MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1993 AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone and David Merrill, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1993, AS "FIGHT AGAINST HUNGER MONTH" #1 (0030) through (0126) Vice Mayor Patterson read the proclamation in its entirety proclaiming the month of October, 1993, as "Fight Against Hunger Month". Mr. Connie Zingerman, Vice Chairman of the Mayor's Feed the Hungry Program, accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Mayor's Feed the Hungry Program 2. PRESENTATION RE: MAYOR'S CITATION TO NEW COLLEGE RECOGNIZING THE GREAT HONOR IT HAS CONTINUOUSLY BROUGHT TO THE CITY OF SARASOTA #1 (0130) through (0198) Vice Mayor Patterson read the citation commending New College in its entirety. Vice Mayor Patterson and Mayor Pillot presented the citation to Mr. Mike Michaelson, Dean and Warden of New College and recognized General Rolland V. Heiser, President of New College Foundation, in the audience. 3. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARDS TO O.D. DAWSON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, WITH 31 YEARS OF SERVICE; JAMES T. EMMERT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, WITH 20 YEARS OF SERVICE; BETTY J. PHARR, BOBBY JONES GOLF COURSE, WITH 21 YEARS OF SERVICE; AND Book 35 Page 9672 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9673 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. TIMOTHY C. SUMNER, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTHENT/POLICE SERVICES BUREAU, WITH 29 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0200) through (0343) Vice Mayor Patterson read the Retirement Certificate in its entirety and requested the recipients and their respective Department Heads to come before the Commission. Betty Pharr, Bobby Jones Golf Course, O. D. Dawson, Public Works Department, James T. Emmert, Public Works Department, and Director John Lewis, Public Safety Department, on behalf of Timothy Sumner came before the Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson expressed the appreciation of the Commission, and presented the Retirement Certificates to Betty Pharr, 0. D. Dawson, James T. Emmert, and John Lewis, accepting on Timothy Sumner's behalf. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES = APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1993; MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1 AND 2) #1 (0345) through (0360) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of September 20, 1993, and Minutes of the Special Sarasota City Commission Meeting of September 20, 1993. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 5. BOARD ACTIONS - REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 - AFFIRMED THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY OF PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 93-M; AFFIRMED THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY APPROVAL OF PETITION 93- SE-13; DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING STAY OF DEMOLITION; REPORT ACCEPTED (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0364) through (0521) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Berta Lefkovich, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency, came before the Commission. Ms. Lefkovich presented the following items from the Planning Board's Regular Meeting of September 1, 1993: A. Preliminary Site and Development Plan 93-M Ms. Lefkovich stated that Preliminary Site and Development Plan 93- M permits three (3) portable school buildings to be located at 3100 Fruitville Road in a G Zone District; that these buildings will be utilized by the Boys and Girls Clubs.of Sarasota for Administrative offices and a meeting room; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found the plan consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and Ordinance No. 90-3422 (Tree Protection Ordinance) and recommended City Commission approval. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to affirm the action of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency on Preliminary Site and Development Plan 93-M to approve the use of the portables for the Boys and Girls Club. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. B. Petition No. 93-SE-13 - a request for a Special Exception to permit a twelve (12) seat open-air dining facility in conjunction with a restaurant on the second floor in the Commercial Tourist (CT) Zone District The parcel is located at 367 St. Armands Circle. Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found Petition No. 93-SE-13 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended City Commission approval with the following stipulations: that the seats be limited to twelve (12); and the addition be less than 175 square feet. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Petition 93-SE-13. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. C. Code Amendment - Demolition Stay Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found this proposed amendment consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended that the City Commission amend Section 15-31 of the Zoning Code to apply only to Florida Master Site File Structures for the purposes of finding alternative uses and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate ordinance. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance for Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to accept the Planning Board/Local Planning Book 35 Page 9674 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9675 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Agency's Report. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 6. BOARD ACTIONS - REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 = ACCEPTED (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0522) through (0622) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and William Merrill, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Board, came before the Commission. Mr. Merrill presented the following items from the Historic Preservation Board's Meeting of September 14, 1993: A. Petition 93-HD-19 = 25 South Washington Drive B. Petition 93-HD-20 - 3529 Jacinto Court Mr. Merrill stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommended Petitions 93-HD-19 and 93-HD-20 be set for Public Hearing. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set Petitions 93-HD-19 and 93-HD-20 for Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. C. Historic Preservation Billable Fee Mr. Merrill stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommended that in the Billable Fee Ordinance the City Commission consider: Elimination of the fee for Petitions for Historic Preservation; or lowering the fee to $175 to cover the actual cost (advertising costs and a plaque) and establish a hardship waiver clause for those who can demonstrate the financial inability to pay. Mr. Merrill stated that since the recommendations were already adopted, it may be a more prudent course of action to refer some of the alternatives to allow them to be developed further by the Historic Preservation Board with input from the Commission. Mayor Pillot stated to Mr. Merrill that was the way to proceed. C. Proposed Code Amendment Demolition Stay for Non- designated Structures Mr. Merrill stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommends to the City Commission that the 45-day stay be omitted from the Zoning Code; that with the removal, a mechanism be set in place to notify Board members of any endangered structures; that notification would be given to any appropriate private and non- profit organization that deals specifically with rehabilitation and revitalization. Mayor Pillot stated that action to set this proposed amendment for public hearing had taken place under the Planning Board Report and no action was needed at this time. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to receive the report of the Historic Preservation Board of its meeting of September 14. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1 = ITEM 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 APPROVED (AGENDA ITEMS III A-1, -2, -3, 4, -5, -6, -7, AND - 8) #1 (0625) through (0803) Vice Mayor Patterson requested that Item Nos. 2 and 3 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Authorization to file a complaint against Smith & Gillespie Engineers, Inc. 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to L.A.M. Management, Inc. for completion of Phase II Historic Preservation and renovations of the Exhibition Hall. 5. Approval Re: Award of purchase order contract to: a.) Goff Communications, Inc. for Fire/Rescue units and related equipment in the amount of $16,000; and b.) Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc. for Police units and relative equipment approximately in the amount of $41,000 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Department for performing landscape maintenance of Bayfront and Island Parks 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a lease agreement for the Sarasota Convention & Visitors Bureau 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to the Agreement for Engineering Services with Ardaman & Associates, for soil and materials testing Book 35 Page 9676 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9677 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to Tri-Tech Construction and Design Company, Inc. (R.F.P. #93-138) for renovations and additions to City Hall Annex and Central Store Division Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she removed Item 2 to make a point; that all the items merely tell an account number where the money is coming from; that she "would like to know where the money is coming from"; that in the future she would like a couple of words telling where the money is coming from. Gibson Mitchell, Finance Director, came before the Commission and stated that the money was coming from the General Fund, City Hall Maintenance Operation. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the money was budgeted dollars. Mr. Mitchell replied that was correct. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Item No. 2, Consent Agenda 1. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Warranty Deed for the sale of property located at 1401 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way to Ms. Dana Smith, in the amount of $3,914.48 Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she removed Item No. 3 to obtain information; that she has no objections to the proposed use; that in doing the new zoning for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way Commercial area, the Commission had proposed that the City purchase properties in the future for parking lots. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if this piece of land was big enough to accommodate a parking lot and if so, should the Commission consider this before selling it? City Manager Sollenberger stated that he did not think the property is well situated to provide parking on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way; that it is somewhat remote from the primary business district; that the property was acquired by forfeiture under Code Enforcement and that Dana Smith wishes to fix up the property and put it into a business use; that the City desires to see more entrepreneurs and business in the area along Dr. Martin Luther King Way, Jr.; and that a business would be a better use at that particular location than a parking lot. Commissioner Atkins stated that the area is at the "T" of Central Avenue and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way near the Janie Poe Drive area; that Dana Smith is prepared to do something there; and that he is supportive of it. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 3. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 8. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2 - ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 93R-685) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-686) = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-687) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 93- 3724) = ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 93-3736) - ADOPTED; ITEM 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 93-3737) - ADOPTED; ITEM 7 (ORDINANCE NO. 93-3740) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEMS III B -1, -2, -3, 4, -5, -6, AND -7) #1 (0804) through (0921) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Numbers 93R-685, 94R-686, 94R-687, and Ordinance Numbers 93-3724, 93-3736, 93-3737, 93-3740 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 93R-685, determining that Ordinance No. 93-038 of Sarasota County relating to the control of stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity is not in conflict with any ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-686, amending Resolution No. 93R-667 adopted on July 23, 1993, by adding certain provisions required by Financial Guaranty Insurance Company which is insuring the payment of the City of Sarasota, Florida Water and Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1993-C. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-687 amends Resolution No. 93R-676, adopted on September 7, 1993, by adding certain provisions required by Financial Guaranty Insurance Company which is insuring the payment of the City of Sarasota, Florida Water and Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1993-A and B. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Seçond reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3724, providing for the designation of the struc- ture located at 1365 Fruitville Road, historically known as the S.T. Humber House, as a structure of historic sig- nificance pursuant to the historic preservation ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) Book 35 Page 9678 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9679 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3736, extending the approval of the City Commission pertaining to the Site and Development Plan for Petition 91-T for a period of two (2) years from the automatic expiration of said approval, providing for the continuation of the conditional rezoning from RMF-4 Zone District to TAD Zone District for a period of two (2) years measured from the automatic expiration of Site and Development Plan 91-T the following described property: Lots 2 and 4, Block 26, Plat of Sarasota, as recorded in Plat Book A, Page 30, Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida, A/K/A 400 North Tamiami Trail; as more par- ticularly described herein; setting forth findings as to the circumstances of the automatic expiration of Petition 91-T; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3737, amending the Sarasota City Code, Chapter 2, Administration; by repealing therefrom Article V, Boards, Commissions, and Committees; Division 2, Mobile Home Park Advisory Board = Sarasota Mobile Home Park; providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 7. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3740, to rezone from CG Zone District to NT Zone District the following described property: Tracts 6 and 7 less the easterly 270 feet thereof and less R.0.W. for U.S. 41, Marlowe Park Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 90 of the Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida; A/K/A 4108 N. Tamiami Trail; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process and conduct the oath. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time the petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes to for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and be sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: JOHN RINGLING BRIDGE REPLACEMENT REJECTED 65-FOOT FIXED SPAN BRIDGE; REQUESTED THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PRESENT A NUMERICAL EVALUATION; SUPPORTED A NEW-BUILD ALTERNATIVE IF A NEW BUILD IS THE CHOSEN ALTERNATIVE OF A HEIGHT BETWEEN 21 AND 28 FEET WITH NO HIGHER THAN A THREE PERCENT (3%) GRADE (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) #1 (0955) through #3 (0638) Dennis Daughters, City Engineer, came before the Commission to give the sequence of the Public Hearing: that the first step is to review the process for decision making; that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Greiner Engineering will make a short presentation of the viable alternatives; that the recommendation of the City Engineer and endorsement of the City Manager will be given; that the Public Hearing will be opened and public comments received; that the Public Hearing will be closed and discussion will be held among the Commission to select the preferred alternative; and that it is requested that the Administration be directed to submit that preferred alternative to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the FDOT. Mr. Daughters stated that the purpose of the Public Hearing is to receive comments from the public to assist in the Commission's recommendation to the MPO and the FDOT; that the City's action is advisory to the MPO and to the FDOT and is not a final decision, but is significant input to both of those bodies; that the FDOT will hold their Public Hearing on November 4, 1993, and the MPO will vote on their final recommendation on November 22, 1993; and that the FDOT will make the final decision with the advice of the Federal Highway Administration. Nancy Bright, Project Manager for the FDOT, and Dick Combs, Project Manager for Greiner Engineering, came before the Commission to make their presentation on the viable bridge alternatives. Mr. Combs stated that when the project began, a corridor location study was completed encompassing 10th Street to the north and Mound Street to the south; that 14 corridor alternatives were possible; that some of the considerations as to where the corridor should be or the location of the bridge, included structure design, changes in current traffic patterns, other necessary roadway improvements, right-of-way acquisition, visual impacts, noise impacts, impacts to the physical and natural environment (i.e. seagrass), Section 4 (f) impacts which are associated with park land, relocation of people, navigation channel relocation; that consideration was given to the Corps of Engineers' turning requirements for turning within a channel; and that some alternatives would require redredging of the present channel. Book 35 Page 9680 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9681 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Mr. Combs stated that the study recommended that the existing alignment was the most viable area for study; that three (3) of the four (4) viable alternatives are north and adjacent to the present day bridge; that the E1 alternative is a 21-foot bascule-type bridge which is a drawbridge that opens for boating traffic; that all of the alternatives except the "no-build" option incorporate increasing the 10-foot lanes to 12-foot lanes; that the bridge will still have the same number of lanes; and that the bridge would also incorporate wide shoulders as well as bicycles and sidewalk facilities. Mr. Combs continued that some of the noteworthy points about the E1 alternative (the 21-foot drawbridge) are that it would incorporate a three percent (3%) grade; that the touchdown points would not change; that the visual intrusion to the area would be similar to the present; and that it would not require any of the intracoastal to be realigned. Mr. Combs stated that the E2 alternative is a new bridge, 45 feet in height located north of the existing bridge; that the impacts to the human environment and the physical and natural environment are similar to the E1 alternative; that seagrass disruption, and noise considerations would be similar to all alternatives; that the E2 alternative would incorporate a three percent (3%) grade; that the touchdown points would be longer than the existing 21-foot bridge; and that the tie in would be a few hundred feet on either side of the existing bridge. Mr. Combs continued that the E3 alternative is a 65-foot fixed-bridge; that the natural impacts are similar to the other two (2) alternatives; that a five percent (5%) grade is necessary to lessen the touchdown points; that a five percent (5%) grade is acceptable within the standards of pedestrians and bicycles; that the bridge would be similar to the other alternatives in impacts with respect to the physical and natural environment; and that there are concerns with the 65-foot bridge regarding the potential visual impacts. Mr. Combs stated that the last alternative is the "no-build" option; that the "no-build" alternative is to replace and repair the mechanism in the present bascule or draw span and repair the concrete structure; that with the "no-build" alternative a maximum bridge life of 25 years is expected at which time the bridge would require replacement. Mr. Combs stated that the E1 (21 foot) and E2 (45 foot) alternatives are draw bridges; that the E3 (65 foot) alternative is the fixed-span bridge; that the "no-build" alternative is a repair to the existing facility; that a 100% reduction in bridge openings is expected with the fixed bridge; that 45% of the boats currently requiring a bridge openings could pass under the 45-foot bridge; that the 21-foot bridge is status quo; that the Coast Guard has a requirement with any new bridge for an open on demand schedule; that the 21-foot or 45-foot bascule option would require a demand- type schedule; that after a period of one or two years the FDOT could perform studies that would result in a schedule; that bay bottom impacts with respect to physical disruptions are identical in all alternatives; that the 65-foot bridge and the "no-build" option would not require any involvement in Section 4(f) property impacts at Bird Key Park, whereas E1 and E2 alternatives would; that the visual impacts are a primary consideration; that the 21- foot bridge would have identical visual intrusion as the present bridge; that the 45-foot bridge would have a direct impact on three (3) residences backing up to the causeway on Seagull Lane; and that five (5) residences would be directly impacted by the high-level bridge. Mr. Combs stated that the construction cost of the E1 (21-foot) alternative is $33,600,000; that the E2 (45-foot) bridge alternative is $33,900,000; that the E3 (65-foot) fixed span alternative is $27,400,000; that the "no-build" option is $2,900,000; that a life-cycle costs analysis was conducted; that assumptions were eliminated to simplify the bottom-line cost total; that today's dollars were used without accounting for inflation; that over a 75- year life, with the operations involved with maintaining the mechanism, the 21-foot bridge would total $41,660,000 and the 45-foot bascule would total 41,960,000; that the 65-foot bridge span eliminates the draw mechanism and would total $28,950,000; that the "no-build" alternative would have an initial cost of $2,900,000, but that the bridge would last only another 25 years; therefore, construction of another 21-foot bascule bridge was factored in at a cost of $33,600,000 plus maintenance and operation costs over a 50 year period with the total cost being $44,580,000 over a 75-year life. Commissioner Merrill stated that most financial analysts would advocate that a discounted cash flow is the most informative; that the dilemma with discounting current dollars is that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar in the future; that if the $33,600,000 from the 25 years out were discounted, it would be perhaps a third of a discounted cash flow; that he takes issue with the bottom line because it is very misleading from a true, proper financial analysis; that since it has been done over a 75-year period, the "no-build" alternative still has a third of its life left which has not been incorporated; that he would argue it is the most inexpensive with another third of life remaining at the end of the analysis period. Mr. Combs stated that the analysis was developed to be easy to understand. Book 35 Page 9682 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9683 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill asked Mr. Combs if he had a financial background? Mr. Combs answered no. Commissioner Merrill continued that the inflated value could be discounted and the cost' would still be a third of what is presented; that the impression created is that the "no-build" alternative is the most expensive; however, the analysis is not the best analysis; that with changing technology, an advantage to building a new bridge in 25 years that the analysis did not incorporate, is the advantage in flexibility; that in 25 years the City could build a bridge that may be needed; that today there is no real need of deficiency except for the draw mechanism; that it is a benefit to consider building a new bridge in 25 years which will incorporate future technology; and that a larger issue is not just the life of the construction, but actually the functional life span of the bridge. Mr. Combs stated that he did not know what the technology would be 25 years from now; that the technology has not been accounted for in the analysis; that technology is a difficult thing to speculate; that the financial analysis can be redone; that inflation will have to be considered; that construction costs will have to be speculated; that efforts had been made to normalize these considerations in this analysis. Commissioner Merrill stated that revised calculation should be used for future Public Hearings. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Commissioner Merrill's point regarding transportation 25 years in the future is valid. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the "no-build" alternative was selected would the timed openings would stay the same as they are now? Ms. Bright stated that was correct. Commissioner Cardamone asked what are the timed openings? Ms. Bright replied every half-hour. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Longboat Key, Lido Key, and St. Armand's Circle, are almost built out and asked if it had been anticipated that there will be a significant increase in traffic which will warrant a bridge to flow traffic faster from the key to the mainland and back, and whether any projections of population have been done to substantiate the opinion she has given that these islands are not being slated for any major development in the future? Ms. Bright stated that the traffic used for the study was developed through the Sarasota/Manatee Area Transportation Studies (SMATS) long range transportation plan which does consider the land use and the transportation network that is anticipated up to the year 2010; that, although it can be assumed that more residential building, etc., would not occur in those areas, those areas attract travelers from the mainland for business or the beach; that the mainland is growing and the traffic is expected to growi that from the SMATS model, traffic is expected to grow. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if it had been considered how the "no- build" alternative could be accomplished with minimal inconvenience to residents and business people that use the bridge on a daily basis? Mr. Combs replied that there would be some inconveniences to the motoring public; that there would be short periods of time, when the bridge may be temporarily closed during repairs to the draw mechanism; that repairs would be completed during low periods of traffic, at night for instance; that time lengths have not been reviewed; that the types of necessary repairs would cause some minor inconveniences; that the bridge would be up for periods of time; that work done while the bridge is closed, would have no effect on the motorist, but the boating traffic would be inconvenienced; that the inconveniences would be kept to a minimum. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the study indicates that the length of the 21-foot bridge and the 45-foot bridge would be identical at 2,585 feet; that the grade of three percent (3%) is the same; that the height of one is 45 feet and the other is 21 feet; that this seems impossible. Mr. Combs stated that the actual structure length is what is being addressed; that the comparison does not account for the area coming onto either the mainland side or the Bird Key side which would not be on piles; that the land based approach would be longer for the 45-foot bridge; that the physical structure supported by piers would be the same. Mr. Combs continued that the information on the E2 (45-foot) alternative should read five percent (5%), not three percent (3%). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City Manager and the City Engineer have based their recommendation on the incorrect grade material presented to the Commission. Mr. Combs stated that the impact information for the E2 (45-foot) alternative is based on the five percent (5%); that the three percent (3%) grade is a typographical error; that he apologizes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that any difficulty encountered by bicyclists, walkers, etc., would be the same for the 45-foot bridge and the 65-foot bridge. Commissioner Merrill stated that one of the advantages of the "no- build" option according to the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Study is that it provides minimal disruptions; that apparently the other options must have greater disruptions than the "no-build" alternative. Book 35 Page 9684 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9685 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Mr. Combs stated that construction of a new bridge would not be an inconvenience because the bridge structure would be adjacent to the present bridge; that traffic would be maintained on the present bridge while construction occurred on the new bridge; that the inconveniences would occur when the new bridge is connected to the existing roadwayi that the roadway would not be closed, but traffic would operate through a construction zone at lower speeds. Mayor Pillot stated that the "no-build" option will have disruption periodically throughout the repairs, whereas building a new bridge will have the disruption only at the end when the bridge is tied back into the existing roadway. Mr. Combs stated that was correct. Commissioner Merrill stated that the impression being given is that the "no-build" option will result in greater disruption; that one of the advantages of the "no-build" option listed is that it provides minimal disruption during repairs; that he is assuming that the minimal disruption is one of the advantages of the "no- build". Mr. Combs stated that minimal disruption is one of the advantages of the "no-build" option. City Engineer Daughters asked Ms. Bright and Mr. Combs to review the view point graphics which were requested by the Commission. Ms. Bright stated that computer enhancements were done on specific view points of the bridge to show the appearance of the alternatives. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she was one of the people that asked the City Manager to provide the Commission with clear graphics of what the bridges would look like; that she thought the Commission would be presented with graphs and charts and line drawings showing bridges superimposed sO that the Commission could see landfalls, heights, and grades. Commissioner Cardamone asked City Manager Sollenberger if the pictures presented were what he asked for? City Manager Sollenberger stated that he requested views from different perspectives; that he requested a comparison with the Maximo Bridge; that he requested that the visuals be on slides; that he is disappointed with the presentation thus far. Mayor Pillot asked Mr. Combs and Ms. Bright to show the materials which are the most easily understood and provide the greatest explacation. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would like to see all of the visuals; that most of the visuals have been exposed to the task force; that in making a recommendation, the Commission should be as knowledgeable as the task force. Mr. Combs showed a plan view of the bridge alternatives and explained the touch down points of the various bridges. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the location of the 21-foot bridge touchdown point in front of Bird Key, the point at which the roadway will hit the current grade level with 45-foot high structure, and where a 35-foot high structure would hit grade. Mr. Combs pointed to the areas on the plan. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if a 35-foot structure would be elevated in front of two (2) of the five (5) homes on Seagull Lane? Mr. Combs stated that was correct. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she was concerned with the opposite end for residents on Golden Gate Point and the condos on the Bayfront to the north, and asked whether the landing point is just before the stop signal? Mr. Combs replied that the stop signal was not the touchdown point, but rather the area where the bridge ties back into the existing road. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the 35-foot bridge appeared to be a five percent (5%) grade. Mr. Combs stated that was incorrect; that the 35-foot bridge was a three percent (3%) grade. Commissioner Cardamone further stated that the visuals being shown were not the visuals requested. Vice Mayor Patterson asked what the maximum height would be in front of the homes on Seagull Lane on Bird Key with a 45-foot high bridge? Mr. Combs replied that the maximum height would be 10-feet above the current height. Mr. Combs presented and explained the various computer-generated pictures of the 21-foot, 45-foot, and 65-foot bridges from different perspectives. Mr. Combs also showed drawings of the 45- foot bridge and the 65-foot bridge. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the number of boats which. would pass through the various bridges alternatives had been quantified and if the number of times the bridge would be opened and closed would be impacted if there was a 45-foot bridge that accommodated 45% of the boats? Mr. Combs stated that bridge openings would not be impacted. Commissioner Merrill questioned how much of the opening time is taken up in the arms lifting up? Mr. Combs stated that it takes the bridge approximately five (5) minutes to open and close. Book 35 Page 9686 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9687 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that although the 45-foot bridge reduces the number of bridge openings, there would still be one boat every half hour waiting for the bridge to open; that people she has talked to have sailboats which require a 45-foot bridge to open. Mr. Combs stated that the height requirement in the Sarasota area is above the industry standard. Mr. Sollenberger stated that there were two (2) Commissioners who requested a comparison of the various views with the Maximo bridge; that it was requested of the FDOT and the consultant to provide the comparison; that he would like to have that view presented now. Ms. Bright stated that the FDOT has a video tape driving over a five percent (5%) grade, 65-foot fixed structure at Fort Pierce, not the Maximo Bridge, but identical to the Maximo Bridge in length, grade, and height clearance. Mr. Sollenberger stated that was not what he had asked for; that the Commission wanted a rendering which would show the plan views from the side; that he thought he made that clear when he met with Ms. Bright; that he had also asked for slides so the audience could see the same thing the Commission was seeing. Mr. Daughters came before the Commission and stated that the recommendation of the City Engineer was based on the information which was presented in the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Study documents and attendance at meetings; that according to the data provided, the 45-foot bridge was a three percent (3%) grade. Mayor Pillot stated that since the information given was erroneous, would it modify the recommendation? Mr. Sollenberger stated that it would. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he gave the Commission a letter of recommendation supporting the 45-foot bridge; that the recommendation was based on a three percent (3%) grade rather than a five percent (5%) grade; that the FDOT is making the recommendation for the (65-foot) fixed span because their business is moving vehicular traffic; that the bridge serves more of a transportation purpose than just vehicular traffic; that the transportation purpose also includes pedestrians and bicyclists; that since the 45-foot bridge does not have a three percent (3%) grade, he can no longer recommend that bridge; that he recommends the 21-foot bridge alternative sO that it can accommodate all transportation needs. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she heard that a 35-foot high bridge would be a three percent (3%) grade. Mr. Combs stated that he made an error in stating that the 35-foot bridge would be three percent (3%) grade; that the correct grade is five percent (5%). Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. Mr. Gene Gouch, 628 Owl Way, representing the Ringling Replacement Bridge Task Force came before the Commission and stated that he is shocked with what he has heard tonight; that he spent 18 months going to meetings to analyze the replacement of the Ringling Bridge; that 18 months ago former Mayor Jack Gurney gave the task force their purpose and objective; that the task force was to tell the Commission what kind of a bridge would be most practical, etc.; that 14 or 15 people have spent 18 months listening to the Greiner people, the FDOT, and the MPO; that what bothers him is that the Commission has not asked for the task force's recommendation. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Gouch is placed first to speak because he was a member of the task force; that the Commission does value the recommendation of the task force. Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Gouch was the only member signed up to speak identified as a member of the bridge task force. Commissioner Merrill stated that the task force was from the MPO and not from the City; that former Mayor Gurney was speaking to the task force as Chairman of the MPO at the time. Mr. Gouch stated that he was not an engineer; that he was trained as an industrial designer; that a prudent judgement could not be made from what was presented tonight; that the task force recommendation was for a new 21-foot bridge; that there was a 9-5 vote selecting the 21-foot bascule bridge to be built north of the present bridge; that to provide entrance to Hart's Landing and to repair the Tony Sapiro fishing pier; that the Commission should consider the traffic light which has been approved for the departure ramp of the Ringling Causeway Bridge; that there will be three (3) new traffic lights; that there will be problems regardless of bridge size, if previous studies prove correct. Ms. Lydia McIntire, 461 E. Royal Flamingo, member of the Ringling Replacement Bridge Task Force representing the Coalition of City Neighborhoods came before the Commission and stated that it has been an interesting, irritating, and frustrating experience; that some of the information requested was not provided by the FDOT; that some of the data provided at the Public Hearing was not shown to the task force; that at the last meeting almost every bridge height was discussed; that there was a vote taken on the 65-foot bridge which lost five (5) to nine (9); that a motion was on the floor and it was amended for a 35-foot bridge which was felt to be an accommodation for the people wanting a higher bridge and that Book 35 Page 9688 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9689 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. motion was also defeated with a tie vote; that the motion was made for a 21-foot bridge which passed by a nine (9) to five (5) vote; that no in-between heights were discussed; that there are many varieties between 21-feet and 28-feet that would work; that much time was spent discussing traffic and the effects of the various height;that traffic could move quickly across the 65-foot bridge only to run into multiple traffic lights in either direction and resulting in delays; that there was discussion about safety; and that the greatest problem for evacuation are the flood waters on the ground sO the height of the bridge will not matter for evacuation. Ms. McIntire further stated that both the 45-foot and 65-foot bridges intrude upon neighbors; that there is the intrusion across the property on Bird Key; that there is some indirect visual intrusion on the City side when the 65-foot bridge comes down to tie in; that all bascules are bulky, but a 45-foot bridge may be bulkier because of the bascule and larger support posts; that there is bulkiness which is an intrusion and this should be considered; that a low bridge was the choice of a majority vote of the task force; that since a 21-foot bridge was presented, no other alternatives between 21-feet and 35-feet were discussed; that the pridge will be there for generations to come; that she has put a great deal of her life into Sarasota; that a large intrusion should not be put into the bay; that the Coalition of Neighborhoods Board directed her to keep as close to the present bridge as possible; and that she has tried to carry through with the Coalition Board's recommendation. Mr. Edward Rausenberger. 101 Seagull Lane, representing himself, came before the Commission and stated that he was a back-up member for Gene Gouch on the task force as a representative of Bird Keyi that for the purpose of this Commission, he is representing himself; that seven (7) years ago he bought a house on Bird Key; that the fact that a bascule bridge existed and made landfall on Bird Key had no negative impact on his decision to buy; that now the question of a high-rise or bascule bridge comes up because the bridge needs to be replaced; that a high-rise fixed bridge or anything more than a 21-foot bascule would be an absolute disaster not only for Bird Key but for all of Sarasota; that he implores the Commission to think very carefully before voting on something that could destroy the beauty of the bay. Mr. Guy H. Hill, 641 N. Owl Drive, representing himself, came before the Commission and stated that he lives on Bird Key; that he has listened to the procedures tonight and he is most impressed with the perspicacity and the inquiring minds of the Commission; that he suspects that a lot of people will present allegations that might be apocryphal; that there will be arguments that the new bridge will be a structure to be proud of, a matter of aesthetics to be considered; that he does not think the aesthetics are valid; that he understands that the bridge will not only be 65-feet at the top, it will be closer to 95-feet; that the task force voted nine (9) to five (5) for a new 21-foot bascule bridge; that perhaps the reason the "no-build" bridge was not considered is because the cost presented was 44 million dollars; that Commissioner Merrill pointed out that figure may be skewed; that given a more accurate figure, the task force may have chosen the "no-build" option; that he implores the Commission not to be led down the primrose path; that the risk of emergency patients dying while the bridge is open is not in the report; that the people that deplore the opening of the bridge now as they come to visit Sarasota year after year prove that they can tolerate the present bridge; that those who live in Sarasota are greatly worried about the impact of the 65-foot bridge, not only financial, but even more so because of the loss of the unique beauty of Sarasota Bay. Mr. Roger Compton, 11 Sunset Drive Apt. 506, representing himself, came before the Commission and stated that he is an automotive engineer with 30 years of automotive and transportation experience; that he is a member of the task force and has been since the third meeting; that the rather expensive and extensive presentation by Greiner had failed to give a visual of what the 65-foot bridge would look like; that if the Boston Bank building was put on a barge and placed in the middle of the bay where the middle of the bridge would be with ramps going up to the bridge from each side, a very good visual picture of the 65-foot bridge would be presented; that this example, which was presented by another task force member, did not cost a lot of money and gives a good mental picture; that another way to visualize is to stand at a certain point when the bridge is up, and imagine a new bridge at the top of the vertical point where the bridge span opens; that the statement the bridge would have to open on demand if the bridge were rebuilt or modified was based on a letter from Mike Guy, MPO Executive Director to the Coast Guard which was answered by a form letter; that he worked for government for a number of years and knows how form letters work; that the information in the form letter is not true; that the opening on demand is not a regulation by the Coast Guard or the Federal Government; that it is a general policy that when a new bridge is performing a new function in a new area, a year period of opening and closing is required in order to establish the opening and closing pattern; that a deviation would be allowed as a routine matter if a written request is made to the Coast Cuard Admiral; that the task force was put in the predicament of having to exclude other routes for this bridge by the strict requirement that this is a replacement bridge and transportation problems were not to be considered; that there are severe bottlenecks now; that these bottlenecks control the traffic, and vehicles will be stopped by a traffic light so it does not matter when the bridge opens or closes. Book 35 Page 9690 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9691 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone asked Mr. Hill if he had access to a copy of the letter stating there is just a general policy applying to new bridges and new locations? Mr. Hill replied that Marlow Cook, a distinguished member of the task force, was to investigate the policy through Congressional Representative Dan Miller. Mrs. Marcelle Wolf, 445 Mckinley Drive, representing the Lido Key Residents Association, came before the Commission and stated that she is a member of the Ringling Replacement Bridge Task Force and has been since the first meeting; that she is represents the Lido Key Residents Association; that Lido Key is bound to the west by the Gulf of Mexico and to the east by Sarasota Bay; that it is made up of private residences, rental units, and condominiums; that Lido residents are year-round residents, snowbirds, and vacationers; that at every meeting the Association had, the bridge was discussed; that