts are the Residential Single Family 1 (RSF-1), Residential Single Family 2 (RSF-2), Residential Single Family 4 (RSF-4), Parks and Open Space (POS), Office Neighborhood District (OND), Commercial General District (CGD), and Intensive Commercial District (ICD) Zone Districts. Vice Mayor Palmer returned to the Chambers at 7:58 p.m. Mr. Hoglund continued that some properties have changed owners since 1996; that two neighborhood workshops were held in March 2002, at Brookside Middle School; that the first workshop was for property owners on the west side of Tamiami Trail; that the second workshop was for property owners on the east side of Tamiami Trail; that the notification list for the neighborhood workshops included approximately 650 addresses; that 14 individuals attended the first workshop and 7 attended the second; that most of the attendees at the workshops were individuals outside the City BOOK 53 Page 24846 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24847 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. inquiring about the steps involved in annexing into the City; that in June 2002, individual letters were mailed to each affected owner of record regarding the proposed zone districts; that the majority of the properties will be rezoned to the Commercial General District (CGD) Zone District; that several meeting have occurred with the custodian of the St. John's Cemetery on Bee Ridge Road; that the custodian provided several articles regarding the history of the cemetery as one of true landmarks of the City; that the northern half of the cemetery is in the City's Commercial Intensive (CI) Zone District; that the southern portion of the property is being affected by the rezoning and will be changed to the Parks and Open Space (POS) Zone District; that the option to change the entire cemetery to the POS Zone District was offered but declined. Mr. Hoglund further stated that at its September 18, 2002, meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing and found Rezone Application No. 02-RE-15 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, and the standards for review set forth in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), and voted unanimously to recommend Commission approval of the following four proposed Ordinances as follows: Ordinance No. 03-4432: rezoning of 9 parcels located north of Bee Ridge Road between South Tamiami Trail on the west and south Shade Avenue on the east; Ordinance No. 03-4434: rezoning of 28 parcels located south of Bee Ridge Road, east of South Tamiami Trail, west of south School Avenue, and north of Mill Terrace; Ordinance No. 03-4435: rezoning of 30 parcels located north and south of Bay Road, west South Tamiami Trail, north of Glengary Street, and east of Flores Avenue; and Ordinance No. 03-4436: rezoning of one parcel located south of Bay Road, and west of Red Rock Lane Mr. Hoglund stated further that at the January 21, 2003, Regular meeting, the Commission held the first of two required public hearings and passed proposed Ordinance Nos. 03-4432, 03-4434, 03-4435 and 03-4436 on first reading. Commissioner Quillin left the Chambers at 8:00 p.m. Mayor Mason stated that no interested persons have signed up to speak; and closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4432 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 03-4432 on second reading. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4434 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 03-4434 on second reading. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Palmer, yesi Servian, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4435 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 03-4435 on second reading. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Servian, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yesi Palmer, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4436 by title only. Commissioner Quillin returned to the Chambers at 8:06 p.m. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 03-4436 on second reading. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yesi Mason, yes; Palmer, yes. BOOK 53 Page 24848 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24849 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. 16. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4438, TO REZONE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL, NOW PART OF THE SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH AND HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 3233 SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL, FROM THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 2 (RMF-2) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS (OPB) ZONE DISTRICT, AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF THE REZONING ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS 02-RE-19, 02-SP-55, AND 02-OSP-01, APPLICANT BRENDA L. PATTEN, ESQ., AS AGENT REPRESENTING RODNEY DESSBERG, AS CONTRACT VENDEE) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM X-B-2) CD 8:07 through 8:20 City Attorney Taylor stated that Rezone Application No. 02-RE-19 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4438 is to rezone property of the Southside Baptist Church, located at 3233 South Tamiami Trail; that the Applicant is Brenda Patten, Esquire, as agent representing Rodney Dessberg, as contract vendee of the property; that the recommendation is to allow the Applicant 7 minutes for the presentation and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that the City's presentation will be 5 minutes with 3 minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have 3 minutes to speak; that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person. Mayor Mason stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the time limits are approved; and requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Mayor Mason, Vice Mayor Palmer, and Commissioners Martin, Quillin, and Servian stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Brenda Patten, Esquire, law firm of Kirk-Pinkerton, and Dr. Wayne Bryant, Pastor of Southside Baptist Church, came before the Commission. Attorney Patten stated that the Southside Baptist Church Holding Company, Inc., and Dr. Wayne Bryant, request rezoning of the property of the Southside Baptist Church office building, located at 3233 South Tamiami Trail from Residential Multiple Family 2 (RMF-2) Zone District to Office, Professional and Business (OPB) Zone District; that on January 8, 2003, the Planning Board Local Planning (PBLP) held a public hearing and voted unanimously to find Site Plan Application No. 02-OSP-01, and Rezone Application No. 02-RE-19 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), the Tree Protection Ordinance, and the standards for review in the Zoning Code (1998 Ed.), and approved Application Nos. 02- SP-49 and 02-OSP-01, and recommended Commission approval of Application No. 02-RE-19; that the PBLP also approved a site plan and offsite parking agreement for the property; that the contract vendee of the property plans to convert the existing offices of Southside Baptist Church (Church) into medical offices and provide a portion of the required parking spaces on an adjacent property at 2050 Magnolia Street; that the Church office building is a one-story, 1,140 square foot concrete building with a wide angular awning extending across the front of the building located on the westside of Tamiami Trail (US 41). Attorney Patten displayed the Future Land Use Map on the monitors to indicate the Church property north of Magnolia Street, south of Goldenrod Street, east of Tamiami Trail (US 41), and west of East Avenue and stated that the property is owned by the Church; that the Church began assembling properties in the 1950s; that in 1957, the Church purchased the current sanctuary and the classroom buildings; that in 1974, the Church purchased an office building along South Tamiami Trail (US 41) which has been utilized for Church offices for the past 20 years; that the Church office building is the only building subject to the rezoning application; that the building was previously used as an office building; that at one time, the building was an S&H Green Stamp Center; that the Church also owns several small homes along East Avenue which are leased to families as affordable housing; that the Church no longer needs or can afford to maintain the Church office building; that the Church has decided to sell the building; that the office building is currently in the RMF-2 Zone District and therefore cannot be sold for office use without a rezoning; that the Church has been involved in the process for a lengthy period of time; that variance applications were filed in December 2001; that in June 2002, several variances for the property were granted to recognize the footprint of the existing office building, allowing the existing office building to continue to be utilized with the entire site being improved even though the building footprint remains the same; that the proposal will allow for significant landscaping improvements along the property line at South Tamiami Trail (US 41) which is currently paved for diagonal parking spaces; that three new parking spaces BOOK 53 Page 24850 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24851 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. will be added in front of the building under the roof overhang; that 13 parking spaces are currently located behind the building; that the most significant improvement will be better traffic circulation in addition to the improved landscaping; that traffic will enter from South Tamiami Trail (US 41) to a patient drop-off area and continue out to Goldenrod Street to the parking in the rear; that signage will be provided to direct patients to the spaces in the off-site parking area; that the parking spaces will be clearly marked as reserved for the office building; that the parking configuration including the use of shared parking facilities located off-site is consistent with the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020. Attorney Patten continued that copies of the site plan are included in the Agenda backup material; that the materials are complete; that Staff and the PBLP recommend approval of Application No. 02-RE-19; that the request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that no adverse impact is identified; that the building which is in the RMF-2 Zone District has been utilized as Church offices for 20 years; that the RMF-2 Zone District is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the approval of the rezoning to the OPB Zone District will assure the site is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Martin asked if the site plan is being proffered with Application No. 02-RE-19? Attorney Patten stated that the site plan was not proffered as a condition of the rezoning; that the Applicant is bound by the site plan through the variance process; that the property cannot be utilized as an office except in conformance with the variances granted, which include adherence to the site plan; that additionally, the PBLP has a process for approving site plans; that proffering the site plan was not necessary; that proffering a site plan in a rezoning proceeding complicates the process. Commissioner Martin stated that the footprint of the building remains the same; that a future purchaser of the building may want to construct a new building. Attorney Patten stated that a purchaser would be required to complete the process again to demolish the existing structure and construct a new building; that the variances were granted to recognize the existing non-conformities of the current structure; that the plan is to utilize the building with internal modifications, as necessary; that external enhancements are expected; however, the footprint is to remain the same. Mayor Mason requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Karin Murphy, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission, and stated that Rezone Application No. 02-RE-19 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4438 pertains to the rezoning of property located at 3233 South Tamiami Trail from RMF-2 Zone District to OPB Zone District; that at its January 6, 2003, Regular meeting, the Commission passed on first reading Ordinance No. 03-4426 which pertains to property located on the south side of Magnolia Street with a street address of 2050 Magnolia Street and which also included approval of a portion of the larger parking area for the several projects currently being developed in the area; that parking was assigned to the tenants of the former NationsBank; that a process for the redevelopment of the former NationsBank building was embarked upon with Rodney Dessberg; that concerns were raised relating to the parking assignments in the general area as the former NationsBank building was undergoing renovations; that Staff worked to assure the parking spaces were assigned as the area would have more parking requirements after renovation and the contract vendee anticipated selling a portion of the property for the The Center for Digestive Diseases. Ms. Murphy referred to a map entitled Parking Allocations Magnolia Street, amended, displayed on the Chamber monitors and indicated South Tamiami Trail (US 41), east of South Tamiami Trail (US 41), north of Siesta Drive, and the former NationsBank building, which was retrofitted and contains the Social Security Office; that parking spaces were assigned and allotted to an off-site parking area; that The Center for Digestive Diseases was allotted certain spaces in the parking area with an understanding the spaces could be reassigned to the off-site parking area; that instead, a parking area was constructed and reconfigured behind the drive-through bank; that the unique features of the architecture of the Southside Baptist Church can be viewed on the mapi that the variances allowed the cantilever roof to remain; that the proposed rezoning would allow the conversion of the existing offices for the Southside Baptist Church to medical offices; that the Magnolia Street property recently received approval to allow construction of an 85 space parking area on property located on the south side of Magnolia BOOK 53 Page 24852 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24853 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Street midway between South Tamiami Trail (US 41) and East Avenue; that the approved parking area and the existing parking area to the south provide the required number of parking spaces for several buildings in the area; that each developed area has been reviewed individually for required parking, and the combined lots and designated parking spaces help to ensure adequate parking for the surrounding properties. Ms. Murphy continued that the Church no longer has a use for the office building and would like to sell the property for medical use; that the existing building is setback 17.1 feet; that on June 26, 2002, the Applicant received variance approval for a 2.9 feet reduction from the 20 feet front yard setback along Magnolia Street, 6.9 percent of additional lot coverage for a total of 36.9 percent, reductions to parking lot setbacks, parking lot landscaping, roof overhang setback, and the continued use of the remaining church parcels within the RMF-2 Zone District if the property is sold and no longer part of a unified project; that the OPB Zone District is no longer an implementing district for the Community Office/Insticutional Future Land Use Classification; that Section I-105, Transitional Rules, Zoning Code (1998 Ed.), provides for the recipient of variances to proceed in developing property in accordance with the plans previously approved by the variance; therefore, the OPB Zone District requested is found to be consistent with the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that at its January 8, 2003, meeting, the PBLP held a public hearing and found Rezone Application No. 02-RE-19 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the standards for review set forth in the Zoning Code (1998 Ed.), and voted unanimously to recommend Commission approval of proposed Ordinance No. 03-4438 subject to the following conditions: Section 3. The review of this rezoning shall not preclude subsequent review by the Engineering Department as to traffic circulation. Section 4. No certificate of occupancy for the proposed medical offices on the property shall be issued until the 85 space off street parking lot depicted is approved Mayor Mason stated that no interested persons have signed up to speak; that neither the Applicant nor the City has any rebuttal; requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if any, and hearing none, closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4438 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4438 on first reading. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yesi Mason, yes; Palmer, yesi Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. 17. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM XI) CD 8:20 through 8:24 The following people came before the Commission: Julia Aires, P.O. Box 32108 (34239), stated that gratitude is extended to the City for allowing a peace rally and march at Bayfront Park on February 15, 2003; that the peace rally and march were accomplished without obtaining a permit from the City; that a bureaucratic hassle was avoided; that appreciation is extended to the Sarasota Police Department for the support the protesters received, insuring a peaceful and safe rally and march; that over 2000 citizens gathered in the park; that individuals from Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Englewood, and Venice, Florida, attended the event; that many remarks were heard concerning the beauty of the park and the beauty of the gathering; that an ordinance is scheduled for the March 3, 2003, Regular Commission meeting, to limit the number of individuals permitted to gather in a City park without a permit; that citizens should be permitted to peacefully assemble and express free speech; that the weekend gathering was successful; that encouragement is extended to the City to continue to uphold the country's principles. Travis McArthur, 933 Sirus Terrace (34232), stated that he is a student at Pine View School in Sarasota and attended the peace rally and march at Bayfront Park; that many friends attended the rally and march; that the event was inspiring and energetic; that citizens did not encounter traffic problems; that political events such as the rally and march can add to the vibrance and diversity of the City; that the Downtown Festival of Arts was held concurrently with the rally and march; that the importance of assembly in a democracy should be taken very seriously; that future events such as the march and rally are anticipated by the BOOK 53 Page 24854 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24855 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. student population; that flyers entitled "Is this the last legal demonstration in Sarasota?" were circulated during the rally and march; that the flyer contained information regarding a new ordinance which will require a permit for the assemblage of more than 50 people; that such an ordinance will discourage organizers attempting to gather citizens together; that such an ordinance will discourage citizens from peaceful assembly. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: CITY COMMISSION DIRECTIVE OF JANUARY 21, 2003 TO REVIEW THE LAUREL PARK LAND USE ISSUE AND DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO PROCEED DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A BUDGET ISSUE FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2003/04 ALLOCATING RESOURCES TO CREATE AND IMPLEMENT A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION STRATEGY (NAS) PROCESS DESIGNED TO SERVE NEIGHBORHOODS CURRENTLY INELIGIBLE FOR NAS PROCESS FOR INITIATION IN JANUARY 2004 (AGENDA ITEM XII) CD 8:24 through 9:08 Mayor Mason stated that Unfinished Business Agenda Item VI-3 regarding the Laurel Park land use issue is continued from the afternoon session. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning, came before the Commission and stated that at the January 21, 2003, Regular Commission meeting, Staff was directed to review the Laurel Park land use issue and develop recommendations concerning future direction; that the Neighborhood and Planning Departments as well as the City Attorney's Office met to evaluate past and current circumstances and to determine the most effective manner in which to proceed; that the following four options are proposed: Option 1 with the Planning Department as the Lead: Review the existing land use classification for the Laurel Park neighborhood as part of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) which begins in 2004. No budget issue would be prepared in the fiscal year (FY) 2003/04 budget cycle in anticipation of a Fall 2003, City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment from a residential land use classification to an alternative classification supported by the neighborhood. Option 2 with the Departments of Planning and Neighborhoods as the Lead: Prepare a budget issue for FY 2003/04 allocating resources to a fall 2003 survey of stakeholders in the Laurel Park neighborhood to determine a preferred land use classification. Option 3 with the Departments of Planning and Neighborhoods as the Lead: Prepare a budget issue for FY 2003/04 allocating resources to initiate a land use charrette process for the Laurel Park neighborhood in the fall of 2003 with the results used as the basis for a possible subsequent amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Option 4 with the Department of Neighborhoods as the Lead: Prepare a budget issue for FY 2003/04 allocating resources to create and implement a new Neighborhood Action Strategy (NAS) process designed to serve neighborhoods currently ineligible for NAS process for initiation in January 2004. Ms. Robinson stated that the Administration recommends approval of Option 1 or 4; that both options are effective methods which will provide the public with a thorough understanding of the City's future direction. Commissioner Quillin stated that the property owners in the Laurel Park Neighborhood should be surveyed; that a survey will determine if pursuing one of the options is necessaryi that all parties involved should understand all the issues; that the property owners are the individuals most affected; and asked the approximate cost of surveying the St. Armands Circle property owners prior to the formation of the St. Armands Business Improvement District? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that approximately 70 properties were surveyed; that the cost was minimal. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Laurel Park Neighborhood includes approximately 250 property owners; that the City should determine the consensus of the property owners of the Laurel Park Neighborhood prior to proceeding with Option 1 or 4; that the cost of a survey is insignificant. Ms. Robinson stated that a survey may be a good approach; however, the concern is a survey may not be comprehensive enough; that individuals may require an additional explanation of the issues; that survey results may not be good if the individuals do not BOOK 53 Page 24856 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24857 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. understand the issues; that Staff recommends a more comprehensive and thorough approach such as Option 1 or 4. Commissioner Quillin stated that a simpler approach is recommended; that a mailed survey could include an explanation of the issues plus a section for response; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood is very active; that the survey would be non-binding to determine if the Commission should proceed with considering a change in the land use in Laurel Park. Commissioner Martin stated that several neighborhood associations and other interested parties wish to receive changes from the City such as amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) or certain ordinance changes; that the City should determine a prioritization of the requests; that Option 4 is favored; that the NAS process addresses two neighborhoods every 18 months; that four neighborhoods have been selected for the next three years; that other neighborhoods will become discouraged with having to wait three years; and asked if Option 4 will include a policy of prioritization for neighborhoods? Ms. Robinson stated that Michael Raposa, Director of Neighborhoods, could not be present; that the current NAS program is for areas which are in danger of becoming blighted; that a suggestion is for a separate NAS program for areas such as Laurel Park or Southside Village; that a new NAS program could include surveys, charrettes, or open houses; that a criteria could be established for neighborhoods requiring infrastructure improvements or with land use issues; that the Commission could determine the method of marshalling resources for certain neighborhoods during the Strategic Planning and Budget processes; that a pamphlet could be developed to indicate which areas of the City are the priorities. Commissioner Martin stated that developing some type of program is necessary. Ms. Robinson stated that neighborhoods can be prioritized through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Process. Commissioner Martin stated that the EAR process is to assess and evaluate the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Robinson stated that is correct; that for example, a response will be required for certain Action Strategies in the City's Comprehensive Plan which have not been addressed within an established time frame such as the Barrier Island Study. Commissioner Martin stated that developing a new NAS policy could be linked to the EAR process. Mayor Mason stated that Option 4 is supported; however, a name other than NAS should be utilized; that the two programs may become confusing to the public. Ms. Robinson stated that Neighborhood Assets is a suggestion. City Manager McNees stated that the intent is not to define Option 4 at this time; however, the name should be changed; that many neighborhoods are under the impression the City has promised a large scale land use review of some sort; that the intent of Option 4 is to define a process for neighborhoods to address the City and receive a reasonable expectation response; that a process should provide a method to direct the requests appropriately. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the process should be extended to commercial and residential areas. City Manager McNees stated that the term "neighborhoods" includes commercial and residential areas in the City's definition. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the public may not consider the term "neighborhoods" to include both commercial and residential areas. Commissioner Servian stated that Option 4 is favored; that explaining to the public the manner in which a neighborhood can obtain improvements without being blighted has been difficult. Commissioner Quillin agreed; that a method should be implemented throughout all the neighborhoods; however, the issue before the Commission concerns the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that certain promises have been made to the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood was recently changed to the Residential Single Multiple 9 (RSM-9) Zone District; that the residents in the Laurel Park Neighborhood are split on issues regarding the future of the neighborhood; that the best way to determine consensus of the Laurel Park Neighborhood is to conduct a survey of the property owners; that the differences of opinions within the Laurel Park Neighborhood are causing the neighborhood to become split. BOOK 53 Page 24858 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24859 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Mayor Mason asked the wishes of the Commission concerning Option 4? Commissioner Quillin stated that the property owners should be surveyed prior to choosing an Option; that Option 4 will apply to all neighborhoods in the City including Laurel Park; that the issue before the Commission is the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that Staff has provided excellent suggestions to include all neighborhoods into one process; however, the issue before the Commission concerns the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that a survey should be conducted to determine a consensus of the property owners. Commissioner Servian stated that she is willing to host a presentation to thoroughly educate the Laurel Park Neighborhood regarding each Option; that educating the neighborhood should be the first step prior to surveying the residents; that Option 4 is the best for the entire City. City Manager McNees stated that Staff was directed to review the Laurel Park land use issue and develop recommendations concerning future direction; that Staff identified three concerns which are to determine: 1) the desires of the Laurel Park area, 2) methods to allocate City resources, and 3) the methods to address other concerns on a larger scale; that Staff developed four Options to address the concerns; that developing the process will not solved the Laurel Park issue immediately; that the City does not have the resources to build a process and be ready to administer such a process at this time. Mayor Mason stated that two people have signed up to speak. Commissioner Quillin stated that the desire is to offer some personal comments prior to hearing from the public speakers. Mayor Mason stated that comments should be offered only if short as the two public speakers came back from the afternoon session to speak to the issue. Commissioner Quillin stated that a couple of comments are desired. Mayor Mason stated that the Commission's procedures should be followed. Commissioner Quillin stated that no deviation from the Commission's procedures is suggested; that two different groups with two different opinions exist in the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that a simple survey can be conducted. The following people came before the Commission. Peter Delisser, President of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association, 1562 South Drive (34239), stated that the comments from the Commission are appreciated; that too much paper is being utilized to obtain input from the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that having the Commission referee a neighborhood dispute is not desired; that 23 letters have been received from owners of property in Laurel Park which total 150 residents in support of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that a representative from Andres Duany, Principal, FAIA, Duany Plater- Zyberk & Company, is also supportive of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that several individuals oppose the amendment; that the opposition is respected; however, in 1998, a City funded survey was conducted; that the results indicated a 2 to 1 vote in support of mixed-use in the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that the current opposition is a minority who have a significant misunderstanding of the intent of the mixed-use; that educating the residents of the neighborhood is supported; that some residents are under the impression a giant strip mall is supported; that the property owners in the Laurel Park Neighborhood should be afforded the same opportunities as property owners of the neighboring land use classification; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association Board is interested in fairness; that a process to force both sides in the neighborhood to the table for a solution is desired. Diana Hamilton, 229 Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that on February 17, 2003, the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association Board met and discussed the four Options presented by Staff; that neither Option 1 nor 4 address the directive issued by the Commission in June 2000; that the Commission directed Staff to work with the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association to develop Traditional Neighborhood Development zoning regulations based on those developed by Andres Duany, Principal, FAIA, Duany Plater- Zyberk & Company; that the neighborhood residents should be able to rely on the votes and directives of the Commission; that in 2000, the Commission directed Staff to perform a task based on information provided by various boards; that the directive has not been followed; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association Board is in support of Option 2, a survey, or Option 3, a BOOK 53 Page 24860 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24861 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. charrette process; that both are possible and would benefit the neighborhood; that a survey can be conducted to determine neighborhood sentiment after a charrette process if necessary; that the respondents to a survey would be better informed after a charrette process. Ms. Hamilton continued that the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association Board did not vote on the four Options presented by Staff; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association Board unanimously approved a motion to request the Commissioners to defer a decision concerning the four Options until the March 3, 2003, Regular Commission meeting; that a general Laurel Park Neighborhood meeting is scheduled for February 25, 2003; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association Board wishes to have the opportunity to communicate the four Options to the attendees for input; that a charrette process provides the opportunity for the neighborhood to gather and discuss different options; that the concerns of the opposition are shared; that several letters from the opposition are personal attacks against members of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association Board; that a charrette process is supported; that she is a renter; that a survey of property owners is not entirely supported; that an imaginary boundary line created by the Laurel Park Overlay District exists in the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that a five story buffer exists across the imaginary boundary line; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood is directly affected by the proposed Downtown Code; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood should reunite through a charrette process. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that several good points have been raised; however, implementing Options 1 and 4 is desired; that the suggestion is for the Administration to move forward in developing a new Neighborhood Action Strategy (NAS) designed to serve neighborhoods which are not part of the existing NAS program; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood is split; that any decision made will upset someone; that the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association Board can provide input back to the Commission after the February 25, 2003, Laurel Park Neighborhood meeting regarding conducting a survey or charrette process. Commissioner Servian stated that Option 4 is supported and will benefit the City overall; that she is willing to host a neighborhood meeting to assure all the residents of the Laurel Park Neighborhood understand the various options; that a survey can be then be conducted. Commissioner Quillin stated that part of the Laurel Park Neighborhood is in District 3; that the Commission should provide better directions to Staff; that hearing input from the attendees at the February 25, 2003, Laurel Park Neighborhood meeting is desired; that surveying the property owners is appropriate since the property owners are the most affected; that all zoning will be evaluated during an EAR process; that several neighborhoods are not being serviced by the Neighborhoods Department; that different allocations of Staff may need to be evaluated; that the concept of having different strategies for different neighborhoods which are not part of the existing NAS program is desired. Commissioner Martin stated that the belief is the individuals with strong opinions concerning the Laurel Park Neighborhood are well educated; that the individuals were active during the charrette process of the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the Laurel Park Overlay District process; that educating the public generally on mixed-use is supported; that Option 4 will establish a process of prioritizing with inherent fairness; that significant City resources have been spent in the Laurel Park Neighborhood; that $10,000 was appropriated several years ago to develop the Laurel Park Overlay District; that the RSM-9 Zone District process absorbed a significant amount of City resourcesi that the Commission cannot continue to constantly make changes; that for example, a significant amount of funding was invested in the Osprey Avenue Streetscape which in some ways precludes commercial uses and limits on-street parking; that the existence of commercial uses adjacent to residential neighborhoods is impacting the residents; that surveying the neighborhood is not supported; that developing a Citywide process at this time rather than addressing the Laurel Park Neighborhood is supported. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Vice Mayor Palmer, it was moved to direct the Administration to prepare a budget issue for fiscal year (FY) 2003/04 allocating resources to create and implement a new Neighborhood Action Strategy (NAS) process designed to serve neighborhoods currently ineligible for NAS process for initiation in January 2004. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yesi Mason, yes. BOOK 53 Page 24862 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24863 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the motion does not obviate the ability for the neighborhood to hold an educational presentation; that discouraging the neighborhood from pursuing an educational presentation is not desired; that a process to develop other neighborhood strategies will determine the appropriateness of amending the City's Comprehensive Plan; and commended the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association for coming forward. 19. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM XIV) CD 9:08 through 9:16 COMMISSIONER MARTIN: A. stated that he serves on the Policy Committee of the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (SBNEP); that the City Manager sits on the Management Committee of the SBNEP; that the most recent meeting focused on two issues; that first, a consensus was reached among the Policy Committee, the Management Committee, and the Technical Committee concerning an interlocal agreement among the funding entities; that the City is presently the caretaker which oversees the SBNEP; that funding sources include Manatee and Sarasota Counties and possibly the City of Bradenton in the future; that for various reasons, the City may not continue to oversee the SBNEP; that a number of different options for forming an independent not-for-profit organization have been put forward; that an organization based on the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has been considered as a basis for an interlocal agreement; that The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program functions under an interlocal agreement, is a local model, and is well known and successful; that the consensus is to utilize The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program as the model for an interlocal agreement; that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been influential concerning the decisions being considered; that the EPA has directed the SBNEP to form an independent not-tor-profit organization; that Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) reimburses the SBNEP for costs incurred; that an interlocal agreement would allow the SBNEP to receive funding directly rather than wait for reimbursement; that direct receipt of funds is the major issue; that the City has felt a great deal of pride as overseer of the SBNEP; that the City petitioned the Federal government to receive the program many years agoi that the City has been a dedicated fiscal agent for the SBNEP and has gone to great lengths to provide a haven for the SBNEP; that the City is currently renovating the Federal Building on Orange Avenue; that office space is being created for the SBNEP in the Federal Building; that the SBNEP indicated overhead expenses would increase substantially with a move into the Federal Building; that the Policy Committee supports the move of the SBNEP into the Federal Building and pursuit of an interlocal agreement; that a question remains if the SBNEP will be housed in the City-owned Federal Building in the future; that the SBNEP could be a tenant at the Federal Building for several years or indefinitely; that the Office of Housing and Community Development which is both a City and County department will be relocated to the Federal Building; that the tenancy of the SBNEP in the Federal Building, along with other non-City departments, is logical; that the establishment of the SBNEP as an independent not-for-profit organization will enhance the organization's ability to achieve a higher level of efficiency. VICE MAYOR PALMER: A. stated that the Nichols Giistrap Long-Range Plan Report will be presented at the February 20, 2003, meeting of the Tourist Development Council; that various reports and information provided the Economic Development Board and the Tourist Development Council will be integrated to address the economic development of the County in the future; that the City will be an important part of the process. B. stated that a meeting of the Community Youth Development Council was attended; that 22 of the 40 students in attendance are City residents or attended City schools; that the students were receptive and enthusiastic concerning matters of local government; that the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board, the Citizens with Disabilities Board, and the Public Art Committee currently have vacancies for student members; that the hope is the students will submit applications for the City advisory boards; that the students were fantastic. BOOK 53 Page 24864 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24865 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. COMMISSIONER QUILLIN: A. stated that the February 2003 meeting of the Community Action Board was cancelled. COMMISSIONER SERVIAN: A. stated that the Economic Development Board will meet during the week of February 18, 2003. MAYOR MASON: A. stated that information concerning meetings the Sarasota Housing Authority (SHA) has scheduled with the residents in the different properties was distributed to the Commission; that the announcement of the scheduled meetings is encouraging; that attendance at one or all of the meetings by the Commissioners, if schedules permit, would be enlightening; that the SHA Board is scheduled to meet on February 26, 2003. 20. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM XV) CD 9:16 through 9:35 COMMISSIONER SERVIAN: A. stated that boats are overturned in Sarasota Bay perhaps as a result of a recent storm; that removal of the boats is a priority. B. stated that an update concerning the mooring fields would be appreciated. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that a report including the legal description of the property from the end of O'Leary's Water Sports and Grill to Marie Selby Botanical Gardens was recently received; that the property is owned by the State and is not leased to the City; that the State will be requested to provide the City trespass authority to enforce City laws on the parcel of property; that Sarasota Police Department (SPD) will have the authority to address the unlawful behavior of the individuals creating disturbances on the property; that additionally, two individuals attending the December 5, 2002, Community Forum were from the University of Florida, have been involved with the Sarasota Sailing Squadron in the past, and are willing to participate with the mooring field issue; that a student at the University of Florida Law School who is from Sarasota has been assigned to work as an intern on the City's mooring project and will receive law school credit for the project; that the law student will develop a management plan for the City's mooring field; that a meeting with the law student and the other individuals interested in the mooring field will be scheduled as soon as the law student's schedule is known. Commissioner Servian stated that a timeline for developing the mooring field is important. C. stated that potential accidents between vehicles and pedestrians are being experienced on St. Armands Circle; that placing temporary stanchions in crosswalks between lanes may help slow traffic; that vehicles are speeding through the pedestrian crosswalks which have no raised bricks or lights; that pedestrians have almost been hit on several occasions in the past week; that the intersection of Madison Drive and North Boulevard of the Presidents is the most dangerous; that vehicles are parked up to the median; that pedestrians cannot see around vehicles and step into the crosswalk. Commissioner Quillin asked if a police officer is stationed in the area? Commissioner Servian stated that a police officer patrols all the areas on St. Armands Key rather than being stationed at crosswalks all the time. Commissioner Quillin stated that a police officer could be stationed at the crosswalks at particular hours; and asked if volunteers are stationed at St. Armands Circle to help with the traffic? Commissioner Servian stated no; that the problem is not at specific times; that some times such as rush hour are worse than others; however, the problem is continuos; that drivers become impatient with the bridge opening and traffic backing up; that the problem is a public safety issue and could be referred to the SPD to review the situation. BOOK 53 Page 24866 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24867 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. VICE MAYOR PALMER: A. stated that the Public Works and Engineering Departments are thanked for the work associated with the Lemon Avenue Mall crosswalks at Main Street; that the crosswalks have improved pedestrian safety during the Farmers Market on Saturdays. B. stated that Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, is thanked for providing the response to the concerns raised by the Local Option Sales Tax Oversight Committee and was requested to send copies to the Committee members. C. asked if the Lido Beach Ad Hoc Committee has been appointed? City Manager McNees stated that letters of appointment will be sent on February 19, 2003. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the names of the Committee members should be provided to the Commission. City Manager McNees stated that the names of the Committee members will be provided once the potential appointees have responded. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: A. stated that expansion of the public art program and the art loan program as well as an art-in-the-park program which other communities have initiated have been discussed by the Commission in the past; that discussions with local artists and members of the Public Art Committee have been held; that a joint meeting could be scheduled with the Public Art Committee to discuss the three programs. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the understanding is the Chair of the Public Art Committee will formally request a workshop with the Commission. Commissioner Quillin stated that expansion of the public art program throughout the City has been discussed by the Commission on numerous occasions. Commissioner Martin stated that the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood set the standard by having artists place artwork in medians, etc.; that other neighborhoods are jealous and wish the same; that artists have inquired about loaning artwork for placement in parks; that moving forward with some of the public art programs would serve the City well. B. stated that the trimming of the trees at the building on the corner of Orange Avenue and Second Street across from City Hall will probably kill the trees but is not illegal under the current Tree Protection Ordinance; that such trimming will be illegal under the proposed Tree Protection Ordinance; that an update of the proposed Tree Protection Ordinance would be appreciated. C. stated that the redevelopment of the Rosemary District has been very successful, is an example of the City's assisting in redevelopment by providing infrastructure, and is a proud achievement for the City; that the private sector will continue the positive redevelopment; that government can go into an area initially and then leave; that a group in the Rosemary District called Startup Florida is a local business incubator and investment fund and is holding an open house on February 27, 2003; that the Commission is encouraged to attend; that the mixed-use building constructed by Harvey Vengroff in the Rosemary District is successful; that the residential units and the commercial spaces are fully rented; that the City owns a parcel north of the building; that the hope is a developer will build a similar building on the property; that Startup Florida will incubate businesses and obtain the investment capital; that the demand exists for more mixed use development in the Rosemary District; that the Rosemary District is viewed as a type of technical corridor; that the City performed the job in the Rosemary District correctly; that the private sector has followed; and distributed invitations to the Startup Florida open house. COMMISSIONER QUILLIN: A. stated that a significant amount of money was spent for the improvements at Ringling Park; that two accidents recently occurred at the intersection of Ringling Boulevard and Main Street in which two old fashioned decorative street lights were destroyed; that vehicular BOOK 53 Page 24868 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24869 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. speeding has increased on Ringling Boulevard between Shade and Tuttle Avenuesi; that evening vehicular traffic moving toward Tuttle Avenue has increased; that a tree and a sprinkler system in the area have been destroyed; that the design of Ringling Boulevard is for traffic abatement. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to extend the meeting to complete the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Commissioner Quillin continued that the traffic trailer should be set in a different neighborhood every day; that a traffic patrolling report is desired; that public property is being destroyed. B. stated that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 5 was originally pulled from the Consent Agenda; that the City planned to perform full time construction management services for the Upper Main Street Streetscape Project; that the resignation of three key Staff members assigned to the project hampered the City's ability to perform the work; that the Commission should be made aware of situations such as Staff shortages prior to a crisis occurring; that the condition of Main Street was a crisis during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and the Sarasota Film Festival. C. that Code Entorcement of rental properties is a problem; that the owner of a substandard rental property was recenty before the Nuisance Abatement Board; that Code Enforcement cannot enter onto a residence unless invited inside; that the substandard rental property is noticeable in the neighborhood; that a report regarding regulation of rental properties is desired; that the existence of substandard rental properties is a problem in many neighborhoods. Commissioner Servian stated that the Florida Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) conference was recently attended in Clearwater, Florida; that a landlord registration program was presented; that the existence of substandard rental properties is becoming a problem in the City. Commissioner Quillin stated that the City must protect its housing stock and citizens from slum landlords. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that Staff is currently working on a landlord registration program; that a committee is in the process of being formed. Commissioner Quillin stated that the landlord registration program has not been implemented in Clearwater. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the landlord registration program is being discussed in general by Staff. Commissioner Quillin stated that regulating rental properties has been discussed for years; that the Landlords Association should be involved with the development of a landlord registration program in an effort to self regulate; that a presentation from the Landlords Association concerning self regulation is desired. D. stated that from 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon, on February 22, 2003, the Gulf Coast Chapter of Florida Women in Government will be at Jordan's Crossing with Habitat For Humanity, Sarasota, Inc., assisting with construction of affordable housing. E. stated that the Red Ribbon AIDS Walk will be held on March 8, 2003, at the Bayfront; that she will be walking; that information regarding corporate or individual sponsorship is available. MAYOR MASON: A. stated that the Front Porch Florida Council has been established; that officers were elected; that the City Auditor and Clerk will be providing training concerning parliamentary procedures in the future; that some of the officers will also be going to the State Capitol to receive additional training regarding the Florida Front Porch Program. 21. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XVI) CD 9:35 through 9:36 BOOK 53 Page 24870 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 53 Page 24871 02/18/03 2:30 P.M. CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that Scott Eller has resigned from the Nuisance Abatement Board due to other commitments. B. stated that a February 26, 2003, Special Commission meeting is scheduled at 6 p.m. for the public hearing concerning the firefighters' pension ordinances, the Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) ordinance, and interlocal agreements with Sarasota County concerning fire impact fees and fire consolidated services; that the meeting will be lengthy. 22. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XVII) CD 9:36 There being no further business, Mayor Mason adjourned the Regular meeting of the City Commission of February 18, 2003, at 9:36 p.m. Causlpgs Masor CAROLYN f. MASON, MAYOR ATTEST: ILKE Robenson BILLY C 7ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK