Book 38 Page 12293 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1995, AT 2:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor David Merrill, Vice Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Commissioners Delores Dry, Nora Patterson, and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor David Merrill The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 10 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 2:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CITY MANAGER'S POSITION - A FACILITATOR WILL BE HIRED TO WORK WITH THE COMMISSION AND CITY MANAGER IN DEVELOPING GOALS, PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS AND STANDARDS, PREPARING AN EVALUATION FORM (INCLUDING MANAGEMENT ISSUES), DESIGNING A PROCESS FOR USE OF THE FORM AND GROUP FEEDBACK, AND INCORPORATING THE NINE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY COMMISBIONER DRY, AS REVISED; THE FACILITATOR WILL BE SELECTED BY THE CITY MANAGER OR, IF UNAVAILABLE, ONE RECOMMENDED THROUGH THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES; A SECOND EVALUATION OF THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE CONDUCTED SIX MONTHS AFTER THE FIRST EVALUATION (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0031) through #3 (1610) Mayor Merrill stated that the meeting has been called to determine if the City Manager and the Commission can continue to work together; that the meeting has developed in an unusual way; that hearing no objection, the rules to limit opening statements will be suspended; that the format of this Agenda item will be: opening statements by Commissioners, input from the Administration, public input, and finally Commission action. Mayor Merrill continued that the rules of decorum under Robert's Rules of Order will be followed, and the meeting will be conducted with dignity; that all comments shall be directed through the Chair, and no comments shall be directed to the City Manager or any individual Commissioner; that comments should be focused on issues and actions and not personalities or motives; that titles should be used and not individual names; that no interruptions from the audience, such as applause or other interruptions, will be permitted; that if handled properly, the meeting can be very positive to resolve an issue boiling beneath the surface for some time; and asked if any Commissioner wishes to make an opening statement? Commissioner Dry stated that she has prepared an opening statement which is as follows: "At a recent Commission meeting, I voted in the affirmative for a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for the general City employees and the Charter Officials. This type of pay raise, by current City policies is not tied to any performance evaluation. In my professional and humane judgment, this was the right thing to do! I stand by my decision and am comfortable with it. There are marked differences between a COLA and merit or incentive raises tied to performance. "As for the immediate issue, I can only reflect on my own personal experiences and interactions with the City Manager since being sworn in as a Commissioner in April 1995. It's my belief that the vote of confidence entrusted to me by voters in the recent elections, requires that I perform my Commission duties/responsponsibilities in the most fair and objective manner possible. I have an obligation to all citizens of this City, and my district, to learn, listen, research (when needed) and vote on those issues that affect their lives and their livelihoods. In short, the only agenda that I have is to help assure the continued growth and future of this lovely City as was avowed when the oath was administered. "To date, my relationship with the City Manager has been cordial. I find him to be personally likeable. I believe that mutual respect for each other exists. "Having had over twenty-five years in supervision, management, and administration in a governmental agency, I have had the benefit of having been aware of key indicators that can make or break an organization. To that end, I feel obligated to share with the City Manager areas of concern and to applaud successes. "Most of my concerns have been discussed in one-to-one conferences with the City Manager. Other issues are results of events which occur during workshops or Commission meetings. I recognize that it has to be difficult in attempting to please five bosses. The strength of a good manager is to develop proactively a medium to actuate those relationships needed to satisfy the majority of those bosses, the residents of this City, and those who use our services. "I am impressed with the list of City accomplishments since 1987, although there are some problems still existing with some of those projects. Book 38 Page 12294 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12295 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. "Some areas of concern discussed with the City Manager include: a. Slow response to a possible inventory loss valued at $90,000+. Inventory system not being utilized. b. Initial responses to most recent audit and failure to correcting numerous deficiencies cited in previous year audit. This is costing the City thousands of dollars. C. Failure to keep all Commissioners informed of key issues, until the situation is critical, such as lawsuits, plans, etc., that must be approved before proper review and pprova/Aistribtion. d. Lack of understanding on how to handle a specific request on railroad crossing repairs. e. Perceived Community concerns on need for improvements in the Planning Department through staffing and refined processes. f. Review of policy procedures and staffing in Building and Zoning Department and morale issues! g. Community complaints/perceptions on the handling of some issues by the Community Development office. I am aware dialogue has begun to hopefully correct some of these items. h. Lack of attention in the visioning process to the needs of District 1 as a viable part of the City. "Additionally, there are issues of a need for "team building" on the part of the Commissioners. "I recognize that I am in an untenable position. My vote is critical to the future of this City. The consolation that I have is that I have tried to be objective and carefully weighed my decision." 1 Mayor Merrill asked if any other Commissioner wished to make an opening statement. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she has prepared a presentation which will be quite lengthy and continued: "Thank you for coming and showing an interest in this matter. Actually, had you been interested and involved on an on-going basis and had you been close to the subject, you may have had an understanding of why we have gathered here today. Lack of interest and lack of newspaper coverage have left you, the public, without knowledge of our problems at city Hall. As an active participant in city government prior to my election and certainly now as a Commissioner, I have years of experience that prepare me for the ability to support my decision. "As I present information to you, I do it in the most positive fashion possible. It troubles me that we have come to this public forum to take sides. This is not about taking sides. This is not about him versus us. This is about a business decision exactly as a corporate board of directors makes a business decision regarding the continued employment of the Chief Executive Officer (C.E.0.). "This presentation I will begin is based on my knowledge from sitting at this table observing, listening, questioning, participating. It is based on my regularly scheduled Thursday 9:00 a.m. one-on-one meetings with the City Manager and our discussions, my list and his list, my constant encouragement to take action on issues that have been languishing. Our relationship is friendly but always one of business as I came to this job with a complete and total understanding that I work for the residents and the taxpayers of the City. I am not in this seat to support the Administration nor the employees of this City. I work for the residents and the taxpayers. The City Manager told me last week that I was impatient and I said, 'Yes, you are right.' He then told me that I did not understand the difficulty of working with the maze of government bureaucracy and I said, 'Yes, you are right.' I truly believed that I was elected to make things happen in a timely fashion and that lacking is why I am critical of the leadership at City Hall. Everything takes too long. Fortunately, our businesses and our personal lives are not governed by government. Why should I or why should we be patient? Why should we understand the maze? No one, to repeat no one, said we are electing you to be patient and to enjoy the bureaucratic maze. I will give you an example of what happened this morning at 10:00 a.m. as I was refining my notes and trying to consolidate the time I would take from you today. I received a call asking my cooperation in rescheduling the workshop which was scheduled from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. today until Monday morning at 10:00 on Fire and Communications consolidation with the County, probably the most important decision regarding the safety of our citizens and affecting our City budget for years to come." Commissioner Cardamone stated that the timeline on the issue has been as follows: Book 38 Page 12296 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12297 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. 1990: "Fire Consolidation was first brought up as an idea. The feasibility and the practicality of it was discussed for quite a long while." April 1994: "A Study Committee of City and County citizens was put together to investigate the issue thoroughly." November 1994: "The Study Committee issued a final official report and presented it to various groups around town. I actually heard the presentation of the report of our study committee at a Civic League breakfast." March 1995: "Commissioner Patterson asked 'When are we going to get the presentation and when are we going to meet with the County to discuss this consolidation?im May 1995: "Joint workshop with the County at the hospital board meeting room. We made a decision, the ten of us, to instruct our Administrations to seek further information on issues raised to proceed for the preparation of the Interlocal Agreement for October 1, 1995, which is four days from now. And given the positive resolution of some of the problems, there are questions that we asked including phasing in the program and exempt properties that don't pay fire fees in the City of Sarasota. That was May 1995." September 1995: "City Commission workshop called for today to discuss the upcoming agenda for October 2 when we will meet on this issue. The materials that I was to study to make a decision that sO importantly impacts this Community and this County were brought to my door Monday evening at 5:00 p.m. I was supposed to be prepared with that information for this afternoon at 4:00 p.m." Commissioner Cardamone continued that the workshop to discuss the Consolidation of the City and County Fire Departments has been postponed to October 2, 1995, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, allowing six hours for any comments, problems, questions, or changes the Commission may want addressed with the County before a final vote that night; that this is why she is impatient; that this decision is one of the most important ones regarding the protection of the citizens and the finances of the City to be made this year and probably this decade; that the idea is five years old; that she does not believe business would approach planning an event of the major impact this will have for the 300,000 residents in Sarasota County without: 1) a timeline, 2) the finding of research presented to the Board of Directors before the general public hears about it, and 3) presenting detailed information for final decision in a timely fashion for questions, identification of problems and challenges; that while all decisions made by the Commission are not as major, the problem outlined in receiving information at the last minute is fairly typical; that she is incensed this is the way business is handled. Commissioner Cardamone continued with her presentation as follows: "One final statement I would make before I begin my stated case. In December, three years ago, I announced my candidacy for this seat. I had been encouraged by neighbors, friends and business people to take on this task. The support at the polls was, to me, an overwhelming election. My very appealing campaign slogan was, Decisions must make sense and save dollars. You elected me to make good, sound, sensible decisions. You placed your trust, the public trust, in me and I accepted that trust feeling the very heavy weight of that responsibility. Now I ask you to trust me when I explain why I think we need a change in the management of this City for the further betterment of the City. Trust me again when I say this is a very difficult decision. Trust me when I say this has been a decision in the making in my mind since the December 1993 evaluation. Trust me when I say this is not a personality issue, it is a personnel decision." Commissioner Cardamone stated an editorial appeared in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on May 21, 1993, six weeks after she assumed office, which put a new perspective on the pressure which could be received sitting at the Commission table; that the editorial issued a public challenge to all Commissioners to question management; that following are excerpts from the article: "So, the Commissioners must sometimes ask if the City is properly administered"; "If this were an isolated incident, perhaps Commissioners could forget it, but it comes on the heels of management problems on the Bayfront project and other indications that the public is not being well-served by the execution of many City programs. ."; "The payment was authorized by the city Manager who should know the policy for an employee under his supervision. Why was the payment granted in the first place?"; and "Why was the payment granted in the first place and then withdrawn when bad news broke should puzzle the Commission." Commissioner Cardamone further stated that the article quoted the City Manager as saying: "The person requires closer supervision than either I, or the Deputy City Manager, can provide."; that this statement should prompt Commissioners to ask: "What does it say about the Administration of the City, when the City Manager can't Book 38 Page 12298 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12299 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. supervise one person who is responsible for some of the City's most important and visible projects?"; that such questions are painful to ask or answer, but the public needs to know someone is asking; that those who are so very supportive of the City Manager and all the wonderful things of downtown and the Bayfront have forgotten the many, many problems and the long delays; that while the City Manager is praised for all the good things, those were accomplished by the political will of past Commissioners who allocated the dollars to make the wonderful, needed improvements; that the ideas stimulating the projects were the old R/UDAT Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team) studies, planned and written long before the City Manager came to town. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her past evaluations are a matter of public record; that some pertinent comments are: "Because I sense a frustration from the public of who is in charge at City Hall, I would like to see you work on improvement in the following: Provide more obvious and stronger leadership. Be demanding and have higher expectations from others. Display an attitude of being on top of things, rather than appearing to be apologetic." "I recommend the following: 1) Utilize very carefully and seriously the employee questionnaire in determining problem areas in the morale of City employees. 2) Seek out departments that are troublesome. Examine them with strong recommendations for change. 3) React more quickly and more forcefully in handling employee problems. 4) Institute a program of better customer service throughout all the departments." "I do not envy you the task of working for five Commissioners and the entire citizenry of the City of Sarasota. Public administration is a difficult job. I hope you will accept my comments with the same spirit I have made them. That of overall continued improvement in the quality of life of the residents and the citizens of the City." Commissioner Cardamone quoted from her 1994 evaluation of the City Manager as follows: "While you have many admirable attributes, there are some important areas where I feel you are not particularly successful. I diligently work to keep you informed of my activities, ideas, statements, my involvement in the community. so that you are not caught unaware. I sense that you do not communicate with me in the same fashion. I appreciate being boriefed, especially on the more delicate, difficult subjects that come to our table. I believe you should be more helpful in guiding the Commission when we are in session. I believe you should provide us with timely and pertinent information that would keep us on track. You could help us to avoid some of the lengthy, and often unnecessary, discussions we get into by offering advice or taking the subject back for polishing. I would like for you to remember that we are the lay people representing the public and you are the professional Administrator with full knowledge of the subject. I believe you need to assert yourself at the Commission table. I sincerely appreciate when your Staff takes the time to brief us prior to a meeting. I like to be fully prepared when trying to make a good decision. The business community and the residents of the City are fed up with the management of our projects. Specifically, the infrastructure repairs being made on U.S. 41 north and south. It is beyond my comprehension that these projects are not awarded in segments or phases so the contractor gets in and gets out and moves on. When I brought to you the frustrations of the businesses involved, you reported to me that we, the City, 'had a less than aggressive project manager on the job.' Do you realize what a statement like that sounds like? The contractor has not completed the job. I presume the City will restart the project after the season and I hope it will be done with a minimum of disruption and a maximum of supervision to assure it be done expeditiously. The citizens and business of the Community deserve every job to be aggressively managed and it is your responsibility to see that it happens in a far better manner in the future." Commissioner Cardamone continued that the following statements will represent her 1995 evaluation; that she has selected some areas about which she is concerned; that all these subjects have been discussed with the City Manager at the regular Thursday meetings or have been brought to the table: In April, the City Manager was informed that the pipe in the U.S. 41 project, the same one about which she had been critical before, had failed to pass a pressure test and was defective. The road would have to be torn up again. Not a word was mentioned to the Commission. Information about the defective pipe and the tearup of U.S. 41 again was learned on the street in an "Oh, by the way, have you heard" conversation. She decided to wait to see how long it would be before the City Manager communicated in the upfront style requested in her 1994 evaluation. June passed, July passed, August almost passed. At a Commission meeting late August, she brought the subject up and asked first if it was a rumor. Book 38 Page 12300 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12301 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. The answer was no. She asked what was being done. The answer was, "We're working on it." She requested a report at the next regular Commission meeting and it was provided. She asked whether evidence of a communication problem with the Commission and the public is recognized? What would have been so difficult about saying, "We have a problem and we're going to take care of that problem as quickly as we can."? In May 1993, she attended a Main Street USA Program and learned about the redevelopment efforts of Ybor City. Information on the Ybor City Development Corporation, the Ybor City Redevelopment Advisory Board, the ordinances put into place, and other information was sent to her, all of which was given the City Manager in the fall of 1993 with the request that a Board be established to help the City guide the Central Avenue Redevelopment efforts. That Board is still not in place. It will be appointed in October. Two years of enthusiastic guidance of good ideas and action that could have been recommended to the Commission have been lost. The Community Development office is not located on Central Avenue as of yet, which was the City Manager's idea a year ago. The streetscape of Central Avenue is underway, but no ideas are in place to carry through to the next step. This is a supreme opportunity to clean up a bad area and to create a much-needed new tax base in a TIF district where all the money comes directly back to the City and would help offset some of the general fund monies that have recently been provided the TIF district. Everything is too slow. This portion of the evaluation is much more serious in the fact that it affects the liability and the finances of the City. The City has an Administrative Regulation in place that mandates attendance at a driving school and prohibits driving City vehicles by a City employee who has had an accident costing cost more than $500. That is a good policy. Audit Number 9407 of Solid Waste Department dated December 1994 states, "Three employees had accidents. Only one was not allowed to drive. The other two continued to drive. One had an accident with a cost to the City of $2850. It was that driver's fourth accident in 14 months. The same employee then had a fifth accident costing $7,076 in liability expenses." All of this could have been prevented if driving privileges had been suspended according to that Administrative Regulation. The disregarding of the regulation put the City at a very great financial risk. The response by the Manager of that department dated February 2, 1995, states "that they must have the discretion of who drives a city vehicle." This is a total violation of the Administrative Regulation. The question to the City Manager was, "What did you do about it?" Of course, several months pass before these items are written up, and the City Manager responded that he did not recall, which is understandable. The information was requested for the her next regular Thursday morning meeting; however, the City Manager was unable to provide it. Apparently, the Administrative Regulation was not considered important enough to enforce. She believes differently and would have expected the City Manager to have reacted in a strong, "in-charge" manner. Very few business managers overlook matters such as this. This practice should not be condoned and this lack of attention to personnel matters is not unusual, nor is the lack of a strong reaction unusual. Commissioner Cardamone stated that copies of the audits or the official memorandum previously provided each Commissioner are available for each statement made; that she is being very careful not to use any personal attacks or insinuations as requested by the Mayor; that the facts are being presented; and continued with the following: The first item in Utility Billing Audit Number 9501 dated April 1995 under the bold-type heading "Findings and Related Recommendations" is: Lax management practices in securing deposits and collecting charges for services in arrears. The statement is made that "These agreements, for the most part, are poorly administered by office staff. Our review discloses numerous instances where agreements were incomplete and/or unsigned." Such an undocumented procedure, capriciously administered, exposes the City to claims of preferential treatment from other customers. Auditors found several accounts sent to collection where no deposits were collected when the accounts were opened. This is a violation of Section 3728 of the Sarasota City Code. Concerning Public Safety Audit Number 9004, the Director of General Services sent the Deputy city Manager a memorandum on February 7, 1995, stating that, "The department has indicated that they are unable to locate the items which were attached to this list. I (She does not have that list.) The memorandum continues, "Our department has been requested to sign off on the disposition of these items. I cannot do this as I have no knowledge as to how or when the equipment was traded or disposed of." Further, "I suggest those items having attained a depreciated value of $99 or less be charged off accordingly. Those items have a significant value. Need to be documented thoroughly (in bold) as to trade-in, loss, stolen, etc. These individuals in charge of City-owned equipment need to be aware of the seriousness of such responsibilities as related to the accountability of such property." Quoting further from a letter from the Director of General Services to the Director of Finance dated February 22, 1995: "Attached are the lists of capital assets which the Public Safety Department has requested be removed from the capital assets inventory file. Book 38 Page 12302 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12303 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. The department has classified the property as lost, stolen, junked or missing. Needless to say, the number of items listed as missing are of substantial and represent an original cost value of $97,567. It should be pointed out that many of the items listed have exceeded their life expectancy and could justifiably be depreciated to the extent of having little or no value. In any event, the items are missing and it is apparent that those individuals responsible for the accountability in the maintaining of inventories of such items failed in their responsibilities. The Department Head has the ultimate responsibility for the equipment and commodities assigned to his or her department until such time that the items have been properly removed from the asset inventory list." The Director of General Services concludes by saying, "I assume no responsibility whatsoever for the accountability and/or previous disposition of these items." In the middle of this Public Safety inventory audit, the City Manager wrote a letter to the Director of Finance dated March 7, 1995, which states: "Subject: Capital Assets Inventory. This is to direct that the dollar value of capital assets carried on inventory be adjusted from $100 to $500 to be in line with the County and State policy except for cellular phones and computers." At no time did the City Manager communicate this decision to raise the value from $100 to $500 on a piece of equipment to the public or to the Commission. This is an item, I believe, should have been brought to the Commission. One of the greatest obligations of those sitting on the Commission is to protect the assets of the City. At a July workshop, this was discussed and some conversation ensued about rolling back the directive to use the $100 lower inventory limit until all the inventories were caught up. However, some departments had already removed the stickers that say "Property of City of Sarasota." This should have been a policy decision to be made by the Commission on behalf of the public, not by the Administration. In a March 13, 1995, letter from the City Auditor and Clerk to the City Manager, the absence or missing equipment valued at $97,000 was again announced and four statements were listed as important: 1) the City currently has no formal, detailed procedures governing the recording and maintaining of capital assets, 2) departments are not taking an accurate inventory of capital assets when asked to do so by Accounting, 3) departments are apparently unaware of the correct procedures for retiring an asset, and 4) There is an indication that current property labels issued by the Accounting Department do not remain attached, which is assumed to be a sticker problem. On June 7, 1995, the official, formal audit was received from Armstrong, Parent, Marlar and Company. The audit addresses numerous other department findings and responses and corrections in information; however, the focus of the portion of the audit dealing with Public Safety is, "When reviewing the Public Safety's fixed asset inventory, we found approximately 433 assets were not initialed because Public Safety was not able to locate these items. Upon request by the Auditors in January 1995, Public Safety was able to account for substantially all of the missing assets, either by locating the asset or by completing the form request for property disposition, which means it's lost or has been disposed of." The response by the City Manager is that the items on the inventory had been surplused, traded, or lost and proper paperwork had not been submitted and that arrangements have been made to correct the problem. In a workshop in July 1995, the Director of Public Safety indicated to the Commission that 433 items were initially unaccounted for when the inventory report was turned in and that the Public Safety Department continued to look for the items and was able to account for substantially all of the missing items by January 1995. About 200 items were found and initialled on inventory sheets and 180 items were cleared off the books by completing the appropriate inventory transfer sheets or following the inventory regulations. While some or maybe most of the inventory is accounted for, capital assets have been explained away in a particular department that did not follow the guidelines issued for control of inventory in 1990. Part of the problem was the combination of the Fire and Police Department into a department of Public Safety; however, most of the missing items were from the Fire Department which should have had a very clean inventory upon the merger of those two departments. The real problem is a lack of attention and the City Manager not insisting that procedures be followed. All of the assets of the City belong to the taxpayers and must always be protected. There is a consistent pattern of written procedures not being followed. There is a long history of departments using their discretion and no history of written reprimands or even a verbalization of strong comment to these problems. As it relates to neighborhoods, Impact Management Areas (IMAs) and Special Exceptions have been a sore subject with the public for years, including herself before coming to the Commission. After assuming her seat on the Commission and when an IMA issue was first presented, she asked for a major review of IMAs. The request has been supported at the Commission table by the other Commissioners for two years. IMAs and Special Exceptions are problems in land use decisions. The Snyder case has intensified the need to do something over the last couple of years; however, the Commission is still having to work with the IMA concept and Special Exceptions. The Land Development Regulations (LDRS) update arriving in the next year or so probably leaves a little hope for relief. The City's land use recommendations Book 38 Page 12304 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Jo Mopupm reak-auo STy7 uT op 07 buryz atqearnba ayL *0aj esueott Teuorgednooo ue JoJ 00v$ Ked 'squasaidar ays wIOyM Jo Kuew 'squeyoieu ITezaz ITeus Zv$ Jo aay esueott Teuorgednooo ue sXed egosezes Jo K7to 047 uT Kouabe apuensur asabiet ay egosees Jo K2To 047 uT ssoursnq op 07 S81$ sKed pue zeak e uoTttTw 06$ sasso1b yorym It S'n uo dyysieteap pJoa a47 OXTT drysareap Ieo e ST alduexa ux 'sassaupsnq IoJ saay azttenba 07 eptIola Jo azezs 047 uT setato 047 07 zeak auo tIng e paptAoid azezs eyL saay asuoOtt Teuorgednooo 'arduexe JoJ 'ainzeu sseupsnq e JO jour aze uzapuop Jo sualt z9u30 (aiga) Koueby buruueld TeOOT/pIeog buruuetd 047 JO burgaau e e paAtare squeprso pue sIOumo Kqzodoid ITaun woraepuewwooe1 aTeyz pabueyo pey Keyz pooyzoqubrou 047 ITe7 uaAa pou pTp pue zea17s eISTA etyeg uo sino qno ou JoJ AiteurbyIO SEM yoTym woraepuwooe1 auz sebueyo quauazedea Bur.asurbuz a4L queuegeqe o1Ije17 pIemoz 000'o1$ SMOIY7 zedoteAop 047 'gaaias eIsTA etyeg JO aTduexa 047 uI "uorapagozd pooyzoqubreu ST uotatsod S,uorssyuroo a4z 'zek 'pue spooyzoqubyeu 46no1yz oyijeiz buybemoous 'It s'n uo gaas pooyzoqubfou e 'zaais eISTA eryes uo peos OIITARTnI. 1e 'goaas pooyzoqubreu e 'anuoAy ases uo quaudoroAep reporewwoo JoJ panodde uaaq aAPy sano qano *auop uaaq sey buryzou pue pagsnbsTp KITezo7 SEM pagedroyazed OYM euoKIOAE *abueyo zeuz spagga 07 Burkiz aIaM OYM eldoad 047 uo apeur spuewep 047 uT snoInoTpTI SEM queugzedea bur.oaurbuz ay anuoAy abueo pue tea17s zoadsoid 2e voraoesiegur ue AoIdur 02 Kaz 07 dno6 saoy JoqeH Kq papuewep satpnas otigezz :eIduexa Iayzouy "'Ienuew a47 uT ou S,77 'T op 7,ueon :SEM asuodsa ayL buot 007 JoJ uorzenaTs snorabuep e uT Jep e sptou 7ybru 1e azet 746T1 paz e se vorapes1egur zeyz jo Kgages 047 02 queuenoIduy zeaab e aq ptnom AT saAattaq auokIaAa gak 'gour 7ou ST tenueu a47 uT eTIeITIO 0uz segeoypuy quewaedea bur.ioeurbuz ayL 24byu 7e anueAy Kezdso pue (XIW) KeM 'Ir 'burx zeuznI urzew DDE 7e 74671 burysets MOTTOK e quem aottod pue sioqybyeu :aTduexe JoJ 07 pTOTk squewureAob ITe 7eyz Tenueu 047 Jo squsuerynba. a47 nnoqe ATzeInbaz zebeuew K2To 047 47TM sxeads aus "uorapegozd pooyzoqubrou Jo 7sorogur 7saq 0y7 uT nou aze 'saseo auos uT 'suopspoap quauazedea burieaurbuz S,KATO 047 aAaTtaq anq dreu zouuep ays "uotapagozd pooyzoqubTeu ST atgez uofssTuuroo s147 de Aydosotryd oTseq a47 ueym suoysnzauy IO sabueyo Teroreuwoo 7surebe SOATOsuey? buypuegep Jo uoratsod quezsuoo a47 uT papetd ae A71o 047 UMO o4M eldoad 042 2ey7 seadde 7I "squeptser pue spooyzoqybfeu IBAO zedoreAep auz bugIoAeJ pazeazo KIburwaas aze suorzenays pue weaias-pru pabueyo aie sasIou uaym 34bne1astp ST aus serpnas pooyzoqubyau JO sarpnas no20as nouaTM epeur ae suorsppap uaym pagetorA buraq ST ueld aATsuayezduoo S,K7To a47 JT saepuom ays pue 'paredad ATtadoIdury sourgouos a1e IIe7s woy 'W'd 00:2 S6/L2/60 SOEZT ebed 8E 008 opportunity given by the State is to balance those fees out. The Commission appointed a study group, and in her opinion they were not given the proper leadership to make things right with all of the businesses that buy these occupational licenses. The City of Sarasota missed the boat. An opportunity to generate additional revenues for the budget and equalizing those fees was missed. Those fees will now be the same until the State gives the City another opportunity, probably in another three or four years, to do that balancing. She presented strong, strong objections; however, the ordinance passed. The graffiti ordinance was brought to the Commission by Staff because the Administration was asked to provide something to eliminate the graffiti which suddenly started appearing in the City. An ordinance was presented by Staff that provided for a $100 a day fine to the owner of the property on which the graffiti was placed if not removed in five days. This is "fining the victim." What in the world was the Staff thinking about? Obviously, Staff does not own a business building. The ordinance is coming back to the Commission soon. Major changes are expected that protect that property owner from having to deal with graffiti. Commissioner Cardamone stated that it is interesting that the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce supports so strongly an Administration that attempts to get an ordinance such as this passed; that the Chamber probably does not even know about the inequities in the occupational license fee structure, which cannot be changed because it is too late; that she has two other items of criticism: The fast-tracking of the Publix project leaves the most horribly congested area of the City a major mess. Everyone will agree that Bay Road and Osprey Avenue is an awful place to be at any part of the daylight hours. Nothing can be done about it now. The Commission may have some ideas; however, if the building is built, the entrances to the parking lot and the means of ingress and egress were all done before the City addressed the issue of how the traffic will be handled. The City has had no voice in the County impact fee mitigation studies recently passed. The City chimed in at the tail end of the discussions but was not involved in the original discussions. Had the City been actively involved, some relief could possibly been obtained in the City's redevelopment areas. The pay scale in the City of Sarasota should be discussed. The City does not have a merit system or performance pay plan. The City constantly gives cost-of-living raises. Last year, Book 38 Page 12306 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12307 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. a 2.1% increase was given to City employees. She voted against that. A 3.1% increase is being given City employees this year. She voted against that. She agrees with another Commissioner who has stated that a raise is given an employee for breathing. Sometimes one does not even have to be here and a raise is received. The starting salary for the very least job in the City of Sarasota is $15,000 a year, or $300 a week plus an additional 20-30% for free health insurance and other benefits in the City of Sarasota. An entry-level teller position in any bank in the City of Sarasota today would start at $13,000. A teller requires some skills, some education, and the ability to handle money. The City's entry-level jobs do not require that. The City Manager earns a yearly salary of $109,000 a year. His complete package, including deferred compensation, FICA, Medicare, Pension, Workers Compensation, life insurance, medical insurance equals a total salary of $138,916.32. He also has vacation and a City car. The City Auditor and Clerk has a total package of $114,852. Employees in the City of Sarasota are paid well, probably a lot higher than some of the business people ever dreamed. Commissioner Cardamone continued that she expects to hear from institutional administrators and people who are involved in organizations in this Community who always publicly support a fellow professional, which she expects and applauds; that she anticipates the City will hear from some members of the business community, who have been pushing her for three years with questions of, "Who's in charge?" and "Why can't we ever get anything done?" and "Is there anybody awake at City Hall?"; that several calls in support of the City Manager have been received with very sincere statements that he intervened and made something happen for them, so they fear a loss of their comfort level; that fear of a loss of a friend who is accessible, even though weaknesses are identified, may. be a concern; that an example of a letter received says, "This building was built for a major Sarasota employer and could not have been completed without the assistance of the City of Sarasota and specifically the City Manager. He worked constructively to overcome the roadblocks in this development, thereby insuring the timely completion of the project and the retention of hundreds of jobs."; that helping someone who has helped you is nice and to be encouraged; that Administrative Staff who are very supportive will be heard from which is to be applauded; however, she will say, "How can they not support his continuation?" as they work at his pleasure, without contracts, and on a similar basis that the City Manager works for the Commission; that an employee survey was conducted of 917 employees, and 433 responses were returned for a 47% response rate which is quite high; that the results are quite horrifying; that the available responses were: "Strongly Agree, . "Agree, I "Disagree, I and "Strongly Disagree"; that following are some of the questions and employee responses: 1. I feel discipline in the City is handled in a fair and equitable manner: 69% of the respondents answered "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree"; 2. I feel the City is being managed in an efficient and professional manner: 78% of the respondents answered "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree"; 3. Within the City, I am treated with respect and fairness: 62% of the respondents answered "Agree" or "Strongly Agree"; 4. I would rate morale as high in the City: 91% of the respondents answered "Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree"; 5. Personnel rules are administered fairly in the City: 68% of the respondents answered "Disagree"; 6. City management is interested in my ideas: 74% of the respondents answered "Disagree"; 7. I feel as though I am part of the team in the City. 68% of the respondents answered "Disagree"; 8. I feel that my concerns and input are accurately reported to the city Manger: 77% of the employees do not feel that their concerns are presented to the City Manager. Commissioner Cardamone concluded her presentation: "I realize that my list of concerns is too long and I've taken up a lot of your valuable time today. But you have asked me in a public setting to present my wishes. You have charged me with the idea that this is a willy-nilly decision, that we've never had an opportunity to discuss this, that we haven't laid our concerns out, that we've not given goals and objectives and responsible direction to our City Manager. In order to prove that I, as one Commissioner, have done that, I've provided you with this information. My worries are for the future of this City. We need to correct some of the disturbing findings in our audits immediately. We need to expedite all our processes. We need to move forward. There still exists the question of 'Who is in charge at City Hall?' If others choose to ignore what I consider obvious signs of serious managerial problems, so be it. I, in good conscience, cannot do sO. These are all signals that must be heeded and, consequently, I believe a change must be made. My decision is a business decision based on personnel performance, not on personality. Thank you for your indulgence." Commissioner Patterson stated that it is tempting to give closing comments at this time instead of an opening statement; that she has been on the Commission the longest of the three people publicly expressing dissatisfaction with the City Manager's performance; that she has been critical for those four years and may have started the process which triggered this meeting; that the City Manager has not answered the concerns expressed at the Commission table over that time period; that she had reached the point of Book 38 Page 12308 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12309 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. believing it was time to replace the City Manager; that the format in which the meeting has come forward today is not what would have been wished; that as elected officials, no opportunity is available to take this type of action or address serious problems with a City Manager except in the public venue; that rumors have been circulating that the three Commissioners who are dissatisfied with the City Manager have discussed firing him together; that for the record, that is not true; that she cannot speak for the other two Commissioners, but she has never spoken to a Commissioner about firing the City Manager. Commissioner Patterson continued that no one major problem with the city Manager's job performance can be described as a "smoking gun"; that there is no graft and he has not done anything horrible; that the City Manager is a very nice person to be with and to deal with; that he has a great deal of integrity and tries hard to please this Commission in most respects; that the problems are not readily obvious to anyone but the most avid of City watchers, but they represent a disturbing pattern and frustrate her as a Commissioner, as the Commissioners have no direct Administrative authority. Commissioner Patterson further stated that the City Manager is the one who must control the City and demand excellent performance from his Staff; that if the City is to continue, stronger management will be necessary because of the serious problems of the City to be dealt with in the future; that this meeting is not the proper setting to make a motion and vote to fire the City Manager; that she probably triggered this meeting by going to the City Manager and telling him she was ready to fire him; that the Commission has never discussed the problems in total nor let the City Manager hear those discussions and answer and try to make some changes; that this procedure seems like a firing squad; that everybody would like to find out as soon as possible whether the City Manager will remain with the City or not; that she is unable to answer that question, having heard a lot of details and not having heard answers back from him; that the people who have seen the positive changes taking place in the City may not have also seen the problems, as they are not as obvious; that internally, the City is not happy right now; that the management style of the City Manager does not demand top performance from his key people and whether he has the ability to change is not known; that she has told the City Manager of these concerns before and he certainly knows them; that she anticipates she is not the only Commissioner who has shared that fact with him. Commissioner Patterson continued with some examples of her concerns: When she first served on the Commission, the Bayfront project was at the forefront and incredibly controversial. She supported the project and voted to move ahead. Although she did not know all the details, she felt it was something which needed to be done to revitalize the downtown, even though it was controversial. She did not want to stop the project as so many people had worked on it, and she was relatively new to the Commission. But, the project was not well done in many respects. For example, the management agreement with the landscaper provided for punch listing the plants for quality six months after they were installed. She used to work in the garden business and do landscape projects herself, and plants should not be punch listed six months after installation. Many, if not the majority of plants, were of horrible quality, and any landscaper would have rejected them and sent them away, which the City failed to do. The maintenance of the Bayfront project was very poor and it seemed to require a front page photograph in the Pelican Press showing weeds coming out in all directions before the City Manager made arrangements to have the property maintained. A controversial project like that simply must be well maintained and look good to the public. The towers were the most controversial aspect of the Bayfront project. The plans were presented with no elevations, and she had no idea that the towers were even in the project. The City Manager's Staff did not tell her, nor did the consultants. The towers cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. She does not know whether she would have voted for them or not had she known, but a great deal of criticism was received concerning the towers, and she resents not having any way of knowing they were in the plans she voted for. She strongly supported Laurel Park, one of the neatest little projects the City has ever done, and it was well done. Unlike the execution of the Bayfront project, the Laurel Park project was something to be proud of and the neighborhood was enhanced. However, gradually it deteriorated because it also was not well maintained. The Laurel Park neighborhood came forth again and again with lists of maintenance problems in the park. She took them to the City Manager and finally put them on the Commission table. After months, the City Manager turned to his Staff and said: "I don't care, just maintain it. Make it look good." A long time and a lot of energy was expended to make it happen, and other Commissioners must have been pushing on this one little issue just to get some proper maintenance. The North Trail project may have been corrected since she last visited the area a couple of days ago. Funding for that project was voted four years ago and the City has struggled with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) as the Commission stubbornly insisted on putting in oak trees, which Book 38 Page 12310 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12311 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. delayed the project. This was not the City Manager's fault. Many of the trees between Virginia Drive and 21st Street were planted on hills. Trees or plants, especially in a narrow median, should not be planted with their root ball a couple of feet above the ground as water washes the dirt off and the trees will not live. When she asked why the trees were planted in that strange way, the City Manager indicated that FDOT requires that trees planted on state roads have eight feet of clearance between the ground and the bottom branches. Since many of the trees apparently did not meet that criteria, Staff planted them higher! Everyone makes mistakes, but that is an incredible explanation for the City Manager to accept and relay and not one that can be quoted to constituents. She does not mind that the Staff made a mistake and ordered trees that were too short. She does not mind that they were planted incorrectly. She does mind that the City Manager did not step in to correct the situation when it was brought to his attention. The Commission was told at a workshop that a number of items were missing in last year's Public Safety inventory. No indication was provided that Staff had been addressed or any sort of reprimand given. A memorandum was subsequently distributed raising the criteria for inventory items to $500, which may or may not have been a good management decision. The Commission allowed the City Manager to continue with the higher inventory limit when the subject was presented at a workshop. However, the timing of this decision did not speak of good management in her view. First, the problem should have been addressed as to why City Staff cannot do inventories accurately and then the threshold should have been raised if need be. Personnel policies in the City should be examined. For years, people have gotten automatic cost-of-living raises, but money is very tight in government and in private industry right now. Employees should not be given cost-of-living raises unless merit raises can also be given which the City cannot afford. Other governments and other industries have made the judgment call that at least adequate performance should be demonstrated before a cost-of-living raise is given. The City also gives longevity raises. On several occasions, three Commissioners have said these personnel policies should be addressed. A formal vote was not taken or the policy would have been changed. However, the City Manager has never brought anything concerning the issue back to the Commission to even discuss. An employee who is not doing a very good job is not given much incentive to change, and an employee working in the same office who is doing a very good job will get bitter after a while when he sees no opportunity to advance. One of the problems with the City Manager's management style is that he does not communicate well with the Commission. An example is the library issue. Many people in the business community supported the Five Points location, but the community was deeply divided on the appropriate site. However, once Five Points was identified as the appropriate site for the library by a Commission majority, even though controversial at the table, no details came back to the Commission for months and months. At that time she was the Mayor, and citizens would ask "What's going on, Nora?", but she could not provide any information at all and received no information from the City Manager when she asked. As a result, she did not feel very much like a mayor or a citizen leader. The fire consolidation issue was handled in much the same way. The presentation was made to the public before it was brought back to the Commission. Finally, at Commission insistence, a joint workshop was held with the County, but no opportunity was provided to us to look at the numbers ahead of time. She is of the opinion that the numbers were put together by the County Administrator without much input from the City. The first presentation was that City residents would be paying the same the first year as at present for a Fire Department with a lower Level of Service (LOS). While she can understand that the County wants to phase in the cost of absorbing the City's higher staffing levels, the second year the City would be paying one million dollars more than the cost of a stand-alone Fire Department. This obviously would be correctable in future negotiations, but the City Manager did not seem to realize that the city would be paying a million dollars more than before consolidation when he made his presentation at the workshop. These negotiations are difficult, but she resented getting the figures at the last minute and not having the City Manager identify the difficulty himself. He did not mention the problem at all until she herself pointed it out publicly. While the City Manager cannot be faulted for the fact that the pipe was defective on the North Trail sewer project due to a manufacturer's defect, he did not communicate the problem to the Commission for months and they heard about it from others. The Commission has a need to know problems of this nature if it is to operate as a Commission. These problems should be discussed, so the Commissioners can deal with the problems which come up politically at the same time the City Manager deals with the management issues. Commissioner Patterson stated that she believes the City Manager fails to address leadership in management issues; that City Manager is not supposed to be a political figure going out in the Community waving a flag for certain projects as that is the Commissioners' Book 38 Page 12312 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12313 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. job; however, she does expect to get the benefit of his expertise and his opinion when sitting at the Commission table, even if the subject is controversial; that if the Commission disagrees with the City Manager and votes him down, so be it; that the Commission has frequently been at the table on controversial issues when the City Manager issued no opinion at all or waited until three Commissioners were headed in one direction before indicating the idea was good. Commissioner Patterson further stated that this is not the reason the City is paying the City Manager the salary he receives; that this Commission is a tough Commission to work for; that much of the time the Commission is not in agreement on issues which certainly adds to the difficulties; however, the Commission might agree more often if the City Manager took stronger positions. Commissioner Patterson continued that other areas of concern are: When she came to office, the taxes of the City had increased substantially for several years in a row. At that time, two Commissioners indicated a top City goal should be that taxes stop increasing, and a third Commissioner gave strong indications he would not vote for a tax increase under any circumstances. As a result, the City Manager wisely decided to cut his Staff. She told the City Manager at the time that she felt he was not doing so in the best way and that cuts should not be equal across the board; however, the decision was his. The first year Staff was cut across the board by 10%, but at the budget hearings Staff came to the Commission, with the City Manager's blessing, to argue why their particular departments should not be cut. The City Manager did not speak up and indicate what was essential and what was not; however, he allowed his Staff to plead their case against his own budget which felt awfully strange to her as a Commissioner. The next year a 5% across-the-board cut was mandated and the same scenario happened. The City functioned as a City and taxes were not increased, so the overall goal was achieved. However last year, she indicated to the City Manager in the pertormance review that the Building Department seemed very lean and definitely the Planning Department was very short staffed. This lack of staff had resulted in the necessity to reduce Comprehensive Plan changes from every six months to once a year. This year, Staff came to the Commission indicating no time was available to do any Comprehensive Plan changes during the upcoming year because of a State mandate for a Comprehensive Plan update requiring a lot of time. The City Manager told the Commission that the City was not paying competitive wages in the Planning Department and could not attract good people, and the Planning Department was actually below the level of funding authorized by the Commission. This is a management/leadership issue and should have been addressed long before now. The City Manager should have come to the Commission and said, "I know you don't want to raise taxes, but we need the Staff. We cannot let the Planning Department be gutted because that's one of the main reasons we've got a City. I Instead, the problem was allowed to continue until the Staff became too inadequate to function properly and the Commission was never told of a problem attracting competent staff. The City Manager has indicated he faced substantial unrest and morale problems among City employees when he first came to the City because wages had not been addressed for some time. So he hired a consultant and adjusted wages and job descriptions and was correct to do so; but the City Manager has not reexamined wages since then. This year he came to the Commission and said a consultant would be hired to perform reviews Citywide. This activity should be done on a frequent basis, not once every eight years. Salaries and job descriptions should be reviewed on an on-going basis. Hopefully, a procedure will be in place in the future to do this. Input to the City Manager will always occur concerning Staff decisions with a divided Commission which feels strongly and has strong personalities. One Commissioner believes one thing should happen and another Commissioner believes something else should happen. However, his Staff is paid to give expert advice, no matter what. It is unfortunate, but obvious, that often Staff has been countermanded to do something that one of the Commissioners sought as a result. The City should not operate this way. She understands she may lose an issue because the Staff disagrees; but the City Manager should employ such an excellent Staff that he has confidence in the recommendations of the Engineering Department or the Planning Staff and can stand behind them. The City Manager is very development oriented, which she understands. Attracting quality development is difficult in a built-out City. She understands the City's tax base is suffering, difficulty is encountered in annexing, and those good developments coming the City's way should be nurtured with efficiency. However, the interests of the City's residents are very, very important also and are often in real conflict with development interests. The City Manager does not convey to the residents of this City that their interests are as important as business interests. She feels that is so and people tell her that all the time. The issue must be seriously addressed because residents feel short changed. The Book 38 Page 12314 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12315 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Commission must do a balancing act between commercial and residential interests as must the City Manager. Commissioner Patterson stated that these are very serious problems and the individual examples are not; that some of the little things are just funny; that any government and any organization has problems, and that is understandable, but she wants to see these problems addressed. She is not happy sitting in a Commission seat having to apologize because things do not happen that are supposed to or because things do happen without good and logical explanations; that, in conclusion, she appreciates the public's patience in listening to her concerns. Mayor Merrill asked for further opening statements. Commissioner Pillot stated that he will be relatively brief; that his position is widely known and it is disagreement with some things that have been said; however, even where there is disagreement, there is respect; that each Commissioner was elected to accept responsibility as one-fifth of the Commission and has to carry out what is believed to be right; that he has no reason and no right to ask any other Commissioner at the table to respect his votes if he does not reciprocate that respect; that his disagreement in no way diminishes his respect for the position of any Commissioner or any individual. Commissioner Pillot continued that he brings to the seat an experience different from many who have had the privilege of sitting at the table as he has sat at both sides of the table; that he was a Chief Executive Officer with an elected Board, the School Board, for more than nine years which may be both a plus and a minus with respect to his performance as a Commissioner; that he may bring, which the public can decide, a pro-administrative bias; however, on the other hand, he may also bring a positive, instructive understanding of administration; that he hopes the latter is the case and he will guard against the former; that he understands the evaluation process and the process of setting measurable objectives; that he has done hundreds of evaluations of professional staff and teachers, support staff for teachers, principals, central office supervisors; that dozens of evaluations have been done on him, by the School Board when he was the Superintendent, by principals when he was a teacher, by directors and superintendents when he was a principal; that when he was Superintendent, he was also evaluated anonymously two years in a row by every administrative and supervisory person in the school system, which he requested because he thought it would be helpful and it was; that he has helped write evaluation instruments and has taught graduate-level, supervision courses, including personnel management; that he has had to make tough decisions; that some may remember, when he was still in the Superintendent's office, the notoriety which resulted from some decisions when he recommended to the School Board the dismissal of people or failure to reappoint people who were well respected and well appreciated in the Community; that unlike City government, the Superintendent of Schools did not and does not have the unilateral authority to hire and fire, but rather has the responsibility to make recommendations to the School Board which ultimately makes those decisions; that his evaluations over the past six and a half years of the City Manager and the City Auditor and Clerk have not been done in the absence of knowledge; that he believes those evaluations were not done in the presence of bias; that he has been involved in the entire eight and a half years of the City Manager's tenure, the first two of those as a member of the City's General Personnel and Civil Service Board to which he would come and to which he would occasionally speak; that for the subsequent six and a half years he has had the very substantial privilege of sitting at the Commission table; that his evaluation decisions of the City Manager are made in the context of those experiences, for which he is tremendously grateful to the Community for having permitted the privilege and the opportunity to be of service for more than three decades, and on objective data; that the evaluation forms are, among other things, a copy of the process and the progress of carrying out the Commission's objectives, goals and objectives which have been put together each year in a day-long workshop with which many, if not most, citizens are familiar; that the City Manager has taken those goals and objectives very seriously; that written reports of the progress of those goals and objectives have been reviewed again in the last several days, along with a list of accomplishments since the City Manager came to the City eight and a half years ago in 1987; that he hopes he has based his evaluation sensibly and appropriately on objective data. Commissioner Pillot further stated that when elected to the Commission, he asked the City Manager how best to handle questions and working with the Staff; that the City Manager's answer was excellent; that the City Manager said, "If you have a question that can be answered by a member of the Staff of the City, whomever, without interfering with their regular duties, please just call them. However, if you have something to bring to the City's attention that will either be of substance or that will require some consideration of the workloads of people, then bring it to me. And I will find out and will get back to you."; that the City Manager has religiously, effectively and efficiently done so for six and a half years; that as recently as today, he called the City Manager with three questions, totally unrelated to this meeting; that he was handed the answers when he walked in to City Hall earlier this afternoon; that this response is not unusual and is certainly not because of this meeting; that he has never gone directly to any Staff, Department Head or others without the City Manager's knowledge or approval which has always been given; that he told the City Manager within an hour after the Commission gave him the honor of serving as Mayor that he would never go to a Book 38 Page 12316 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12317 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. department in City Hall without the City Manager's knowledge, but he would always be available, upon request, to visit with any department; that this arrangement was carried out effectively for twelve months; that he has been able to discriminate between those problems which are the responsibility of the City Manager or an employee under his supervision and those which should be laid at the Commission table; that he has never seen anything but goodwill from any Commissioners with whom he has been privileged to serve, and disagreement does not diminish respect; however, problems have arisen from, and are caused by, the Commission's doing things as a Commission that the City Manager could not change, was forced to carry out, or did not even know about or could not have prevented which have caused some of the problems that have been discussed, i.e., employee morale. Commissioner Pillot stated that he has received more telephone calls in the last several days than in the last six and a half years he has served on the Commission; that his stand is well known and, therefore, detractors are not likely to call him; that he received no calls from detractors but did receive many from supporters of the City Manager; that he received calls from Staff who said the morale problems are caused by the Commission, not by the City Manager; that he accepts part of the responsibility; that he believes he has been able to separate those problems in the City which are Administrative and those which are not; that there are problems and weaknesses; that everyone at the table has weaknesses; that his religious belief is that only one person ever walked the earth who did not have faults; that the City Manager has weaknesses and faults as he is a human being. Commissioner Pillot continued that he could and will respond, given the opportunity, to the opening statements at the appropriate time and in the appropriate setting; that the statements have been presented in goodwill, however, are also in error; that the current setting is not the appropriate venue for a response; however, his failure to respond in no way suggests that he agrees with the statements. Mayor Merrill stated that everyone has weaknesses; that he has worked closely with the City Manager; that he was one of the City Manager's biggest critics when he was elected as he ran an anti- City Hall campaign; that he has worked closely with the City Manager for the last four and a half years, and he believes there is nothing inherently wrong with the City Manager that could not be corrected; that if the problem is communication, that is probably the easiest problem to correct. Commissioner Dry left the Chambers at 3:32 p.m. Mayor Merrill continued that he had to establish a weekly meeting with the City Manager; that the projects in which he has been involved have been carried out by Staff. Commissioner Dry returned to the Chambers at 3:35 p.m. The following people came before the Commission: Martin Rappaport, 1241 Tree Bay Lane (34232), representing the Commercial Land Owners Association of St. Armands, stated that he is appearing as an individual owning a substantial amount of property in Sarasota and as the Co-Executive Director and Treasurer of the Commercial Land Owners Association of St. Armands; that he appeared before the Commission a year ago with a plan to purchase and create a parking lot off of Fillmore Drive; that the plan was complex and required negotiations to purchase two triangular parcels of land, the closing of a portion of Fillmore Drive, rezoning to allow for public parking, the creation of a special taxing district and the financing through a bond issue over a period of twenty years; that the Commissioners were unanimous in their support of the project and their desire to solve a critical condition which had existed for the past twenty years affecting the landowners, merchants and the residents of St. Armands; that the City Manager was appointed by the Commission to accomplish this goal; that the City Manager, with the unified support of the Commission, made the impossible, possible; that the City Manager negotiated the purchase of the land and scheduled and integrated a maze of legal and financial issues over a period of less than a year; that the parking lot is almost complete and ready for this year's season; that he is shocked and puzzled to find that the City Manager is being accused of not being able to make a decision or act as an effective leader; that the Commission was unified in its support of this project and no mixed signals were sent, and the City Manager was effective as both a decision-maker and a leader; and was personally responsible for making the parking project a reality in an amazingly short period of time; that the taxes collected from the members of the Association represent approximately 2.5% of the entire City's income and more revenue than that collected from both the Sarasota Square Mall and the Southgate Shopping Center combined; that the Association would be remiss if it did not speak out on behalf of the City Manager; that the core of the problem does not lie with the City Manager and his Staff but rather with the indecisiveness of the Commission and the mixed signals sent; that this discussion would not be occurring if the Commissioners would put individual agendas aside and send a clear and unified set of objectives to Staff; that a hard and sincere look should be taken at the real problem; that the loss of the City Manager would be a tremendous loss to the taxpayers of the City. Book 38 Page 12318 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12319 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Simon Rosin, 2831 Ringling Boulevard (34230), was no longer in the Chambers. William Carmen, Jr., 1150 Morningside Place (34236), stated that at one time he was a City Commissioner, Chairman of the Planning Board, and Chairman of the Board of Adjustment; that he is aware of what is happening in the city and has not been satisfied for the last several years; that the City Manager may be very fine in some areas; that virtually every Commission has tried to purchase the area off of Fillmore Drive for a parking lot, spending thousands of dollars and hours of time on the project; that the project finally fell into place over the past two years; that the parking lot is appreciated, however, some other things are not appreciated; that the City Manager has postponed a vital portion of the Zoning Code, which is the encroachment in the right-of-way in the St. Armands area; that the Code indicates that signs should not encroach between the sidewalk and the street curb, except for governmental signs; that two years ago a sign was installed in front of his business on the corner of Fillmore Drive and Harding Circle; that he spoke to two Commissioners over two years ago but nothing has been done; that the City Manager knew this sign was a violation and has postponed correcting the violation for over two years; that a violation should be taken care of immediately; that the Sarasota City Charter indicates that the City Manager should protect the City by enforcing the Code and the laws of the City; that 14 stores were built on St. Armands Circle which were not required to abide by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Code and yet other buildings were; that one business on St. Armands Circle is allowed to have valet parking which uses six parking spaces from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. and no one else can park in the spaces. Neal Elliot, 7252 Mauna Loa Boulevard (34241), representing the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). stated that he is an employee of the City and an employee representative for the Firefighters; that employee morale has been a concern expressed during the course of this discussion; that the employees share the opinion that most of the negative morale comes from the Commission, not the City Manager; that the Commissioners should realize that they affect employee morale; that consolidation has been mentioned during the course of this discussion, as well; that consolidation would not have progressed as far as it has without the City Manager, who has urged the process along on at least seven different occasions; that the County is also involved with the consolidation process which could lend to what appears to be a bureaucratic maze; that from an employee point of view, he has come to trust the City Manager, which is rare in union business; that the City Manager's management style lends itself to that kind of trust; that the City Manager has rarely caved in and supported in whole what employees in the Fire Department want and has not laid down for union negotiations, but he is an honest man; that some Commissioners have suggested they are impatient with the way things are handled in the City; that he recalls an emergency call to respond to a fire at the hospital several years ago; about which the Fire Department was criticized for its slow response as Firefighters seemed to be hanging around not doing anything; however, the Firefighters were accessing the situation to assure the appropriate steps were taken to put out the fire; that the actions of the Fire Department were understood once that was explained; that impatience is rarely a virtue and rushing into situations or decisions can lead to mistakes; that the Commission knows whether the City Manager handles business in a timely fashion; however, the City Manager's responding to a Commissioner's impatience may not be in the best interests of the City. Jon Susce, 2048 8th Street (34231), representing Citizens for Limited Taxation, stated that the City Manager is doing the best he can with the fine abilities he has; that the City Manager has good administrative talents; however, his abilities are inadequate for what is needed in the City of Sarasota today, which is leadership; that the City Manager was hired in 1987 and his professional forte as a City Administrator in his previous positions was as an individual who followed direction, which is what the Commission wanted in 1987; that today's Commission wants a leader, not a follower; that a follower is what the Executive Director of the Argus Foundation and the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce desire; that the business community wants someone to follow their direction; that this direction has put the City and all of Sarasota County in dire financial straits; that the financial condition of the City is not the responsibility of the majority of the present Commission, nor the City Manager, but rather past City Commissioners; that the City Manager should not be forced to take all the blame because he was hired to follow direction set by the political and financial leaders which has placed the City in the financial problem existing today; that special interest groups are making a grand living off that direction; that an example of the type of direction and financial advice fostered by these special interest groups is found in an articlé written by Jim Sams in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on October 22, 1989, concerning the Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) Fund; that this fund was a financial boondoggle putting millions of taxpayer's dollars earmarked for the slum and blighted working-class neighborhoods of Sarasota and giving it to the financially well connected, the people who belong to the Argus Foundation, and the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce; that these politically and financially well connected people should be taking the heat which is being directed at the City Manager; that what these special interest groups did with the TIF money and their inability to get a fair market return on taxpayers' money has placed the City in its current the financial situation and is the reason for this meeting; that the taxpayers in the City should know several things about these special interest groups; that the membership of the Argus Foundation is secret; that the Foundation should be advocating Government-in-the-sunshine and Book 38 Page 12320 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12321 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. its total disregard for the public's right to know should end immediately; that what is known about the Argus Foundation, the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, and the Committee of 100 is that very few members live in the City and do not intend to live in the City; that these financial wizards who believe the City is doing so great and who are supporting the City Manager should move into the City; that a move by these individuals who have gotten wealthy off the City would increase the tax base and get the City out of the financial mess it is in today; that the politically and financially well connected in Sarasota are here today to advocate the continuation of the status quo; that the politically and financially well connected have been sitting in the wagon while the taxpayers of the City who have been pulling the wagon have been financing their lavish lifestyle; that enough is enough; that the select crowd which does not know the difference between an unwed mother with five children and a millionaire developer who asks the taxpayers to finance their lifestyles should be ousted; that the City Manager has done what was asked of him and has done it admirably; however, the party is over and the bills are due; that he commends Commissioner Cardamone for taking a lead in an attempt to bring proactive leadership to the City of Sarasota; that this move in the face of powerful special interest groups is courageous; that finally, someone has the courage to lead; that it is great to see someone who remembers what Sarasota used to be like and who has said, "enough is enough. I Bart Cotten, 451 Woodland Drive (34234), was no longer in the Chambers. Marge Warson, 2714 Valencia Drive (34239), stated that she has not been a resident of the City for the last five years although she was a resident for many years prior to that time and has been active in City matters; that she came to find out what the discussion was all about; that she found out a great deal of information and is grateful for that; that the matter has not béen handled well; that in the future, meetings such as this should not occur; that these decisions and problems should be discussed and a conclusion reached without the rumors which have upset people; that a better system should be developed for handling this type of problem; that today's meeting was very important. Philip M. Dasher, 926 Boulevard of the Arts (34238) and Vivian Stein, 888 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), representing 888 Condominium on the Bay. Mr. Dasher stated that he is the President of 888 Management Corporation and the Marina Suites of the Condominium on the Bayi that Ms. Stein is Vice President of 888 Management Corporation and President of the 888 Condominium Association and has had many years on the Board of the Association; that the City Manager and most Staff departments have been unresponsive to the needs of the Association; that attitudinal problems have occurred with his Staff and little accountability, or performance criteria is placed on City Staff; that the Association has requested to be involved early in the decision-making process on issues directly affecting their neighborhood which has never happened; that the neighborhood is mixed with commercial and residential uses; that the inability to have early input has resulted in divisiveness in their neighborhood and polarization on issues; that many problems could have been solved earlier in the process; that residents of Lawrence Point and 888 Condominium on the Bay, which are comprised of over 300 residences and over 700 citizens of Sarasota, contribute 3.8 times the amount of taxes to the City than the entire Quay and twice the amount of taxes of the combined Quay and Hyatt Hotel; that it is difficult to deal in this environment and the members feel they have little, if any, representation; that there is nothing personal against the City Manager as he is always amenable, pleasant and respectful, but nothing ever happens unless it is forced. Ms. Stein stated that the noise and commotion at the Quay continues until 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning; that everyone is unresponsive to the complaints; that she finds it hard to believe that what occurs at the Quay is permitted to continue; that the City Manager and everyone knows about the problems; that Commissioner Patterson is the only one who has been cooperative; that the Police are unresponsive; that as President of Tower One, she hears nothing but complaintsi that she finds it distressing that the neighborhood is deteriorating because of the Quay and the attitude of the Police; that she must assume this attitude goes to the top. Mr. Dasher stated that the attitude and the lack of responsiveness in any organization does not start at the bottom, it starts at the top. Mayor Merrill asked who is at the top, the Commission or the City Manager? Mr. Dasher stated that, in terms of functional Staff, it is the City Manager. Dan Loebeck, 450 South Shade Avenue (34237), representing. the Groxth-Restraint and Environmental Organization (GEO), stated that he is appearing as President of GEO and a City resident; that he has polled the GEO Board members and a change in the position of City Manager is strongly urged; that the time has come; that the reasons have been well articulated for the need for a change at the top of the City Staff exists; that courage has been demonstrated at the Commission table in identifying the problems which have been heard from people in neighborhoods, citizens who feel left out, and citizens who feel the City Manager is not responsive to their needs and concerns; that it is time for Sarasota to have a City Manager for all the people and not just for a special few; that it is time Book 38 Page 12322 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12323 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. for Sarasota to have a City Manager who is dedicated to strong growth management and to protecting the City's neighborhoods and quality of life, rather than a "yes-man" for the big developers and big business interests who all too often get their way at the expense of the regular residents who must suffer from the decisions made adverse to their interests; that it is time for Sarasota to have a City Manager who is for up-front progress and not back-room deals; that evidence has been presented for this need; that some moans are being heard from people who are parties to and the beneficiaries of the back-room deals and who want to see this decision-making process continue. Commissioner Pillot left the Chambers at 4:02 p.m. Mayor Merrill stated that the discussion should be confined to issues and the effect on behavior patterns or actions, rather than personalities. Commissioner Patterson left the Chambers at 4:02 p.m. Mr. Loebeck stated that this is exactly the issue and the problem because some interests in the City want to keep a City Manager who says "yes" to everything without regard to the negative impact on people who try to get from one end of the City to the other and are concerned about over development or people who care about the integrity of their neighborhood; that these people see a City Manager who chastises Planning Staff if they dare say "boo" to a development proposal; that the Director of Planning wrote a memorandum to the County indicating that urban sprawl, i.e., spreading development throughout the landscape, is a bad thing to positive redevelopment within the City; that because big development interests in the County do not favor that position, the City Manager indicates the Director of Planning is out of line and an active role should not have been taken on behalf of the neighborhoods; that it is time for a City Manager who understands that the path of least resistance is not always the proper path; that sometimes it is appropriate to say a proposal is not the best thing for the people of the City, the neighborhoods, or the residents when a big, powerful development interest, a big business interest, or wealthy landowner comes to the City and wants a special favor; that the City Manager too often seems to feel that job security lies in satisfying the privileged few; that two Commissioners have boldly and courageously indicated the City Manager favors development over neighborhoods, and he applauds the boldness of those statements; that the wrong message would be sent if the City Manager, who has acknowledged his favoring development interests in the City excessively, were retained; that in 1987 the City had for many years a City Manager who was articulate and a leader and who felt that saving the special quality of life of Sarasota was a good thing; that many special interests in the City wanted to get that City Manager out and get in someone who would be a "yes man" for their desires, and they accomplished that goal; that the City should take advantage of the opportunity to find someone who has a true, deep, heartfelt belief that the city should be saved and the quality of life should be improved and who is willing to stand up to the special interests; that Sarasota does not have that today and the neighborhoods are suffering, the quality of life is suffering, the taxpayers are being overburdened by funneling off tax dollars to special interests through the TIF plan and other specific decisions of the City Manager; that it is time for a change, the people of the City demand a change, and it is time to stand up to the special interests and the privileged few and to have some guts and bring in a City Manager devoted to the people. Commissioner Pillot returned to the Chambers at 4:03 p.m. Mayor Merrill stated that someday Mr. Loebeck will show some courtesy. Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue (34236), stated that she has been before the Commission many times before because of situations she has found; that she brought the storefront issue to the Mayor first; that the internal audit on the storefront project was put under the carpet, rather than addressing the concerns and the problems to assure that the Commission was sending the appropriate information or that Staff understood what needed to be done regarding a situation such as the storefront. Commissioner Patterson returned to the Chambers at 4:04 p.m. Ms. Quillin stated that in the past four years, over a half million dollars has been written off in the Utilities Department; however, management tells the Commission it is less than one percent; that Sarasota is a small town and half a million dollars in four years is a lot of money; that the question is whether a tight rein is being kept if that kind of activity is happening in the Utilities Billing Department; that this meeting is not about a man, it is about management; that cities are made up of people, not corporate entities which do not count on the census, and the people are the ones that count; that the External Auditor's Management Letter readdresses items this year which have been in the Management Letter for the last three to four years; that the management of the City has not addressed or corrected these items, which costs the citizens of the City in the quality of life, the citizens' assets, or their desire to reside in the City paying higher taxes; that the Human Resources Department should be consulted to determine the number of employees who live in the City; that the people in the neighborhoods have to fight, whether the issue is a land issue or getting the necessary attention; that the Downtown Association, Argus, and big development can walk into the Commission Chambers and the red carpet will be laid out, which is not fair to the Book 38 Page 12324 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12325 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. citizens; that the City should encourage a marriage between development interests and the neighborhoods so they do not act as adversaries; however, that is not the management's policy; that the Commission is dealing with mushroom management, which means the Commission is being kept in the dark and being fed garbage; that a change should be made; that Sarasota is too fine a City; that the people need a change. Ernie Giordano, 3075 Riviera Drive (34232), stated that he resides outside the City but owns a great deal of property in the city; that his livelihood does not depend on what he says about the City Manager; that he used to be a Housing Inspector for the City and prior to that he was Vice Chairman of the Civil Service Board; that he has ten years' experience prior to that time as a police officer; that he volunteered for the Civil Service Board thinking he had something to offer; that the decisions made by the Board affected the livelihood of many employees of the City; that he has dealt with every Department Head in the City, the Police union, the Fire Fighters union, the Building and Zoning Department; that at no time has he been more warmly received than by the City Manager when he had a problem, both as Vice Chairman of the Civil Service Board and as a Housing Inspector; that one of the problems was the crack houses where derelicts stayed and prostitutes and drug dealers frequented; that the Housing Inspectors were given direction by the City Manager through the former Director of Building, Housing and Zoning to clean up the problem; and the problem in the north end of the city was cleaned upi that one of the pilot projects the City Manager was involved in was the first formal housing program on 8th Street, and the City Manager was instrumental in getting that project through; that one of the biggest problems was the St. Augustine Quarters, which was a rat trap and a prostitute-, drug- dealer-, derelict-infested piece of property; that he personally did about 100 inspections on the property; that a report of every inspection was given to the Director of Building, Housing and Zoning and the majority were forwarded to the City Manager; that the City Manager had an open-door policy and said he was welcome to come in and speak about any problem; that he did so and the problem was taken care of; that what is happening here is that the messenger is being shot; that the sights are not being aimed at the appropriate target, which is the Commission; that the City Manager is an Administrator, not an elected official, and he tries to do what he can to maintain uniformity, continuity and harmony within the City ranks; that Department Heads and employees are sitting in the audience but will not come down because they are afraid for their jobs to make a statement; that he did not have to come to this meeting; that the city Manager deserves people's taking the time to compliment him, just as the City Manager has given others the time to listen to them; that without the City Manager, Commissioner Dry would not have the home she has as she would still have St. Augustine Quarters; that he would not have been able to condemn over 50 houses in the City as a Housing Inspector and would not have been able to have them torn down without the City Manager's approval; that he was involved in the Three Crowns property; that the City Manager should not be blamed; that the Commission, the attorneys, and the litigation should be blamed; that the City Manager is only the messenger and the Commission sends the message. Robert Levy, 1391 6th Street (34236), was no longer in the Chambers. Hal Osthoff, 3675 Prudence Drive (34235), stated that he has been an employee of the City for seven years; that the City Manager has always had an open-door policy; that employee dissatisfaction with management has been mentioned; that when he filled out the employee survey; his idea of management was his direct supervisors, not the City Manager; that the crux of the problem is the interpretation of the surveys; that Someone is always grabbing the city Manager's arm, saying they need this or have to do that; that the City Manager is always courteous and says "Why don't you step into my office?" or "I'11 get back with you. I do not have an answer right now."; that he has been in government for twenty-five years; that he has seen five different City or County managers and the current City Manager is one is of the best he has ever seen in the sense of employee relationships; that some of the Commissioners seem to have made up their minds; that he hopes that is not the case; that most employees are not complaining about the City Manager; but believe it is the Commission; that the City Manager cannot please everyone and that is the problem; that the City Manager is an excellent manager and a tremendous asset will be lost if it is decided to let him go. John Browning, 1376 Harbor Drive (34239), stated that he has no agenda and no political interest in the City, but rather; that he has an interest in the City as a whole; that he has lived in the City off and on all his life and was born in Sarasota; that he likes the way the City is running now; that problems exist and some are because the Commission is not all together on some issues; that he has had many opportunities to sit down with the City Manager and have found him to be totally a gentleman, although sometimes not as fully responsive as he would like; that sometimes budget constraints limit the available actions; that he feels certain more Staff would be desired in certain areas and the City Manager would like to be more responsive to everyone, including the Community and the business interests; that he is opposed to the manner in which this discussion has come about; that it has been improper; that major concerns should have been brought to the table and discussed in front of the City Manager; that he does not like the way this was done; that he hopes this will not result in precipitous action on the part of the Commission which it will regret for a long time in the future. Book 38 Page 12326 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12327 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Craig Harrison, 1605 Main Street (34236), representing the Downtown Association, stated that he is the President of the Downtown Association; that he came to read a letter approved by the Association; that first, the Association has the utmost respect for the Commissioners and the City Manager and trusts their judgments; however, to fire any person is a difficult decision, especially when it affects personal lives and the City's business and especially if the position is the City Manager; that the decision cannot be made in haste; that apparently problems have existed for some time; that the opportunity to learn of those problems is appreciated; that this meeting is not the proper setting, nor the proper time; that the Association heard of the situation five days ago, which is not enough time to see whether or not the situation should resolve itself one way or the other; that research time is necessary; that the issues should be considered and the proper decision made based upon performance after carefully considering the issues troubling the Commission; that it should be determined if the issues can be resolved; that those issues are communication and leadershipi; that fault is difficult to ascertain and perhaps lies on both sides; that the issues must be addressed but not at this meeting; that the formal response of the Downtown Association to the proceeding is: This letter is in response to concerns raised by others concerning City Manager David Sollenberger. The Downtown Association has stood in the forefront in the redevelopment of downtown Sarasota and we feel that all members of the City, including David Sollenberger have been important advocates in the redevelopment of downtown Sarasota and will be an important part of the continued revitalization of downtown. The Downtown Association understands the concerns of the Administration and believes that the members of the public, Commissioners and others to be provided all necessary and meaningful information in which to make the important decisions about Sarasota's future. A review of the Administrative process may be in order. Nevertheless, considering the many changes that are in the works for the downtown area this year, the Downtown Association cautions against a change in Administration when sO many important projects are in progress or near implementation, such as, the Central Avenue project, the new library, Mission Harbor and many other projects mentioned today. Mr. Harrison stated that the Association urges the Commission to look at the matter with caution, to analyze the problem, to see if the problems can be resolved and to handle the matter in a different forum, not at this meeting. Debbie Marks, City Employee, Designated Representative of Teamster Represented Employees, stated the newspaper reported that employee morale was low because of the City Manager; that the City Manager is not the one and only problem with morale; that the first thing that started the union was the massive layoffs that were taking place in order to balance the budget; that the employees understand that and have dealt with that for two years; that after the first year of layoffs, this Commission, or at least one Commissioner, started discussing looking into the employees' benefits package; that most employees came to the City because of the benefits; that the employees understood the benefits would be here and did not expect them to be taken away at any time, or even reconsidered; that some of the actions of the Commission affect the morale of the City employees; that the Commissioners' views are respected, but if any Commissioner came and walked one day in the shoes of a City employee and saw what had to be dealt with, an entirely different view would be taken of how employees do their jobs; that there may be some "dead weight" which must be weeded out, but a good attempt has been made at that effort through the City Manager's right sizing efforts; that now it is time to look at those positions in the next year as the City Manager has proposed, look at reclassifications and study every job; that some positions could be downgraded and some people are not doing what they should be doing; that those positions will be dealt with appropriately; that the employees who are pulling their weight and are doing more will benefit; that this fact will help morale a lot; that Commissioner Cardamone raised the issue of the employee surveyi which was taken approximately a year and a half or two years after the layoffs and there were a lot of disgruntled employeesi that employees were mad, overworked, tired of being dumped on which was reflected on the surveys; that the results of the survey were not directed at any one Administrator; that the employees may have considered this Commission as part of the Administration; that the Administration and Commission are one whole body. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the survey was done in November 1993 a few months after she came to the Commission and she did not know about the layoffs. Ms. Marks stated that everyone was mad; that the employees took out that anger on the City Manager and the Department Heads; that the employees try to act as a team and serve with Excellence and Pride; that based on some of the actions of the Commission, it is sometimes hard to do that; that she. knows the Commissioners do not act intentionally; that the employees will all do a good job and have learned from this experience; that if everything is laid out and defined, everyone can pull together as a team and get the City where it should be; and presented petitions to signed by employees in support of the City Manager. Tom Fields, 2357 Beneva Terrace (34232), stated that this issue is important; that as a former Fire Chief, he actively worked with the City Manager and with other Department Heads in the past to accomplish many of the City's goals; that what is being Book 38 Page 12328 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12329 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. contemplated is not right, it is wrong; that no one is any more demanding of Department Heads and employees than the City Manager; that one must work for the City Manager to understand what he demands of his people; that the City Manager is a very nice gentleman but is not laid back; that a time delay has been mentioned in giving feedback to the Commission; that many times an extended period of time was necessary which became frustrating for Department Heads and the City Manager, knowing that the Commission wanted the information and expected quality information; that from his experience in being involved, many times the Administration chose to wait to provide the Commission with, good, competent information sO a reasonable decision could be made rather than providing a report in a short, turn-around time; that many times the Administration was chastised by the Commission for inadequate information; that the Commission would indicate a decision could not be made on the information given; therefore, the Administration elected to have proper information; that many times legal opinions were necessary and the City Attorney would be working on the issue; that the City Attorney was not holding back or delaying, but may have been waiting for an opinion from the Attorney General; that other times Department Heads were asking for opinions from State or Federal regulatory agencies so the information could be provided to the Commission to allow for proper decision-making; that concerning employee morale, the Personnel Rules and Regulations are some of the finest one could ever work with; that the Rules and Regulations are adopted by resolution by the Commission and are great and made the job of Department Heads much easier; that the City Manager works at the pleasure of the Commission, but the Rules and Regulations were intended to assist the Administration in working with employees and could also be a means to assist the Commission in working with the City Manager; that an employee is not evaluated and immediately terminated over an unsatisfactory evaluation; that the evaluation is used to show areas needing improvement and to explain what is wrong; that if that is not done with the City Manager and another City Manger is chosen, the next individual chosen for that role will not know the direction to City Hall; that another individual would also have to be given guidance from the Commission; that nothing is wrong with providing the current City Manager with guidance; that the Commission has a good, quality individual and the City Manager should be given guidance; that the Commission establishes the direction into the next century; that the City Manager and the Department Heads are to accomplish that direction; that in years past, the City Manager and the Department Heads were told the amount of money available and were told the Commission wanted a good quality of life in Sarasota; that no increase in taxes was desired; that the City Manager accomplished that objective, which was an unbelievable task; that the employees said, "What else is expected of us?"; that those same employees are doing an excellent job for the Commission on the street; that the Commission is wrong if the City Manager is terminated; that a recess should be taken, the good things accomplished should be considered, and then a vote taken. Kate Hansen O'Connell, 265 Bearded Oaks Drive (34232), stated that the focal point of this discussion appears to be the $97,000 in miscellaneous missing inventory items; ; that she is curious as to the total assets in the Department of Public Safety and the percentage $97,000 represents; that this is probably an extremely small percent of the total; that in running her business, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allows her a larger percentage in miscellaneous cash expenditures that she does not have to account for; that most of the items were found so perhaps the paper chase costs to track the items was more than the devalued items tracked down; that she wonders why that is the major issue. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the missing items is one issue. Ms. O'Connell stated that an issue had been raised on the amount of the City Manager's salary which was felt to be too high; that running the city is a hugh responsibility; that the salary is not out of line compared to managers of large corporations in the area which does not involve as much as running the City; that if the salary is out of line compared to other City Managers, the issue should be the salary and not the City Manager; that the Commission recently voted to raise the City Manager's salary sO it does not make sense that salary is an issue; that she has had many dealings with the City Manager as a member of two advisory boards and on numerous occasions as a private citizen and downtown business owner; that the City Manager's advice to the Commission has not always been in line with her view; however, she has always found his advice to be fair and competent; that she has found him to be patient, explaining the City's positions on various issues; that in each case, the City Manager has been knowledgeable and held the city's best interest as his foremost concern; that the City Manager is honest and forthright in his opinions and defense of these positions; that these qualities may not be politically astute, but they make for an excellent City Manager;. that some of the City's most important business people, representatives from the arts, and residents are in the audience and have taken time from their busy schedules to be here to speak in his behalf; that the Commission is dedicated to managing the City well and to representing the constituents of the City; that the City Manager has served Sarasota well and will continue to do so if given the opportunity; that she hopes the Commission will reconsider and look at the City Manager's accomplishments. Julia Googins, 174 Whittier Drive (34236), stated that she has correspondence between members of the Commission and her attorney from January 1988 to May 1994 regarding one item of business; that she is a homeowner on Lido Key and the resident in a neighborhood Book 38 Page 12330 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12331 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. block of seven houses; that the properties are very small and her lot is only 50 feet wide by 135 feet long; that a house is now located in their backyards that is 46.5 feet high on a 60-foot wide lot; that the house is in that location as a result of a permit issued where a letter of agreement was written by the City Attorney and supported by the City Manager in 1988 allowing the property to be built on while another house existed on the property, which is not allowed in the Code; that the residents in this area were denied a public hearing in the process because no variance was required; that the neighbors were quite upset when they heard about the permit, as they had no civil rights in this case; that the Building Department had told them when they purchased their property that there would be no development on that lot; however, they did not get that in writing; that later in the process, the structure was not finished and stood on the site for a number of years; that the property was finished in 1994 with a second permit issued after the Building Department said under oath at a hearing by the Special Master for Code Enforcement that another permit would not be issued; that the issue never became a public issue; that the things they wanted corrected were not corrected; that the investigation they asked for was not pursued; that her husband came before Commission in April 1994 because the permittee wanted to allow the original house to remain on the property and become a beach house; that the Commission vetoed this proposal; that City Manager conducted an inquiry and they received a copy of a letter from the Director of Building, Housing and Zoning about the issue; that the letter was brief and had some chronology about the events; that the City Manager refused to see them about the issue and they still feel an investigation should occur; that the Code Enforcement process is supposed to allow all interested parties to speak; however, they were not allowed to speak, nor was their attorney; that five of the six neighbors opposed the project; that house towers over the tree tops; that the practice of building very large houses on small City lots Close to other pre-existing houses, endangering those homes should not continue; that her house is only 12 to 13 feet high. Jack Fehily, 200 Tanglewood Drive (34239), stated that he is one of the owners of Patrick's Restaurant; that one speaker had an inaccurate, erroneous, and self-serving declarations about the Downtown Association and its relationship with the Commission and the Administration; that no one at the Downtown Association has any sweetheart deals with the Commission or the Administration; that during the ten years he has been on the Board of the Association, they have come begging half the time for anything they can get; that this year, the Downtown Association raised $35,000 for the Fourth of July Celebration and the fireworks; that concerning the topic of this meeting, he will not take sides; that he does not have the day-to-day knowledge that the Commission does; that he has a personal opinion, but it does not mean anything; that he owns a business, employs 50 people, has four partners and five managers; that when the business was started, it was agreed that there would be one voice and one directive for the managers to follow; that a manager cannot be expected to run a business with conflicting reports, agendas, or miscommunications; that he has had to fire people before and it is uncomfortable; that people have families, children, homes, and mortgages; that unless he has run out the string, he has always sat down and talked with his employees on two or three different occasions; that at a final meeting he will tell people "We will not sit down again"; that the Commission should be run in the same way; that everyone wants the best for Sarasota; that everyone's job is to try to accomplish that. Mayor Merrill stated that the City Manager would now have an opportunity to speak. City Manager Sollenberger stated that for the last week since his return from the International City Management Association Conference in Denver, he has made no comments concerning his job performance until he could address the Commission as a group; that he was hired nearly nine years ago and the Commission had established clear goals and expectations for some extremely demanding and challenging issues; that he accomplished what they wanted and he believes he did it well; that some of the big ticket items included: the Ed Smith Stadium, negotiating the Chicago White Sox lease which is the best model lease in the State of Florida, and the downtown redevelopment; that when he arrived, the City had a wonderful plan for downtown redevelopment and only $150,000 for the project; that his job was to engineer getting it done and he did; that other items included: the cleanup of Sarasota Bay through improved wastewater treatment which turned out to be an Alice-in-onderland experience through multi-levels of government and productive City-County relations which resulted in settlement of dual taxation with a favorable result for the City and the Parks and Recreation consolidation which saved the City $3 million per year; that the problems he encountered when he arrived included employee morale problems; that 15 to 20 employees with grievances were in the audience at the first Commission meetings he came to; that employees were upset; that the Commission asked him to take care of the problem; that he conducted an investigation to determine the foundations of these employee grievances; that part of the problem related to the need for a new pay and compensation system which was done and done well; that the Commission is concerned about the current financial problems; that when he came to Sarasota, the City had a fund balance of 2.6% which translates to $700,000; that today the fund balance is 14% or well over $4 million; that there was a deficit in the health insurance fund when he came to Sarasota of $800,000; that these issues are in the past; however, he has continued to periorm; that he would like to list some of his accomplishments: Book 38 Page 12332 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12333 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. The library site - His recommendation provided a middle ground for the City and County to reach an agreement over a subject that had long been debated and about which the public felt a decision was overdue; Fire/Rescue and Communication Consolidation - This effort will shed from the City's budget over $10 million per year and will save taxpayers over $3.5 million annually; Augustine Quarters - This structure was eliminated and turned into a new, single-family neighborhood. This site was a hot button of the Commission for several years; St. Armands - The parking problems have been solved with new parking lots and additional on-street parking; and Rosemary District - The redevelopment is under way with the Central Avenue streetscape work and several property owners interested in the storefront assistance program. Many people have complained it has taken sO long to get to this point. However, the Downtown Redevelopment Plan said start at the core. Once the heart is established, the City can move out to other areas. When the City was ready to move to other areas, however, no money was available, so he had to stall for time until money could be obtained. Mr. Sollenberger continued that he has cited some of his accomplishments; however, he is not perfect and there is room for improvement; as he has heard at this meeting; that he can perform to meet the Commission's expectations as he did for the Commission that hired him if clear expectations are given; that what is needed is the service of a skilled facilitator experienced in working with City Commissions and City Managers to assist in developing goals, performance expectations and standards and evaluation process based on performance; therefore, he recommends a motion to use a skilled facilitator experienced in local government work to work with the City Commission and the City Manager to: Develop goals, performance expectations and standards for the City Manager, Prepare an evaluation form based on goals and performance expectations and standards, and Design a process for use of the form and group feedback. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he receives individual feedlack, but there are five Commissioners, with five different sets of expectations; that there is a broad spectrum of expectations on the Commission which he must satisfy, which is one of his challenges; that the process he is recommending, including the group feedback, is important; that last week in Denver, he attended a seminar on Commission-Wanager relations and spoke with the seminar leader, who is Florida based; that yesterday he spoke to the seminar leader, who is willing to come to Sarasota next week to speak with the Commissioners individually; that this avenue is available. Mr. Sollenberger continued that he would like to respond to several statements; that concerning the Fire Department consolidation, not everything was pulled together when the joint workshop was held in May; that the County Administrator and he have wanted to bring a completed package to present to both Boards; that the target has been a moving target; that a workshop was scheduled for this afternoon, however, several items must still be discussed with the County Administrator; that this project is one of the most complex projects he has been involved in because a County and City is involved, the lives of hundreds of people will be affected who work for the City and the County, and the City's and the County's bureaucracy is involved; that he is responsible for the City's bureaucracy and the County Administrator is responsible for the County's bureaucracy; that getting the two bureaucracies working together is difficult; that due to the complexities, the process has been extremely difficult; that he has been accused of not being timely; however, he has done the best he can and he has nothing to be ashamed of. Mr. Sollenberger further stated that his management responsibilities have been discussed, how closely he pays attention, how quickly the City responds; that some of these issues are a victim of budgetary downsizing; that he has stripped out management as well as other levels of employment; that he eliminated the Department of Redevelopment and the Director of Development Services, who had responsibility for redevelopment and the oversight of the Development Services Department; that he has assumed responsibility for redevelopment activities; that the Deputy City Manager has taken over responsibility for oversight of the Development Services Department; that the Administration is spreading itself far thinner; that more is trying to be done with less and a price has to be paid; that the Administration has been criticized for not keeping reclassifications up to date; that the Administration has been criticized for allowing departments to come to the Commission to talk about what should not be cut out of their budget; that the demand from the Commission was for no tax increases for several years; that the Administration has held spending in the City to the line; that over the last five or six years, the spending of the general fund has gone up 9% while the Cost of Living has gone up over 21%; that had the City spent at the Cost-of-Living level, $4 million more would be spent today and another couple of mills would be added to the tax rate; that one of the casualties has been money for reclassification studies and payment for reclassifications; that in dealing with the budget, he Book 38 Page 12334 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12335 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. had no control over some issues, i.e., health insurance which was going up 20 to 25% per year; that increases in the budget would have been from $2 to $3 million per year more than the available revenues; that he had to deal with cutting back the number of employees and had to lay off people in jobs, which is unheard of in government; that people take government jobs because they believe in job security and their trust was betrayed, which this is part of the morale problem; that he made his recommendations when he sent in the budgets, but he also told the Department Heads they were free to let the Commission know anything he/she felt ought to be said so he would not be accused of keeping information from the Commission; that the budgets presented were his recommendations and he did not vacillate that; that one gentleman complained about a sign on St. Armands but that same gentleman signed a petition for the sign to be placed there; that he has talked to the Merchants Association and they have polled the merchants who favor that type of sign; that a zoning amendment's proceeding through the process and will come to the Commission to allow similar signs on St. Armands Circle; that a resident from Lido Key spoke about a house was built on the rear of a neighboring property; that the house was built in accordance with the Zoning Code; that the complaint is that the house blocked the view of the Gulf; that the deal was that the property owner indicated he wanted to remain in his house while he built the house in back; that the property owner, in his opinion, did not live up to his end of the deal to get the project done quickly; that when the new house was built, the property owner said he wanted to keep the old house for a beach house; that he said a deal is a deal and the house must come down. Mr. Sollenberger stated that his remarks are concluded and thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak and distributed copies of the Administration's recommended motion. Mayor Merrill asked if any Commissioner wishes to make a motion? On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Commissioner Pillot stated that the term 'skilled facilitator" is the key phrase in the recommended motion; that the three proposals, i.e., to develop goals and performance expectations and standards for the City Manager, to evaluate based on those, and to design the process for how the form will be used and put into effect with group feedback, are the keys to a good process; that both the private and public sector uses a process referred to by the acronym NEAT which stands for Notification of expectations, Explanation, Assistance, and Time; that this process is honored and has been used a great deal, including by Sarasota County; that the recommendation of the City Manager effectuates that process properly. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City Manager gave a good, strong answer; that he is being asked to show strength, leadership and managerial ability and, therefore, she is pleased with the answer; however, she is not pleased with what was not said; that despite the accomplishments named by the City Manager, which have not been done by him alone but rather by the Commission pushing the City Manager to get them done, managerial problems exist in the City, perhaps because of understaffing or perhaps because of major, complex projects; that she would rather have heard some recognition of the problems and that the problems would be addressed. Commissioner Patterson continued that the recommended process is not a bad process and she does not doubt the Commission and the City Manager would benefit from it; that any Commission which is supposed to govern a City whose Mayor's chief goal is to consolidate the City in its entirety with the County will be a difficult group; that this fact, however, does not answer the question that the City Manager is not always prepared to deal with problems, even those involving Department Heads; that good management does not require Commission consensus; that she would be glad to hear solutions to the problems; that she does not expect the City Manager to come up with solutions today and would be willing to deal with the motion if a workshop will also be scheduled to discuss solutions to the problems Commissioners have put on the table. Commissioner Patterson further stated that when three Commissioners say they are seriously considering firing the City Manager, more of a problem exists than can be solved by a facilitator and setting mutual goals; that the Commission is not a cohesive group and does not always produce five "yes" votes across the table; that the five Commissioners come from different backgrounds and perspectives on how best to achieve the common goal of making Sarasota a better place, which includes the Mayor's desire to dissolve the City; that from the Mayor's perspective and view, dissolving the City would make Sarasota a better place; that the problems are more serious than a facilitator alone will solve; that she is looking for some recognition that the problems must be identified and worked on in ways other than just creating standards to measure the goals. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he acknowledges that he has shortcomings; that much has been laid out today which must be handled; that a facilitator will not solve all the problems but will assist the five Commissioners and the City Manager in coming together to develop goals; that priorities must be established; that one of the problems he has experienced is that everything is priority number one and the capacity is not available to deal with all number one priorities; that he hopes the Commission will favorably consider the Administration's recommendation; that. he will be pleased to follow up on the suggestion to deal with individual items of concern; that he hopes a workshop with a Book 38 Page 12336 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12337 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. facilitator can be implemented as soon as possible, i.e., during the month of October. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that a response to the comments made by the public is necessary. Mayor Merrill stated that under Robert's Rules of Order the discussion is to concern the motion on the table; that the rules can be suspended with a two-thirds vote. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to suspend the rules. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to suspend the rules which limit discussion to the motion on the floor. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she has discussion on this motion. Mayor Merrill asked the rule on discussion of the motion to suspend the rules of order. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated a motion to the rules is not debatable and requires a two-thirds vote. Commissioner Pillot asked if four votes are, therefore, required. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed (3 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no; Merrill, no. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the failure of the motion has limited the public's right to know expressions of opinion that should be brought to the Commission table. Mayor Merrill stated that the Vice Mayor is out of order; that under Robert's Rules of Order the motion to suspend the rules was voted down and discussion should now continue on the motion on the table; and asked if there is further discussion on the motion on the table? Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she spoke to the City Manager, although she does not recall the date, after the Mayor asked the Commission to consider consolidation at a goals-setting workshop and began discussing his idea in the public; that she came to the City Manager and indicated that the Commission is so fractured that a team-building exercise with a hired facilitator, taking the Commission to Longboat Key and having the Commission spend the day getting to know and understand each other and doing things that other boards do when trying to conduct business would be beneficial; that she does not know what happened to a pretty good idea; that she has the best interests of the City in mind; that she felt her suggestion was very important as a new Commissioner was coming on board with new and different ideas from her predecessor and as the very difficult and hard-to-understand consolidation move resulted in some of the problems with employee morale since employees do not know where they will be working next week or next year; that the City Manager indicated he would consider the suggestion; that on another occasion she asked what the City Manager thought of the suggestion but never got a Clear response; that she told the City Manager she had never participated in a team-building exercise with a facilitator at this level and was interested in doing so; that part of the reason she is here today is the fact that the City Manager did not give her an clear answer after that discussion; that she wanted to do this activity long ago when she sensed a major problem was developing and is sorry the City Manager chose not to pursue this course of action; that the Commission and the City Manager would not be here today had he done so. Mayor Merrill stated that many of the problems are in setting goals; that the proposed course of action is the right direction to pursue; that the city Manager should be evaluated on the goals the Commission has established every spring for some time; that the City Manager is not being criticized on the failure to achieve goals the Commission has set as a body and on which the Commission has agreed; that one Commissioner expressed the opinion that the City's pay scales are too high. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the Mayor is speaking to the motion? Mayor Merrill asked the Vice Mayor to hold her comments. Mayor Merrill stated that another Commissioner stated that the city's pay scales are not competitive; that both comments represent the issue of establishing goals and whether the Commissioners have common expectations; that a goal to adjust pay scales which has been agreed upon by the Commission and established for the City Manager would probably have been accomplished by now; however, no such goal was established as no one brought it forth; that the budget issue mentioned by the City Manager was a critical one; that a goal set for years not to raise taxes has limited the budget and the Commission's ability to operate, which is the basis for his argument for consolidation; that the Commission cannot continue to operate without regular tax increases, which can easily be discerned by looking at the tax base; that he has shown the Commission charts illustrating this fact; that not raising taxes has been a clear goal which has lead to other issues; that the City Manager is being made a scapegoat for the City's financial problems, which were created by the Commission's desire not to raise taxes; that he would not object to adding a workshop to Book 38 Page 12338 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12339 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. address management weaknesses to the City Manager's recommendation; that the City Manager did not purposely exclude that possibility; that the second item in the Administration's recommendation is performance expectations which could include management expectations as goals do not have to be specifically limited to such things as sidewalks; that a goal for City government to be more responsive has been brought forward by some Commissioners in the past, although he does not recall if this was supported as a specific goal by this Commission; that he focuses on the goals he supports; that he has always been happy with the City Manager's response to the goals the Commission has established; that the recommended proposal allows the Commission to establish specifically what is expected of the City Manager and to set up a review system; that the decision will be an easy one at the conclusion of the timeframe established if the public and the Commission is not satisfied with the pertormance; that debate about whether the City Manager is doing what the Commission wants will not be necessary as the achievement of the goals and the performance would be very clear; that the Commission owes the City Manager this opportunity to establish clear goals, as he would owe it to his Staff; that the Commission has failed to set goals, but a proposal, which is an excellent one, has been presented to cure that failure, and he hopes the Commission will support it. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City Manager should have goals as well, which is part of management leadershipi; that the Mayor spoke of the Commission's setting a goal for the City to pay competitive salaries; however, the Commission does not know what competitive salaries are and it is not the Commission's job to review that issue; that the City Manager's job is to review that question and bring it to the Commission; that the fault is the Commission's if that recommendation is not accepted; that the Commission should hear from the City Manager on such questions; that she tries to hold taxes down, however, she did not campaign on that platiorm; that she has never indicated that she would not fill needs of the City by voting the necessary dollars. Commissioner Patterson continued that no review had been conducted of the City Manager's performance for two years when she first came to the Commission; that one day she realized she had problems and no review process seemed to be built in; that the Sarasota City Charter indicates reviews are to be conducted annually; that the City Manager is not to be blamed for not asking the Commission to review his performance, however, he was not eager to go through the process; that she had to bring the issue to the table. Commissioner Patterson further stated that during the four years she has sat at the table with problems, nothing like this proposal has been brought forward until this crisis situation was reached; that she does not want to lose the ability, or even appear to lose the ability, in voting for this proposal to evaluate the City Manager as an individual Commissioner and not just on a group process basis, which is a privilege granted by the Charter; that the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Board reviews the Executive Director every three months and discusses the review; that in this way, any problems come immediately to the forefront; that she would be willing to support the proposal if she knew the Commission would also come together as a group and hear answers to the problems laid on the table which are more specific than "it is the Commission's fault because clear guidance was not given"; although this is, in fact, a problem. Commissioner Dry stated that she recognizes the power she has had at this point has been phenomenal, whatever decisions are made; that she has also suggested a retreat in her meetings with the City Manager; that the Commissioners are at a disadvantage because they cannot speak to each other; that similar activities have been suggested by different Commissioners, however, nothing is said; that the Commission did not cause this meeting; that she talked to the City Attorney indicating she was at the point of frustration on many issues being discussed today, even though she was a new Commissioner; that these issues have been occurring for some time, so it is not Commissioner Dry who is causing the problem; that she has prepared recommendations which may avert the crisis caused by inaction, lack of action, and lack of responsibility to the Commission; that the City Manager's proposal has merit and part may be able to be incorporated into the recommendations she is making to avert the current crisis in the City. Mayor Merrill stated that under Robert's Rules of Order, a motion could be made to amend the motion on the table. Commissioner Dry stated that she would prefer to read her recommendations. Mayor Merrill stated that her comments could be incorporated as they relate to the motion if her intent is to accomplish something similar, which would be in order. Commissioner Dry distributed copies and stated that her recommendation solutions to the current crisis are: 1) The City Commission shall develop, within the next thirty (30) working days, specific and measurable goals and objectives that will be agreed upon by the City Manager. 2) The City Commissioners, within the next ten (10) working days, will review current evaluation forms and inform the Human Resources Director of the need for revision and/or continuation of same. This would ally fears that it is a faulty document. Book 38 Page 12340 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12341 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. 3) The Human Resources Director should immediately survey no less than 10 comparable cities and/or counties for copies of the evaluation document and/or procedures. Prepare comparative analysis and transmit same to the Commission. 4) The pending 12/95 performance evaluation must be completed timely using existing documents, unless another has been formally adopted prior to that time. 5) Each Commissioner should set aside our differences and implement negotiation and compromise in all deliberations for the good of the City. 6) Each commissioner should hold scheduled one-on-one conferences with the City Manager no less than every other week. 7) The performance evaluations of all Charter Officials should be completed by September 1, of each year. This would facilitate approval of salary adjustments, if any, to be included in the budget for subsequent year. 8) With the knowledge of performance concerns, the City Manager needs to understand the implications and affect of inaction on these concerns. "His fate is in his own hands." Commissioner Dry stated that in addition to the eight written recommendations, another recommendation should be included as follows: 9) Have a facilitator work with the City Manager and the Commission for at least a half day. Commissioner Dry continued that the Commission and the City Manager must get to the business of the City; that she is certain that everyone will recognize that she, for one, had a very hard time coming to the decision she made; that the City Manager has been put on notice and "his fate is in his own hands"; that she will be the third vote, or perhaps even the first vote, the next time if positive movement does not occur. On motion of Commissioner Dry and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to amend the motion to include the above nine recommendations. Mayor Merrill restated the amendment to the motion as to include the eight written recommendations presented by Commissioner Dry and to include a ninth recommendation to have a facilitator work with the City Manager and the Commission. Commissioner Patterson stated that the motion and the amendment are in some ways disparate; that the motion and the amendment will require a little work to make logical sense; that the City Manager's recommendations are not limited to a half day with the facilitator. Mayor Merrill stated that the reference to a half day has been dropped; that the amendment is to "work with a facilitator" with no limitations. Commissioner Patterson stated that she will support the amendment. Commissioner Pillot thanked Commissioner Dry for an extremely valuable addition to the discussion; that he likes all of the recommendations; however, he has a concern with recommendation #4 as the evaluation form currently being used has not been that effective; that he accepts whatever responsibility he has in the manner in which he has responded on the evaluation; that having a different form or the existing form as amended available by December 1995 would be an improvement; that recommendation #4 does not preclude an improved form. Mayor Merrill stated that recommendation #4 indicates "unless another form has been adopted. I Commissioner Dry stated that the existing form is currently is place and must be used unless another has been adopted. Commissioner Pillot stated that recommendation #5 is very important; that fracture, a term used by someone else, exists on the Commission; that the Commission will not be serving as well as it should if recommendation #5 is not followed; that the Commission should be addressing existing concerns, which he believes is inherent in the intent of the phrase performance expectations" referenced in the original motion; that if not, it should be; that among the goals and standards developed with the help of a professional facilitator will be performance expectations to include specifics any Commissioner has voiced today or will voice; that recommendation #3 does not require a facilitator; that recommendation #6 is a responsibility each Commissioner will carry out individually; that he appreciates the valuable input of Commissioner Dry. Mayor Merrill asked if performance expectations as referenced by the City Manager includes management issues? Mr. Sollenberger stated yes. Mayor Merrill asked if the Administration's recommendation could be revised to include management issues as part of performance expectations? Mr. Sollenberger stated yes. Book 38 Page 12342 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12343 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that many people indicated they were uncomfortable and did not like the process; that having the issue on the table and having the public know some of the statements made by citizens and by Commissioners at the table has been the beginning of a good thing; that she will support the motion; therefore, the vote will be unanimous in an attempt to make the proposal work. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the amendment. Amendment carried (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to approve the Administration's recommendation to use a skilled facilitator experienced in local government work to work with the City Commission and the City Manager to: Develop goals, performance expectations and standards, to include management issues, for the City Manager, Prepare an evaluation form based on goals and performance expectations and standards, and Design a process for use of the form and group feedback Mayor Merrill continued that the motion includes the eight recommendations presented by Commissioner Dry, with a ninth recommendation to have a skilled facilitator work with the City Manager and the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Commissioner Pillot asked if the selection of the facilitator should be discussed? On a motion of Commission Pillot and seconded by Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved that the facilitator identified by the City Manager be approved. Commissioner Dry asked if the possibility of another facilitator from the Florida League of Cities could be included in the event that the facilitator identified by the City Manager is not available on a timely manner? Commissioner Pillot stated that, with the approval of the seconder, adding the possibility of another facilitator to the motion in the event the facilitator identified by the City Manager is supported. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the possibility of another facilitator is a good idea. Commissioner Patterson stated that an evaluation will be done relatively soon after the establishment of the goals which is not totally fair; that an evaluation every three months is not necessary; however, an evaluation should be done at least six months after going through the process and the December 1995 evaluation; that cohesion and a Clear message to the City Manager is necessary so that he is not congratulated and scolded simultaneously for the same behavior; that a definable period of time should be determined to see whether the Commissioners feel more comfortable about the issues; that a second review should be done after the first review. Mayor Merrill stated that this issue can be addressed after a vote on the facilitator and called for a vote on the motion to hire the facilitator recommended by the City Manager or, if not available, one recommended through the Florida League of Cities. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved that a second evaluation would be completed six months after the first evaluation, whatever that date may be. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to include a second evaluation to be given and discussed at the table at a workshop six months after the first evaluation. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 2. CITIZENS' . INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM II) #3 (1610) There was no one signed up to speak. 3. OTHER MATTERS (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM III) #3 (1610) through (1735) COMMISSIONER PILLOT: A. stated that the result of the discussion has been constructive; that he had felt pessimistic about the rapport within the Commission; however, within the last 30 minutes, he has begun to feel better about that; that he will leave here looking forward to a better evening than he has had over the last several weeks. Book 38 Page 12344 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. Book 38 Page 12345 09/27/95 2:00 P.M. B. stated that the process has been valuable and cathartic; that the City may be able to step over a new threshold to continue with the blessings the City has had for about a half century in the quality of leadership by two City Managers, one who holds a national record for excellence and length of service and another who came in to fill the infinitely large shoes of his predecessor and has done so very well; that he feels optimistic that the City is on a track to continue the almost half century of blessings to the City in having that kind of leadership in the City Manager's seat. MAYOR MERRILL: A. stated that he started the meeting believing a positive outcome could result, which has occurred; that in regards to the apparently divisive issue of his call for consolidation, the Commission set a workshop to discuss long-term finances; that he can support other ways other ways of achieving finances for the City if available; that he cannot support continuous tax increases; that he is happy with the outcome of the meeting. CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that the Fire Consolidation Workshop has been rescheduled to Monday, October 2, 1995, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Fire Consolidation Workshop was moved from 4 p.m. today as she anticipated the Commission would not be ready to go into a meeting of great import, or perhaps any meeting, at that time; therefore, she asked the City Auditor and Clerk to consider postponing the meeting, which he did. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that it was agreeable with her to change the meeting, although she wishes it had occurred previously. CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. thanked the Commission for the opportunity to meet and stated that he is glad the question has come to a resolution; that he hopes a productive relationship can be forged and will commit to that; that the week has been very trying and difficult for the Commission and for himself. 4. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM IV) #3 (1735) There being no further business, Mayor Merrill adjourned the special meeting of September 27, 1995, at 5:46 p.m. & > - DAVID MERRILL, MAYOR ATTEST: 1 'Billy E obnson BILISY EC'ROSINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK Book 38 Page 12346 09/27/95 2:00 P.M.