at the annual meeting a poll was taken and there was unanimous approval for a 65-foot bridge; that the people of Lido Key do not want a bridge that opens; that the people are worried about getting to the mainland and getting back; that there has been discussion of what it will look like to have a new bridge; that there is no reason why this bridge can not be a beautiful bridge; that it is also the job of the Ringling Replacement Bridge Task Force to supervise the design of how the bridge is going to look from the ground and from the air; that it is incorrect to say that this bridge is going to be ugly without seeing any design; that she thinks considering all the facts that Greiner brought the task force, it is financially irresponsible not to choose the 65- foot bridge; and that this decision needs to be looked at over the long haul and not over the next five (5), ten (10) or 15 years. Ms. Mary Ouillin, 407 Cocoanut Ave, representing herself, came before the Commission and stated that she had signed up for herself; that Mr. John Nugent (member of the Ringling Bridge Replacement Task Force) could not attend tonight and was an advocate of the "no-build" option, but with information stating there would have to be a new bridge, he was in favor of the 21-foot bridge; that she is not in favor of a 65-foot bridge; that she does not feel the 45-foot bridge is much better; that the assets of our city need to be preserved; that one of the assets is Sarasota Bayi that she is disappointed that the (FDOT) did not bring data on the 35-foot bridge or something in between to compare with the 21-foot bridge; that she thinks that the citizens could live very well with a 21-foot bridge; that a 21-foot bridge is not much larger than the current bridge; that the impact the City has had with the traffic coming off the barrier islands has been increased over the past years; that the increase is due to the population increase of the barrier islands; that she suggests that the Commission ask Longboat Key to go to the State of Florida and request their own bridge. Vice Mayor Patterson asked Ms. Quillin what was meant by her statement regarding a 21-foot high replacement bridge because it would be almost the same height as the present bridge? Ms. Quillin indicated that information she obtained stated the existing bridge is lower than 21-feet. Ms. Quillin stated that the City should ask the State for a rebate on the current bridge because it did not live through its life expectancy and it was paid for with tax dollars. Ms. Duchess Tomasello, 777 John Ringling #25, representing Sarasota Harbour East, came before the Commission and stated that she lives at Sarasota Harbour East and represented such on the Ringling Replacement Bridge Task Force; that she was a member of the task force for nearly a year and resigned because in her opinion the task force was not doing anything; that she is an advocate of the 65-foot fixed-span bridge; that she watches the bridge go up and down twelve times a day through her front window; that she breathes all the fumes from the traffic backed-up all the way to the St. Armand's Circle on one end, and who knows how long on the other end; that she thinks that Sarasota is no longer a small fishing village; that the citizens are going to have to bow to progress; that she remembers being in Miami on Key Biscayne 25 years ago when it was impossible to get off the island on Sundays; that then the fixed-span was constructed; that the cities in Florida which have progressed all have fixed-spans Punta Gorda, Fort Myers, Fort Pierce, Miami, Daytona, St. Petersburg, etc..; that a fixed-span of 65-feet would be beautiful; that she will be looking at the bridge because it is in her view; that she is also looking at the traffic; that there was one small accident today and there was traffic backed up almost to the Circle, and this is not even the season; and that she is begging the Commission to consider the 65-foot fixed-span because it is the only way to keep Sarasota moving. Mrs. Patricia Green, 1201 Center Place, representing herself, came before the Commission and stated that she lives on Lido Shores; that she hopes the Commission maintains the beauty of the bay and does not consider anything other than a 21-foot bridge; that when driving over the existing bridge, it feels as if you can trail your fingers in the water, a very unique experience; that most cities do not have that experience to offer; and that Sarasota has something very special here and it should not be lost. Mr. Dave Green, 1201 Center Place, representing himself, came before the Commission and stated that he understands that the Commission has worked under tremendous difficulties including a lack of information, and changing information; that he is in favor of the 21-foot bridge; that 18 months ago, bascule could not even be pronounced; that the task force voted seven (7) to seven (7) to repair the existing bridge; that after the vote, the task force was told there was not any money to repair the bridge anyway which was Book 35 Page 9692 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9693 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. disappointing; that none of the people who travel the bridge to work either to Longboat Key or Sarasota came to the hearings; that the residents are happy with the way that it is; that the big gripe seems to be from retirees going to Van Wezel who miss the opening number because the bridge goes upi that the following voted in support of the 21-foot bascule bridge: Golden Key Point, St. Armand's Key Home Owners' Associations, Cedar Point, Heart's Landing, Coalition of City Neighborhood Association, The Downtown Association, Lido Shores, Bird Key, and their Chairman; that the following voted against the motion: Coon Key, Mote Marine Laboratories, Lido Key, Federation of Longboat Key Condominiums, and St. Armand's Key Merchants' Association; that the aesthetics were the primary consideration of those voting in favor of the 21- foot bridge; that the audience response was affirmative and outpouring with enthusiasm when the vote was taken; that there is information on the boat count; that the count was taken on January 19, 1993, and 364 vessels were involved in the surveyi that there is a model which was shown once at a public hearing which was very effective and not shown again; that there are visuals to be seen; that the Lido Shores group asked to have the model shown again; that the response was that there would be a cost associated with showing it; and that he hopes the Commission chooses the 21-foot bridge. Ms. Susann Soran, representing. herself, came before the Commission and stated that she lives on Bird Key and is a full-time resident; that she crosses the bridge ten (10) to 20 times a day; that she urges the City Commission to support the Ringling Replacement Bridge Task Force recommendation; that they did a fantastic job considering the information presented to them; that they were being sold a 65-foot bridge; that they had to do a lot of research themselves; that a 65-foot bridge will actually be 74-feet, three (3) times higher than the current bridge; that people were mislead by statements that the higher bridge would be safer; that the Emergency Evacuation Authority presented at a task force meeting testimony that they would prefer shorter approaches to the bridge; that the Coast Guard dictates that the bridge would not be opened for boat traffic when winds exceeded 39 miles an hour; that a bridge which opens does not hamper evacuation in any way; that the aesthetics is the most important thing; that Greiner stated that there were five (5) homes that would be impacted; that she lives .5 or .75 mile away from the bridge; that those who use the bay (boaters, residents on the mainland, residents on Siesta) are visually impacted; that she and her husband went by boat to see the Maximo Bridge; that looking at a drawing does not give the same effect; that the Maximo Bridge is a four percent (4%) grade; that she is concerned about the five (5%) grade; and that she hopes the Commission takes a close look at the visual impact because a 65- foot bridge would have a detrimental impact in the bay. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission was told a five (5%) grade was the maximum acceptable grade for a biker or a walker; that the grade was not just à difficult grade, but the maximum; that the grade has been a conçern of the Commission. Mr. Dennis Hart, 400 Sinclair Drive, representing himself, came before the Commission and stated that he is a task force member; that he is representing himself as a citizen tonight. Mr. Hart presented a picture from the Sarasota Herald Tribune of Sunset Drive looking west over the bridge and stated that he took a survey of people crossing the bridge; that in approximately 1.25 hours, he counted 19 people that either jogged, walked or rode a bicycle over the bridge; that the grade is a big impact on pedestrian traffic. Mayor Pillot asked Mr. Hart how long his family had been operating a business at the bridge? Mr. Hart stated that his family has been at the foot of the John Ringling Causeway for 59 years. Mr. Hart continued that the survey conducted by the FDOT on the bridge openings was done in January; that the time of openings at this time of year are for motor yachts which are 45- to 48- foot boats that require another five (5) feet maximum to reduce the openings on a year-round basis; that the reduction in openings should be considered on a year-round basis; that the vote was nine (9) to five (5) by the task force for a 21-foot drawbridge; that it was a wonderful opportunity to serve on the task force; that a survey mentioned by the Chamber of Commerce stated that the most recreational time spent in Sarasota was watching Sarasota Bay; that a 65-foot bridge would be detrimental to that recreation time; that the lights on the current bridge are the approximate height of the 45-foot bridge; that he likes the idea of Sarasota remaining a little fishing village and would like to keep it that way; that the FDOT closed the bridge down during the March 13, 1993, storm when the winds reached 39 mph; that the bridge tenders are minimum wage personnel; and that the bridge tenders could be better trained. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she has a discomfort with the recommendation of the task force; that some outriggers have the option to be lowered; that it is necessary to lower the outriggers on a 30-foot power boat to go under the Ringling Bridge; that the outriggers do not have to be lowered to go under the Siesta Key bridge; that the Siesta Key Bridge is not an imposing structure; that the Siesta Key Bridge goes over a narrower body of water; that a three (3) to five (5) foot difference may save opening the bridge to power buats; that a minimal sacrifice in grade may occur if the compromise is made. Mr. Hart stated that he thinks the Siesta Key Bridge is 25-feet; that his personnel opinion would be for a bridge of 25- or 28-feet; that during the task force meetings different heights of the Book 35 Page 9694 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9695 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. drawbridges were requested; that Greiner and FDOT had some contingencies with producing the information. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the boating population should be taken into consideration; that if the "no-build" option is not chosen and a new bridge costing almost 40 million dollars is to be built, it would be nice to gain some advantage without cost to the bikers, joggers, or visual impact to the area; and that people bike and jog across Siesta Key (Bridge) constantly. Mr. Hart stated that about five (5) years ago, the FDOT had to pour epoxy resin around the outside edges of the pillars underneath the bridge; that the work which has already been performed should be addressed in considering the "no-build" option; that the bridge has been in salt water everyday for the past 45 years. Mr. Jim Lewy, 360 W. Royal Ralmingo Drive, representing himself, came before the Commission and stated that he finds it difficult to believe that the Commission could make an intelligent decision tonight based on the confusing information presented; that officials of the FDOT had stated that all but four percent (4%) of the masted boats would be able to pass under a 65-foot bridge; that he has a close personal friend that had a heart attack on the Longboat Key side of the Longboat Key Bridge; that a helicopter was called to transport him; that he is scared to think of a similar circumstance happening at the Ringling Bridge; that he has lived on Bird Key for nine (9) years and Sarasota for 30 years; and that he thinks the best possible option is the 65-foot bridge. Ms. Kaffy Benz, 13084 Airgate, representing Uplands, came before the Commission and stated that she is the President of the Uplands Association which is a member of the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations; that she has attended most of the workshops held for the citizens regarding the bridge; that erroneous information has consistently been presented which has led to poor decisions; that the no-build concept was one of the most acceptable; that Sarasota has a physical location that is the envy of many communities throughout the country; that the bay and bayfront beauty is one of Sarasota's precious assets; that if a bridge is built higher than the present one, only the sky will be seen as you drive over that bridge; that the beautiful bay, the boats, or the fish jumping will no longer be seen; that she regards the times when she is stopped by the opening of the bridge to be a beautiful time to open her windows and watch the boats float by, the fish jump and the birds fly by; that there will be no advantage to building a new bridge; that there will be no advantage in evacuation; that there will be a visual block; that the current height is approximately 17 feet; that 21-feet would not be much more than the current height; that putting a barrier in the middle of the lanes could cause problems; that no barrier permits vehicles to turn around and get off a bridge if it malfunctions; that this should be a consideration; that she would not want to see a bridge higher than 21-feet; and that a good deal of the citizens feel the same way. Mayor Pillot asked Ms. Bright the height of the current bridge? Ms. Bright replied that the lowest number is 17 feet on the edge; that the clearance in the center is 21 feet; that the reference is that a 21-foot bridge would have the same clearance to the waterway as the current bridge. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Ernest Kretzmer, 118 N. Polk Drive, representing himself, came before the Commission and stated that he is full-time resident of Lido Key; that he is a typical island resident; that he is a retired engineer; that he has spoken to people and visualized the proposed bridge from various angles; that he concludes that a fixed-span is necessary because the bridge is a major artery; that the fixed-span is the only alternative that offers uninterrupted traffic flow; that traffic lights operate at a much higher frequency than the bridge; that there is regular gridlock into St. Armand's Circle during season; that the roadway is available only 20 minutes out of 30 minutes; that there is not a full traffic capacity as there would be with a full-time road; that the height issue should be discussed in terms of the roadway height and not the clearance for the boats. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:47 p.m. Mr. Kretzmer continued that a new 65-foot ridge would be 76 feet high on the roadway; that the present roadway is 34-feet high according to information supplied by the FDOT; that of 1847 polled votes by the FDOT, 90% favored the fixed-span bridge; that the other poll published by the Sarasota Herald Tribune on July 4th indicated that 73% of the 932 polled voters favored the fixed-span bridge; that there should be a democratic process; that he lives here for the beauty of the bay; that he does not feel that the present bridge is beautiful; that the under structure looks ugly; that a properly designed higher bridge can be beautiful; that with today's technology the pillars will be sleeker and spaced further apart; that the bridge will not look as massive because it will be curved; that he worries about getting to the hospital and the airport on time; that present-day traffic especially at peak season is no longer compatible with the drawbridge; and that he strongly pleads that the Commission consider a modern day fixed-span bridge. Mr. Paul Thorpe, 47 S. Palm Avenue, representing The Downtown Association, came before the Commission and stated that the Downtown Association did support the task force vote; that the Downtown Association felt that there was much information lacking at the time of the vote; that the FDOT has done a poor job of Book 35 Page 9696 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9697 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. presenting the program to the task force as well as to the City Commission; that the only options presented were the 21-foot, 45- foot or 65-foot alternatives; that the power boats should have been considered by the FDOT; that Dennis Hart has seen the activity at the bridge and is speaking from experience; and that consideration should be given for a bridge between 21-feet and 30-feet. Ms. Virginia Haley, 1646 S. Orange Avenue, Chairman, Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations, came before the Commission and stated that they were represented by Lydia McIntire and John Nugent at the task force meetings; that the Coalition would like to see the lower bridge; that the footprint height concerns them as neighborhood people; that the lower bridges have less effect on neighborhoods; that the Coalition is concerned about the grade; that their members like to take their bikes over the bridge; that families with small children cross the bridge; that they would like to see a user-friendly bridge; that the Coast Guard usually listens when elected officials, state officials, and congressional people make requests; and that the opening/closing schedule could be addressed fairly easily when the Commission selects the lower bridge. Mr. Bruce Franklin, 149 Cocoanut Avenue, representing himself, came before the Commission and stated that the FDOT and their consultants have done their job; that they have brought alternatives to the Commission; that the letter dated September 20, 1993, from Mr. Gerald Kerrigan states that the FDOT's recommended approach is for a 65-foot bridge. Mr. Franklin read the following excerpt from the September 20, 1993, letter: "However, the Department understands that there are different local and community concerns which may lead to a preference of another alternative. For these reasons, the Department has three other viable alternatives that will also be presented." Mr. Franklin stated that these alternatives have been presented; that the information brought forth here from the public is important; that he suggests that there should be an initial expression of preference; that it should be the aesthetic issue; that Sarasota Bay is a premier vista; that it should be treated with care; that he was the one who presented the graphic of the Bank of Boston building in the middle of the bay; that he will leave a blown up picture of the Nagshead Bridge being evacuated in North Carolina; that the Nagshead Bridge is a 65-foot span clearance; and that the Commission should think more clearly about a 21-foot or 28-foot bridge. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson referred to a letter received from the Mayor James Brown of Longboat Key stating that the Commission should remember that the Ringling Bridge is not just a bridge of convenience for people who travel across it. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson read the following excerpt from the letter: "One final thought: If your Commission decides to vote for something other than "no drawbridge", please take into consideration the Coast Guard warning that we will have to go two years without timed bridge openings." There was no one else signed up to speak and the public hearing was closed. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the final decision on the bridge will be made by the Florida Department of Transportation; that the FDOT will take into account recommendations from the City Commission and the MPO; that if the recommendations of the City and the MPO concur, the FDOT will pay considerable attention to the recommendations; that the City Commission can only reflect the desires of the community; that the results of this public hearing will be furnished to the MPO; that the FDOT will be apprised of the recommendation. Mr. Sollenberger stated that there is a concern with the impact of disruption of traffic with the "no-build" alternative; that the disruption concern weighs in the Administration's recommendation for a new bridge rather than a no-build bridge. Commissioner Merrill stated that the "no-build" option presented minimal disruption according to the FDOT report; that apparently the work could be done at night; that during construction there would be a transition period; that the FDOT's position actually differs from the Administration's on the disruption levels. Mr. Sollenberger stated the Commissioner Merrill was correct; that the information the FDOT provided on the 45-foot bridge and the grade differed also. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to request the idea of building a 65-foot high fixed-span bridge be rejected by the FDOT. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to request the Florida Department of Transportation and their engineering consultants to present a numerical evaluation of both the costs and the potential disruption of a no new bridge alternative. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 35 Page 9698 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9699 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to recommend that the FDOT and its consultant consider a new bridge between the heights of 21 and 28 feet if the repair option is found not to be feasible. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson it was moved to amend the main motion to recommend a grade not steeper than three (3) percent. Amendment carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is concerned with the environmental impact to the bottom (of the bay) and the seagrasses when considering a new-build alternative. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is not clear on the motion; that he does not see implicit in the motion on the table that the Commission accept the "no-build" alternative without bringing back before the Commission the additional information; that he is requesting more information which will help explain some of Commissioner Merrill's financial questions; that he is not endorsing the "no-build" alternative; that he needs more information to help justify the numbers given to the Commission; that there is a need to consider the motor boats; that he did not eliminate the new build 21-foot alternative; and that there still will be no decision made by him because of insufficient information. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the problem she has with choosing the "no-build" alternative and moving on is that the "no-build" alternative may be rejected if the FDOT presents substantial figures; and that she is trying to retain the ability to have input. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission should endorse the 21- to 28-foot bridge and let the no-build fall where it may; that the bridge is not broken; that it is 10% cost to repair the bridge; that the FDOT's purpose is to build a 65-foot bridge; and that he does not want to see a 65-foot bridge built. Mayor Pillot stated that there is not enough understanding to make an intelligent decision tonight; that he would like to have the implications of a 21- to 28-foot bridge as a back-up position removed from the motion; that he supports the need for more information in the part of the motion dealing with repair of the bridge; that the 21- to 28-foot bridge is the one that makes sense; and that until figures are clarified he is not sure if a no-build or new-build option should be the final recommendation. Mayor Pillot asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to clarify the Commission's procedural position. Mr. Robinson stated that there is a motion of the floor and the motion as amended should be voted on; that then another motion could be made to state the Commission's position. Mayor Pillot asked Mr. Robinson to clarify the motion. Mr. Robinson suggested that the maker of the motion clarify it; and that the amendment to the motion did pass. Vice Mayor Patterson clarified the motion as follows: The City Commission of Sarasota supports a new-build alternative if a new build is the chosen alternative of a height between 21 and 28 feet with no higher than a three percent (3%) grade. Mayor Pillot asked the City Auditor and Clerk to proceed with the roll call vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Merrill stated that the MPO looks closely at Commission votes; that the Commission has taken a unanimous vote of "no" on the 65-foot bridge; that the Commission should give the MPO some guidance. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a motion was made to bring more information to the table; that she supports the 21-foot bridge whether it is a no-build or a new build; that she did not feel a vote was necessary at this time; that she would changed her vote to "yes" if it was possible. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that it was not possible to change a vote after it has been announced. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3720, VACATING A PART OF 19TH STREET (50 FEET WIDE): BEGIN AT THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF N. OSPREY AVENUE AND 19TH STREET AND RUN WEST TO THE WESTERLY LINE (EXTENDED) OF THE EAST 100 FEET OF BLOCK 5, ORANGE AVENUE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1 PAGE 144 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-SV-03, RITTER, J.H. FLOYD SUNSHINE MANOR) - PASSED ON FIRST READING - (AGENDA ITEM IV-2). #3 (0644) through (0836) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that this is a vacation of 19th Street located between Goodrich and Osprey Avenues for J.H. Floyd Sunshine Manor which is a nursing care facility; that the revised Administration recommendation is as follows: Book 35 Page 9700 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9701 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. "To approve the vacation of 19th Street; to authorize the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the lease agreement to include the vacated street and 100 feet west of the current leasehold; to authorize the Mayor to sign the amended lease agreement; and that the second reading of the street vacation be held until the lease agreement is approved." Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she has requested in the past that data be included in the Commission packets when a street vacation is requested which states the benefit of the vacation to the citizens of the City; that justification should be supplied when something belonging to the citizens is being given away; that Staff should include such information in the future. Mr. Duane Harvey, Executive Director of J.H. Floyd Sunshine Manor, came before the Commission and stated that currently they serve 68 low-income individuals in the Newtown community of Sarasota, for skilled nursing home care; that no one in their current population could pay the regular rates charged at other nursing homes; that many of the individuals come from the proposed vacated street area. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the city Auditor and Clerk's office is revising the petition form to include the statement requested by Vice Mayor Patterson. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and the public hearing was Closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read Ordinance No. 93-3720 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone it was moved to adopt Ordinance No. 93-3720 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll call. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3742, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 1910 DATURA STREET, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE ANNA COSDEN BERRY HOUSE, AS STRUCTURES OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING - (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #3 (0837) through (0910) Commissioner Cardamone left the Commission Chambers at 9:25 p.m. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that Ordinance 93-3742 was supported unanimously by the Historic Preservation Board and the Planning Staff for historic designation; that the structure is located at 1910 Datura Street on the south side of Datura; and that the proposed Ordinance 93-3744 is a mediterranean-style main structure and garage at 2027 Mcclellan Parkway and also had the same recommendation and petitioner. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and the public hearing was closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read Ordinance 93-3742 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt Ordinance 93-3742 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll call. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3744, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 2027 MCCLELLAN PARKWAY, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE LYLE HOUSE, AS STRUCTURES OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-HD-17, HARTIG) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #3 (0910) through (0935) Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and the public hearing was closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read Ordinance No. 93-3744 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins it was moved to approve proposed Ordinance No. 93-3744 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll call. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 13. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3727, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, PERSONNEL, ARTICLE II, PENSIONS, DIVISION 3, POLICE, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; TO PROVIDE AN AMENDED DEFINITION OF "POLICE OFFICER"; TO PROVIDE AN OPTION FOR DIRECT TRANSFER OF DISTRIBUTIONS QUALIFYING FOR ROLLOVER TREATMENT; TO PROVIDE AN AMENDED DEFINITION OF "SALARY"; : REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED Book 35 Page 9702 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9703 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY): PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #3 (0937) through (1004) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that he was presenting this proposed ordinance as secretaty/Preasurer of the Police Pension Board of Trustees; that proposed Ordinance 93-3727 does three things: that it changes the definition of police officer to make it consistent with the Public Safety Department; that it adopts a federal law which allows the rollover of lump-sum distributions without a tax penalty into qualified plans; and amends the definition of salary to exclude lump-sum payments for vacation time and H-time into the pension calculation; and that there is no actuarial impact on the fund. Commissioner Cardamone returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:31 p.m. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and the public hearing was closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read Ordinance No. 93-3727 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson it was moved to approve proposed Ordinance No. 93-3727 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll call. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 14. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3699, AMENDING CHAPTER 27, POLLUTION, ARTICLE IV, PUBLIC WATER, BY ADDING THERETO A DEFINITION FOR SITE OF INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY; BY MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO DISCHARGE ENUMERATED WASTES INTO A MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM; BY REGULATING DISCHARGES FROM SITES OF INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY; BY PROHIBITING DISCHARGE IF ANYTHING OTHER THAN STORM WATER INTO THE SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING - (AGENDA ITEM IV-6) #3 (1009) through (1046) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3699. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and the public hearing was closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read Ordinance No. 93-3699 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve proposed Ordinance No. 93-3699 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll call. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 15. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS - (AGENDA ITEM V) #3 (1047) through (1049) There were no Scheduled Presentations. 16. CITIZENS . INPUT HOTDOG VENDOR ISSUE REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION = EMPLOYEE PAY ADMINISTRATION TO BE DISCUSSED AT A WORKSHOP IN FEBRUARY (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (1054) through (2128) Mr. Jeff Pincus and Mr. David Sadler, 3452 24th Parkway, representing themselves, came before the Commission. Mr. Sadler stated that they are local hotdog vendors presently located next to Pineapple Park; that because of the reduction of traffic in the area they are pursuing a new location; that the spot in front of the post office has been vacant since August, 1993; that another vendor had a license for the post office spot; that they inquired about the spot at license renewal time; that they had to wait 30 days for an answer; that the spot is still vacant; that the vendor renewed their license for all spots they were registered for, but the spot at the post office is still empty; and that there was an ad in the newspaper by the vendor stating that the post office spot and another spot are for sale at $15,000 each. Mr. Sadler asked, "Is this legal?" City Manager Sollenberger stated it was not legal. Mr. Sadler stated that their license had expired on their current spot; that they spoke with the Florida State License Bureau and were informed that if they renewed their current license in October and chose to move to another spot, they would pay the renewal fee twice for one (1) year; that their goal is not to annoy someone else's business; that they are trying to exercise their right to do business in a lawful way abiding by the ordinances and regulations as set forth by the City Commission; and that they would like to move to the vacant spot if the previous vendor is not and has not been there for a considerable amount of time On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to refer this issue to Administration. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 35 Page 9704 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9705 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Atkins asked for an reason as to why it got so slow around Pineapple Park? Mr. Sadler stated that the two major bank buildings surrounding the park have fewer tenants than what they used to. Ms. Susan Venegoni, 2772 Wisteria Place, representing herself, came before the Commission and stated that she provided an information packet regarding her concerns to each Commissioner and the City Manager on September 30, 1993; that she is an unmarried, female property owner and citizen of the City of Sarasota and approaches the Commission as such; that she was an employee of the City of Sarasota Finance Department for three and one-half years; that her employment ended on October 1, 1993; that employee morale is a problem; that her experience exemplifies the problem; and that she is making this public statement to ask the Commission to work with the employees and not against them. Ms. Venegoni stated that she resigned her position on September 17, 1993, after six (6) months of arguments and turmoil over harassment received at her residence and at work by a department head and the inequities of the reclassification process; that she was the Occupational License Inspector; that she revamped the entire system and streamlined it for ease of operation, timely issuance of licenses and improved public access and information; that she was asked to assume the duties of the City Cashier position; that she successfully combined what was formerly two positions; that she received excellent performance reviews from her supervisor; that she was chosen Employee of the Month for January 1993; that she applied for reclassification in February 1993; that her request was verbally denied; that she asked the Human Resources Department for documentation supporting the denial of her request and received only a sheet with numbers on it as explanation; that the Human Resources response to the reclassification applicants was due by May 20, 1993; that this was approximately the same time that the Director of Building & Zoning had taken an acute interest in who she dates and has at her home after work and on weekends; that Mr. Hewes lives approximately two (2) blocks away from her; that she discussed the situation with her supervisor; that she approached Mr. Hewes for a closed-door meeting to discuss his interest; that Mr. Hewes laughed her out of his office; that he did not deny the harassment; that he assured her that his interest was not neighborly; that she discussed the situation with the Finance Director who in turn discussed it with Mr. Sollenberger; that, in June, the Occupational License operation was to be transferred to the Building & Zoning Department; that she objected to the transfer due to the circumstances with Mr. Hewes; that her department head told her he did not fight the transfer; that she approached the City Manager's office and. explained the situation; that she was asked to document the harassment imposed by Mr. Hewes in memorandum form; that the transfer was canceled; that at noon on Sunday, August 15, 1993, Mr. Hewes appeared at her front door; that Mr. Hewes asked her to retract her statements and she said she would not; that she approached the City Manager's office again which resulted in a directive to Mr. Hewes in writing to have no contact with her either at work or otherwise; that an effort was made in September to secure an in-grade monetary adjustment for her; that the $1,500 annual increase would not have had a negative effect on the Finance Department's budget; that the request was returned without further action by Mr. William Davenport, Director of Human Resources; and that statements thus far have been documented and are in the packet supplied to the Commission. Ms. Venegoni further stated that the combination of these events has caused her great stress and anxiety and consequently resulted in her resignation on September 17, 1993; that her accomplishments were repeatedly documented by her supervisors; that she did not try for an. increase in pay until she was told there was an opportunity to apply for one; that she did work formerly performed by two (2) employees to complete; that the combined annual income of those two (2) employees, not including benefits, was $55,454; that her salary, including the 2.8% C.O.L.A. increase, totalled $23,009; and that if it was not her performance and not the department head validation and not the money, what was the problem with granting an increase? Ms. Venegoni stated that she has never received an, official understandable explanation; that she is not the only (employee) affected by the inefficiencies of the processi that out of all employees in the City, there were only 32 requests submitted for reclassification; that employees should be made aware of the time period to submit requests for reclassification; that there were only 32 applications for reclassification and the Department of Human Resources had three (3) months to evaluate them; that when she asked for documentation she received only a sheet of paper with numbers on it that explained nothing; that no one explained what the numbers on the paper meant; that if the Commission wants to really know why morale is so low, they should talk to the employees versus the department heads; that she thinks she is a shining example of why the morale is so low; that she is here to ask the Commission to talk to the employees; that she is returning her Employee of the Month plaque; and that hopefully looking at the plaque will be a reminder to review the reclassification process before the City loses more valued employees. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he furnished the Commission with a report that comments on the items Ms. Venegoni has mentioned; that the report was prepared Friday and was placed in the Commission distribution boxes; that the report comments on the Classification issues; that he has reviewed how the reclassification was handled; that the reclassification was done properly; that he first became aware of the Mr. Hewes situation at the time of the proposed transfer; that Deputy City Manager Book 35 Page 9706 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9707 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Schneider discussed the situation with Mr. Hewes; that the transfer was terminated; that Mr. Hewes visited Ms. Venegoni concerning a statement she had file at Mr. Schneider's request; that Mr. Hewes was given a directive to have no further contact with Ms. Venegoni under any circumstances. Mr. Sollenberger stated that there is a misunderstanding of what reclassification is; that reclassification deals with the change in the nature of duties; that it does not deal with the quality or quantity of the work; that employees feel that the only way to advance is through the reclassification process in terms of a pay raise; that that is not the purpose of the reclassification process; and that there was a merit pay plan at one time which has been discarded because of the City's financial situation. Mayor Pillot stated that the equity of pay between two (2) employees in the same classification, one (1) who is outstanding and one (1) who is not, is an issue of concern; that merit pay is rarely adequately addressed; that school teachers range from superb to barely adequate, yet they are on the same salary schedule; that he would like to see a merit plan; that morale is a concern of all; that employee administrative management rests by the City's Charter with the City Manager; that information given to the Commission shows that he has dealt with morale appropriately under his responsibilities in the Charter; and that employee morale is important. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is aware of how the Charter is written; that situations such as this should have some opportunity to reach the Commission before it gets to the point this situation has; that he has been speaking to another Employee of the Month who has recently left the City because of these reasons; that he wants to encourage employees to participate in the Grievance Process, to come before the Commission, by appointment or before the Commission; that something is happening and he hopes that it can be rectified; that because of right-sizing, the City needs the most admirable employees to keep their employment; that the employees are getting more and more responsibilities with less and less pay and no help coming any time soon; and that there is a serious problem which needs to be addressed as soon as possible. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the correspondence from the Human Resources Department to the employees should have more than just numbers on it; that some quantification of the numbers should be standard and part of the city's policies; that when someone takes on additional duties it occurs because they are capable; that a merit plan needs to be re-examined; that C.O.L.A.'s were given previously as well as merit increases; that perhaps the C.O.L.A. can be put into ranges with a premium added to provide some type of reward for doing a job well; and that perhaps the Quality Improvement Teams could examine this issue. Mr. Sollenberger stated that there will be a Commission Workshop in February regarding wages and benefits; that the administration of pay needs to be examined. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission should be careful in the actions taken, the reasons for which they take them, and the manner in which they take them; that behind each action the Commission tries to assure employees that they are cared about and their work is appreciated; that although it is not always perceived that way, he knows it to be true. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT = RECOMMENDATION. REQUESTED FROM THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE; RECOMMENDATION TO BE BROUGHT TO NEXT COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #3 (2137) through #4 (0533) Mayor Pillot left the Commission Chambers at 10:02 p.m. City Engineer Dennis Daughters came before the Commission and presented graphs depicting the construction progress on the Main Street Project. Mr. Daughters stated that this chart would be updated monthly and presented to the Commission; that the work is completed on the north side of Main Street up to Lemon Avenue; and that when the work is completed to Orange Avenue, the work will then proceed on the south side of Main Street westerly. Mayor Pillot returned to the Commission Chambers at 10:07 p.m. Mr. Daughters asked for concurrence as understood on the following Commission actions of September 20, 1993: The six (6) jumping jet laminar flow (spitting) fountains, or any modification thereof, are definitely eliminated; The two (2) plaza areas are to be constructed as designed, except the six (6) pedestals on which the sculptures would set; The two (2) fountains located in the inclined plaza areas are to be "normally operating" fountains with sculptures for each; and The Administration is to develop a revised concept and route it through the Public Art Committee for their recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Daughters showed slides of various pedestals on a plan overview including a seat wall. Mr. Daughters stated that one option was to lower the height of the 3.8-foot high pedestal and cap the top with Book 35 Page 9708 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9709 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. concrete; that a second option is to turn the pedestals into planters; that the third option is to eliminate the pedestals and connect the benches; that the pedestals have not been constructed; and that the construction is on hold awaiting direction by the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she had some concerns on the seat wall regarding the safety factors involved and asked for further explanation. Mr. Daughters explained that the seat walls face inward and do not have backs; that in addition to the seat walls there are also benches; and that the barrier of the seat wall is 18 inches high of concrete. Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 10:14 p.m. Commissioner Merrill stated that the motion to refer the design back to the Public Art Committee made (on September 20, 1993) was a valid motion; that he still supports that motion. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 10:17 Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the options presented to the Commission should have been brought to the Public Art Committee (PAC) first; that for clarity, the options should be taken to the PAC for a recommendation to the Commission; that the recommendation should include whether they want to continue with their choice of artist; that she does not like the idea of making the pedestals into planters; that what she had actually intended was conventional fountains with the art work as part of the water element which was her motion; and that she would accept a recommendation back from the PAC that might differ from that. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she was in agreement; and that she had no intentions of designing the project. Mr. Daughters stated that October 12, 1993, is the date for the next scheduled Public Art Committee meeting; that there may be some redesign involved depending on what the outcome is with respect to the pedestals, the fountains, or the sculptures; that the contractor feels confident that they will be able to meet the existing schedule if a final recommendation is given to them by November 1st, 1993; however, with any date beyond November 1, 1993, they are uncertain as to what effect it will have on the total project; that the final recommendation to the contractor has to be in the form of construction drawings submitted to the contractor by November 1 in order to stay on schedule and meet the time constraint in the grant established by the EDA (Economic Development Administration). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the latitude of the PAC is not to redesign the project; that it is potentially to redesign the exterior of the pedestals and choose among the options, and to choose the art. Mr. David Palier, 2035 Racimo Drive, representing Westcoast Water Scapes, came before the Commission and stated that his business is involved in fountain design and water gardening; that water gardening is an alternative to fountains; that the base of the fountain can be stocked with water lilies, lotus plants, various aquatic fish and plants, creating a more attractive environment; that taking something with a water feature potential and filling it with dirt because it is too troublesome detracts from what could be a very beautiful architectural feature; that water gardens are a vessel for water in any configuration; that water gardens are beneficial to the environment; that water gardening is easier to operate than a clear-water fountain; and that a body of water with a proper balance of plants is self-sustaining. Mr. Palier presented to the Commission pictures of fountains in the Sarasota area that were subsequently abandoned . Mr. Palier continued that fountains generally require more maintenance than water gardening; that a combination of quiet fountains in conjunction with water gardening has a dual (visual) effect; that although fountains are self-perpetuating, the public perception is that fountains are wasteful; and that a third alternative to spitting fish, and crashing water is a quiet waterfall in a water garden which gives the same visual impact with less maintenance. Ms. Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut, representing herself, came before the Commission and stated that she was not a supporter of the pulsating, spitting fish at the City's Bayfront; that she feels bad for some of the committees and advisory boards; that the Public Art Committee (PAC) put together a short list with fourteen artists who had submitted their names for consideration; that two (2) of the artists declined; that another artist was out of the country and could not submit his material by the specific due date, but did submit it late; that two (2) separate proposals were submitted by John Hudson and Virginia Hoffman; that Mr. Hudson lives in Yellow Springs, Ohio; that Mr. Hudson's presentation was not brought out for the public hearing; that Mr. John Doggett, who has done fountains, advised the PAC at their June 24, 1993, meeting that jet laminar flow fountains are not normally put outside; that Mr. Doggett contacted the City and did make a presentation; that Mr. Doggett was put on the list of artists to be considered; that the Commission has stated that they want some ideas of normal fountains; therefore, the Commission should suggest that the PAC reconsider the original three (3) artists so there can be public input on this issue; that there should be something placed in the Book 35 Page 9710 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9711 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. plaza that the public can be proud of; that Mr. Doggett's drawing depicts dolphins and manatees, something we all have pride in. Mayor Pillot stated that unless there is no qualified local artists, which is not the case, he will not vote for an out-of-town artist. Mr. John Doggett, 810 Central Avenue, representing the CDOVA (Creative Development of Visual Arts) Foundation, came before the Commission and stated that he comes before the Commission not as a professional artist, but as a concerned citizen, taxpayer, and consultant; that he first went to the Public Art Committee (PAC) because he was concerned with the cost element of the proposed fountains with the Main Street project; that he was a design draftsman for 1.5 years at Gohl Pump and Switching; that he also worked 2.5 years as mill right engineer for Daniels Construction; that he proposed to the PAC a self-contained, visual, no retention pool that is a recycling fountain with a filtration system in it that clears out gray water; that there is a lighted area to accomplish this; that there is a floatation device involved so water would not be running constantly; that a conventional fountain can be utilized if certain areas are serviced and capped off properly; that the fountains can be built off-site which will not delay the contractor; that all the maintenance equipment is maintained within the pedestal that should be part of the fountain unit; that the cost, including art work, should be approximately $40,000 for each fountain; and that the fountains should be 13- to 17-feet tall to be beacons at the end of Main Street to draw people in to see other work done downtown. Mr. Paul Thorpe, 47 South Palm Avenue, representing. The Downtown Association, came before the Commission and stated that he sits on the Main Street Project Committee with City Engineer Daughters and the contractor and the downtown people working on this project; that the Committee reviewed the Commission's request to eliminate the "spitting" fish; that the big question was about the pedestals; that the pedestals are a part of the park; that the park was originally designed as a focus point taking downtown- back to the Bayfront; that the brick sidewalks that will look like a wave showing the original waterfront is part of this project; that these (architectural designs) were approved by this Commission originally; that no thought should be given to bringing artists in to design an architectural piece of work already approved; that there is a cost factor necessary to possibly re-engineer the whole thing; that professional fountain builders who built the fountain at the Sarasota Airport and the just-built fountains in Orlando are looking at this issue; that he was amazed to see the number of fountains downtown in the City of Orlando on Church Street; that Church Street has thousands of people at night and the fountains are beautiful, illuminated, shoot water in the air, and run continuously; that it would be a tremendous attraction to Sarasota to have similar fountains; that the original concept of the park included the war memorial which will not be completed due to budget; that this is supposed to be a great entrance way into the downtown; that he would like to see the main concept back on track; that the safety concerns addressed by Commissioner Cardamone are unnecessary; that safety features have been built into the construction job; that this area is a historic area which will have the historical markers; that the design is outstanding with or without the fish. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if Mr. Thorpe was suggesting they keep the jet laminar flow fountains since the design includes them? Mr. Thorpe stated he was not suggesting that they keep the pulsating fish; that the overall design of the plaza and the fountains are part of the overall project that leads across U.S. 41 to the Bayfront; that the original fountain was designed with a diamond shape; that the current fountain (consultant) stated that they could adapt that area to be a fountain with just a water shoot and illumination on it. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Thorpe's idea could be an option and he could present it to PAC; that the Commission is not talking about redesigning the plaza. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she understood there to be two (2) fountains on each side of the street with a seat wall; that the Commission was concerned about what type of base would be built to have an artist put a piece of art work on; that the Commission is not asking the PAC to look at new artists, or to make a change in the selection of Virginia Hofiman. Ms. Deborah Gestner, 1343 Main Street, representing herself, came before the Commission and stated that she is the owner of a business located on Main Street; that she has located her business at that locale because she supports the efforts of the downtown project; that she is a member of The Downtown Association; that she is concerned that the project could get delayed by changes recommended by the Public Art Committee (PAC); that the audience was confused as to what the Commission wanted the PAC to review and consider; that if these decisions are delayed past November 1, 1993, there will be increased design fees and possible construction delays; that the requests to the PAC should be well-defined; that there has been 18 months of public input; that the time for design is over and is history; that the project is under construction right now and the Commission is redesigning; that the project should continue forward with the design whether the pedestals or art is changed; that there was a rationale as to why the fountains were designed as they were; that if at any time the fountains were inoperable, they would not look unsightly; that she request the Commission be well-defined in the direction given to the PAC so the project is not delayed. Book 35 Page 9712 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9713 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Mr. V. P. Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that his understanding of the direction for the PAC by the Commission is to limit the PAC involvement to the art work; that the art work would possibly be two (2) pieces of art work with the two (2) remaining fountains and/or possibly six (6) pieces of art work with pedestals. Vice Mayor Patterson agreed that this was correct. Mr. Schneider further stated that the PAC was to recommend an artist to the Committee; that the PAC has recommended Virginia Hoffman; however, the Commission has taken no action on that recommendation. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that in addition, the recommendation for both of the requests is to be brought back to the Commission. Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Schneider gave the consensus of the Commission accurately; that the Commission will not cast their votes toward pieces of art unseen or unknown; that the Commission will not automatically approve what is recommended by the PAC. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION PETITION NO. 93-HDD-02, "SIESTA KEY FISH MARKET" LOCATED AT 221, 226 AND 231 GARDEN LANE; REMOVED SUBJECT FROM THE TABLE: SET PETITION NO. 93-HDD-02 FOR PUBLIC HEARING AT THE FIRST REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 1993; STAFF TO REPORT ON AREA SHOOTING; STAFF TO REPORT ON SPECIFIC PROPERTY; = (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #4 (0549) through (0790) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to remove the subject from the table. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson presented the Commission with a letter from Marin Corry, President of the Bay Island-Siesta Association. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Bay Island Association has requested a public hearing on the historic designation of the Siesta Key Fish Market no earlier than December 6, 1993; that the Association would like to invite the entire Bay Island membership to attend their next board meeting on October 29, 1993, for input; and that the Board would have a recommendation for the Commission by the public hearing. Mayor Pillot stated that two (2) other letters have been received regarding this subject; and that the letter received from Siesta Key Chamber of Commerce urges the Commission to consider the historical designation; that the letter from the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources signed by April Fehr, Director, also supports historic designation. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set Petition No. 93-HDD-02 for Public Hearing at the first regular City Commission Meeting of December 1993. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson requested a report of the circumstances surrounding the shooting that occurred next door to the Fish Market from Staff for the Public Hearing and also requested further information from Staff on the specific property contained in the Petition. 19. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = RESCISSION RE: MOTION OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1993, ASKING THE LEGAL STAFF TO DETERMINE WHAT THE CITY'S PREROGATIVES ARE AND THE LIMITS OF THE PREROGATIVES TO ADDRESS WHAT BENEFITS THE CITY MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT WANT PROVIDED TO CURRENT EMPLOYEES RETIRING IN THE FUTURE; REQUESTED LEGAL STAFF TO REPORT PREROGATIVES (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #4 (0792) through (0950) Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she will make the same motion again that she made on September 20th; that Staff needs further clarification as to what the Commission's intent is to stop employee morale from being further depressed; that her intent is not to take away health benefits from current employees; that she wants to know what the prerogatives are of the Commission in addressing health benefits of current employees, not current retirees; that the City's system may have to be adapted to what President Clinton may or may not pass through Congress; and that it would be intelligent for the Commission do their homework on the subject. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to request legal staff to determine and report the Commission's prerogative with respect to the existing health insurance benefit given to current employees when they retire. Mayor Pillot stated that this is an example of why the attorney costs are sO high; that asking the legal department is premature; that he will never voluntarily support taking away retiree health benefits; that it is wrong to consider taking the benefit away whether there is a legal prerogative to do so or not; that he is not interested in a legal opinion at this time. Commissioner Merrill moved to amend the motion to limit legal fees to $500.00. Motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the main motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. Book 35 Page 9714 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9715 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. 20. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - DISCUSSION RE: CITY'S LONGEVITY PLAN - (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #4 (0958) through (1022) Vice Mayor Patterson stated that as she understood the longevity pay, city employees received a two percent (2%) longevity (increase) after five (5) years, a four percent (4%) at the end of ten (10) years, a six (6) percent at the end of 15 (years), eight percent (8%) at the end of 20 (years) and ten (10) percent at the end of 25 (years); that her understanding is not the case; that the longevity is actually what amounts to a bonus of two percent (2%) after five (5) years; that the bonus is increased in increments of two percent (2%) every five (5) years; that she does not think that is too much; that, however, she thinks that no increase in pay should be granted to City employees who do not have a satisfactory job performance review. 21. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = APPROVAL RE: SPECIAL EVENTS AT THE BAYFRONT AND ISLAND PARK -ACCEPTED GUIDELINES (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #4 (1026) through (1121) Mr. V. P. Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Commission requested guidelines for appropriate and non appropriate events at the Bayfront and Island park. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to accept the proposed Special Event regulations as a set of guidelines. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the document should be modified to read art or crafts fair and that the arts be encompassed. Mr. Schneider stated that after adoption of the proposed regulations, detailed administrative guidelines would be prepared. Consensus of the Commission was to give the City Manager complete latitude. 22. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - DISCUSSION RE: AUGUSTINE QUARTERS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT = AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATION TO PROCEED WITH PURCHASE (AGENDA ITEM VII-6) #4 (1123) through (1236) City Manager Sollenberger stated that on September 7th, the Commission authorized the purchase of the Augustine Quarters and three vacant houses on Sixth Street; that environmental documents received by the Administration today at noon were not included in the Agenda packets; that Administration feels they are in a position to move forward with the purchase; and that Commission concurrence is necessary. Mr. Donald D. Hadsell, Community Development Director, came before the Commission and stated that the Augustine Quarters and the five (5) vacant lots were investigated on a Phase I environmental study; that hazardous wastes or substances are not likely to be present on the site; that Ardamen & Associates recommended that no further inquiry be made regarding the environmental condition of the property. Mr. Hadsell continued that the Phase I study found two (2) items of concern; that one concern was a ground water monitoring well on an abandoned fuel tank; that no petroleum residue was found and dismissed the concerni that the second concern was an abandoned heating oil tank with a slight amount of contamination below it; that four (4) additional wells, one as close as three (3) feet, were checked and nothing found; that Ardaman estimates it will cost approximately $1,500 to clean up this limited contaminant; that Mr. Augustine agrees to pay up $1,500 for that clean up; and that based upon the Ardaman recommendation, there appears to be no further concern to the City. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to authorize the Administration to proceed with the Augustine Quarters purchase based on the report given. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 23. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL RE: AUDIT 9307 - STOREFRONT RENOVATION PROGRAM AND CITY MANAGER' '8 RESPONSE = DISCUSSION AT NEXT CRA MEETING; (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 (1240) through (1893) City Manager Sollenberger stated that at his request an audit was conducted of the Storefront Project by the City Auditor and Clerk; that it was determined that policy and procedures revisions governing the administration of the program were necessary; that the report is an excellent management tool; that the Administration should proceed to expend the remainder of the $2,000 in available funds, take no further action on revising procedures at this time, but observe the recommendations made by the City Auditor and Clerk; that the program should be terminated by the Community Development Agency (CRA) i that there is no funding available to continue the program; that the program has achieved its impact most successfully along Main Street; that the program should only be reinstituted as a tool to carry out economic development objectives of the City or the CRA; that if reinstated, recommendations governing policies and procedures will be adopted through the CRA by resolution; and that a meeting with the CRA be scheduled to terminate the Storefront Program. Ms. Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue, representing herself, came before the Commission and stated that the audit pointed out many Book 35 Page 9716 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9717 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. things that will be helpful in the future; that just recently the City of Sarasota dipped into the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds once again; that $1,000 was used for a banner for Five Points Park; that the instance was stated in the current audit although the 1991 audit stated these type of purchases were inappropriate for TIF dollars; that TIF dollars were also used for Pineapple Park for things that were not storefronts; that downtown north businesses could avail themselves into the redevelopment of the Central Avenue area; that she does not want to lose the storefront program; that the City should replace misused dollars into the storefront funds and designate it for the Central Avenue area or the downtown north area to help the small business; that the grants are 50% matches; that hopefully the Commission will take the time to read the excellent work done on the audit; and that the auditors have done a service not only to the Commissioners, but to the citizens of Sarasota. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to receive the Audit Report and City Manager's Response to it and set a meeting of the CRA to adopt a resolution to terminate the Storefront Program. Commissioner Atkins stated that he supports receiving the report; that the Administration's recommendation to terminate the Storefront Program is not acceptable; that it is not fair to the Central Avenue business corridor; that inappropriately used money noted in the audit should be replaced. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification whether the Storefront Program to be terminated would only be for Main Street? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Storefront Program takes personnel to administer; that there is no longer a redevelopment department or a Senior Planner position administering grants and applications; that if the Storefront Program is to be pursued he will have to ask for funding to do it. Commissioner Merrill stated that this program should have been addressed at budget time; that one (1) person should not be taxed to hand money out to the private sector; that the obligation of every business owner is to paint their own building, and fix up their own storefront. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the program produced good results; that the program was poorly administered and poorly supervised; that it was not on the table at budget time to "kill" the program for a whole fiscal year; that if desired, the Commission could allocate some money from the Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) dollars; that the mission on Main Street is complete; and that the mission was never just Main Street, it was the whole TIF area. Mayor Pillot stated that he supports making funds available to bring the Central Avenue and downtown north storefronts into better status. Mayor Pillot asked for the available balance of TIF funds? Mr. Gibson Mitchell, Finance Director, came before the Commission and stated that he did not have that information with him. Mayor Pillot stated that the TIF fund balance could be brought to the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she seconded the motion because Mr. Sollenberger's report states: "Upon renewal of the program, implement audit recommendations that program policies be adopted by CRA resolution and operating procedures, etc.. : .."; that she is not supporting a motion to "kill" the storefront program other than the program that is finished on Main Street; and that she is anxious to see some money spent on redevelopment on Central Avenue, specifically between Sixth Street and Tenth Street. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion failed (2 to 3): Atkins, no; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes, Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to schedule a discussion of the future of the Storefront at the next CRA meeting. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 24. BOARD APPOINTMENTS (AGENDA ITEM IX) None. 25. REMARKS OF COMMISBIONERS. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEKT AGENDA - DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW NONCONPORMING USES LIST (AGENDA ITEM X) #1 (1900) through (2512) VICE MAYOR PATTERSON: A. Vice Mayor Patterson referred the Commission to the list in the Agenda packet regarding non-conforming uses to be corrected by July 10, 1994. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she was startled to find 33 properties on the list; that Mr. Sollenberger is scheduling this issue for discussion early next month; that 1751 Hawthorne Street is the property that has illegally been used by Palms of Sarasota for maintenance storage; that this was not used prior to 1974; therefore, it does not belong on this list; that the property is zoned single family; that the Book 35 Page 9718 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9719 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. nonconforming uses list is for properties that were down- zoned in the 1974 rezoning. Mayor Pillot directed Administration to find out how the property got on the list and take appropriate action. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he would take care of it. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. Commissioner Atkins stated that he would be unable to attend the Economic Development Board Meeting and asked if Commissioner Cardamone could attend on Wednesday at 4 p.m. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would try. COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she was looking at the Employee of the Month plaque and feeling sad that it has come to this kind of an end for a City employee; that she hopes the Commission can work very diligently to get the morale problem back on track. B. Commissioner Cardamone further stated that there are new sidewalks on Burns Court; that it looks very clean and very sterile; that some holes for trees should have been left. C. Commissioner Cardamone stated that comments have been brought to her regarding lighting at the Bayfront Park at night --liability, the homeless, etc. She asked if parking could be eliminated around the fountain so the fountain can be used, and if there is any way benches could be placed in the fountain area so that people might sit around and enjoy the fountain? City Manager Sollenberger stated that bollards have been installed around the fountain; that Administration will keep working to achieve what Commissioner Cardamone recommended; that there is an estimate of $75,000 to replace the lighting system at the Island Park; and that the Administration will be discussing this item with the Commission in the future. COMMISSIONER MERRILL: A. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would like to see 2253 Bahia Vista Street listed as a vacant convenience store removed from the Nonconforming Uses list; that it is just a house; that it has been vacant for six (6) years; that it is covered with graffiti and has been noticed for violation of industrial use. B. Commissioner Merrill further stated that some items such as the Vision Plan should be done on television so that the public can see the discussion on it. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to extend the Commission meeting past 11:30. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. MAYOR PILLOT: Mayor Pillot stated that Attorney Larry Robinson agreed to represent the Commission with evaluations of the City Manager and the City Auditor and Clerk; that each Commissioner should contact Mr. Robinson and let him know any interests each Commissioner has in respect to the evaluation in any format desired; that he will forward the six (6) sample evaluation forms to Mr. Robinson for his review. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she did not want her evaluation compiled; that she wanted her remarks and the remarks of fellow Commissioners noted as such. Mayor Pillot stated that the evaluations would be compiled numerically and all relevant comments would also be compiled; that it would be each Commissioner's prerogative whether to identify the comments as their own, but every comment would be reported. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that in essence this would evaluate someone outside of the Sunshine Law; that remarks are being compiled without knowledge of whose opinion is what. Mayor Pillot stated that he is not violating the Sunshine Law and that he withdraws being the Commission's communication with Mr. Robinson. Mayor Pillot asked the Vice Mayor to take over that duty; that he has no further intent to be the communication link. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the forms would always be public record. 26. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS - (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (2513) through (2516) CITY AUDIfOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: City Auditor and Clerk Robinson reminded the Commission that there is a meeting on Thursday at 4:00 p.m. on the Vision Plan. Book 35 Page 9720 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9721 10/04/93 6:00 P.M. 27. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (2518) through (2525) On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. The Regular Meeting of the Sarasota City Commission of October 4, 1993, was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. An a - GENE M. PILLOT, MAYOR ATTEST: ilye Ralnson BILLY E.CROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK