MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION OF MAY 15, 1995, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor David Merrill, Vice Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Commissioners Delores Dry, Nora Patterson, and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, city Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor David Merrill City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor David Merrill called the meeting to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 P.M. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR APRIL, 1995 JOHN R. LAKE, POLICE OFFICER FIRST CLASS, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, POLICE SERVICES BUREAU #1 (0024) through (0122) Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission and stated that Officer John Lake, Police Officer First Class, Public Safety Department, has been selected Employee of the Month for April 1995; that Officer Lake demonstrates professionalism while on duty as a patrol officer; that Officer Lake's performance has been described as "exemplary"; that Officer Lake is at the top of the squad in productivity by going above and beyond the call of duty; that Officer Lake displays a positive attitude; that Officer Lake was responsible for recovering four "rolling" stolen automobiles, with arrests in every case and no injury or property damage; that Officer Lake has recovered approximately $50,000 worth of stolen property; that Officer Lake was responsible for saving two lives by rescuing a baby from being drowned by a distraught mother and a victim from being choked; that Officer Lake, in addition to his proactive work, also finds time to keep his traffic index up and backs up other officers on the squad. Mayor Merrill presented Officer Lake with a plaque and certificate for the Employee of the Month for April 1995 in appreciation of his unique performance with the City of Sarasota and congratulated him for his outstanding efforts. BOOK 38 Page 11878 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11879 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. 2. PRESENTATION RE: MAYOR'S CITATION TO THE STREZEV FAMILY = ANATOLY, SVETLANA AND MELANA, EXTENDING A WARM WELCOME ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS OF SARASOTA AND 3. PRESENTATION RE: MAYOR'S CITATION TO WILSON AND MARGARET BURNS BARRERA EXTENDING A WARM WELCOME ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS OF SARASOTA #1 (0123) through (0430) Mayor Merrill stated that Commissioner Pillot will present two special awards; that the special awards are intended for people who support the artistic values of Sarasota. Commissioner Pillot stated that Fredd Atkins, in his farewell speech after serving 10 years on the City Commission, indicated that Sarasota is a unique community in which to live; that Sarasota is unique because of its geographic beauty and for the special people who live here; that many people have been honored for their unique service to the community over the years; that many citizens have not been honored for their service yet are the backbone of the community; that many citizens are hard working and help with crime prevention in their neighborhoods; that these hard working citizens constitute the strength of the City and enable the City to be the center of the arts and excellence; that people visit Sarasota and some choose to make it their home because of the unique qualities of the City; that tonight two families, who recently moved to Sarasota, are recognized and represent the strength of this community in the fine arts; that both of these families have performed as renowned professional artists throughout the world and could have chosen to live anywhere, yet both families chose to live in Sarasota; that the two families will be presented with a Mayor's Citation which represents the strength of the community and recognizes the part these two families have contributed and will continue to contribute to the community. Commissioner Pillot continued that Anatoly, Sventlana and Malana Strezev have volunteered their musical talents in Sarasota at numerous pertormances for charities, especially at adult senior citizens homes and churches in order to bring happiness to others by using their God-given talents. Anatoly, Svetlana, Melana and Sasha Strezev came before the Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that this is a family of musicians whose talent is appreciated, recognized and honored, especially throughout Europe; that it was a thrilling experience for him to hear Svetlana and Melana sing; that he recommends that the citizens of Sarasota attend a superb musical performance by the Strezev family. On behalf of the City Commission, Commissioner Pillot read in its entirety the Mayor's Citation hereby extending to the Strezev family a warm welcome, a hope that they will perform often in Sarasota, and a sincere wish for continued success in their distinguished musical careers. Commissioner Pillot stated that Wilson and Margaret Burns Barrera have chosen to live in the Sarasota community; that the Burns Barreras have chosen Sarasota as home, after living in other countries and locations in the United States, because of the social and professional environment of the City; that the Burns Barreras are world-renowned pertormers, coaches, choreographers and judges of Ballroom, Latin and Adagio dancing; that the Burns Barreras have received numerous awards and have appeared in shows throughout the world; that the distinguished careers of the Burns Barreras brings an honor and distinction to Sarasota in the art of dancing which is an art and sport enjoying a strong and growing popularity. Commissioner Pillot stated that he recommends that the citizens of Sarasota attend a superb dancing performance by Wilson and Margaret Barrera. Wilson, Margaret and Natasha Burns Barrera came before the Commission. On behalf of the City Commission, Commissioner Pillot read in its entirety the Mayor's Citation extending to Wilson and Margaret Burns Barrera a warm welcome, a hope that they will perform often in Sarasota, and a sincere wish for continued success in their distinguished dance careers. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 1, 1995 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0431) through (0437) Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes of the meeting of May 1, 1995. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no changes, the minutes of the City Commission meeting of May 1, 1995, are approved by unanimous consent. 5. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0438) through (0472) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-1, the report regarding the request of the John Ringling Centre BOOK 38 Page 11880 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11881 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. Foundation to terminate the Three-Party Agreement, per the request of Don Smally. B. Add under New Business, Item No. VIII-3, regarding the revised 1995-96 Budget Workshop Schedule, per the request of Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3,4 4, 5, 6 AND 7 APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0473) through (0492) 1. Approval Re: Program Booklets for the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall for the 1995/1996 and 1996/1997 Seasons. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to proceed with the renovation/relocation of the Hazzard Fountain to the Municipal Auditorium using $30,000 from Local Option Sales Tax and in-house services. 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County for Solid Waste Recycling Grants. 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, Inc., Sarasota, Florida (R.F.P. #95-56) for consulting engineering services for the potable water distribution system improvements. 5. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 95-3867, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, of the Code of the City of Sarasota (1986), Article II, General Employees' Pension Plan, Division 4, amending Section 24-6, to provide for an amended definition of "Earnings"; amending Section 24-101 to provide amended language for the purchase of credited service for separation from employment for military service; providing for severability of provisions; repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith; etc. 6. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 95-3876 amending Chapter 24, Personnel, Article II, Pensions, Division 3, Police, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sarasota; amending Section 24-61, definitions, to amend the definition of "Salary"; amending Section 24-81, credit for military service, subsection (a) military service after employment; repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; etc. 7. Approval Re: J.H. Floyd Sunshine Manor, Inc., building improvements. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 through 7. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-807) : ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-819) = ADOPTED; AND ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3868) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0493) through (0552) 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-807, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against the property described in each abatement report for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-819, pertaining to nonconforming uses of structures in residential zone districts; amending Resolution No. 94R-721 so as to change the procedure for the identification and evaluation of nonconforming uses of structures in residential zone districts to provide for a public hearing before the Planning Board to receive input on the possible alternative disposition of such nonconforming uses; requiring that the Planning Board make recommendations to the City Commission prior to the matter being heard by the City Commission; changing the schedule; setting forth findings; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3868, amending Chapter 36, Vehicles for Hire, Article II, taxicabs and other vehicles for hire to increase the maximum rates and fares authorized for taxicabs; providing for repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid; etc. (Title Only) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 95R-807 and 95R-819, and Ordinance No. 95-3868 by title only. BOOK 38 Page 11882 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11883 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 3. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 8. CITIZENS . INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (0553) through (0820) Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that several citizens attended the last Commission meeting to provide input on a particular agenda item; that they arrived after 6:30 p.m. since the item was not scheduled until later on the agenda; that the agenda item was discussed earlier than planned and, therefore, the citizens had not yet arrived at the meeting and were not available to speak; that items to be moved forward on the agenda should not be items on which public input may be received. Edward Harding, 136 Golden Gate Point (34236), came before the Commission and stated that he was not pleased with the Commission's decision regarding the Mission Harbor site; that the Library Board wanted a library built on the Mission Harbor site and he wanted the land to be developed as a shopping mall. Mr. Harding distributed copies of proposed plans for the Mission Harbor site to the Commission and stated that J&B Retail Development in Chicago, a firm which designed Water Tower Place in Chicago and the million-square-Foote horizontal mall in Branden, is researching the demographics of the Mission Harbor site which could house high-end stores such as Nieman Marcus, Lord & Taylor, and Bloomingdales; that he assumes the rezoning was made in order to improve the entrance to Sarasota on U.S. 41 from the airport; that developing the Mission Harbor site would employ 200 to 300 people and would open up the northern corridor; that retail space in the developed site could be worth $2,000 per square foot; that a shopping center would generate taxes of $1 million paid to the schools, $650,000 to the City, $350,000 to the County and $45 million to the State; that an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) or a convention center could also be built on the Mission Harbor site. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING THE SOUTHSIDE VILLAGE STREETSCAPE = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #1 (0821) through (1005) City Manager Sollenberger stated that he met with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Secretary David May and, as a result of the meeting, recommends the Commission execute the Joint Project Agreement with the FDOT. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Alexandrea Hay, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission. Ms. Hay stated that in order to proceed with the bidding and construction phases of the Southside Village Streetscape project, the City must enter into a Joint Project Agreement with the FDOT; that the FDOT doès not accept tri-party agreements; therefore, this agreement will be between the City and the FDOT onlyi that the city will amend an existing agreement with Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) to reflect the conditions of this agreement; that she met with District Secretary May to discuss issues of overruns and availability of funds when the project went out for bid. Ms. Hay distributed copies of a letter from District Secretary May, dated May 15, 1995, responding to the City's issues; and stated that District Secretary May agreed to the city's request to assist in the inspection of landscaping and irrigation of the project; that the city requested that the project begin after season, but not too far after season ends in order to avoid having the project continue into the following season; that District Secretary May indicated in the letter that the construction will begin on or about April 8, 1996, but no later than June 8, 1996; that staff is comfortable with the contract and District Secretary May's clarifications in the May 15, 1995, letter, and therefore, recommends the Commission authorize the City to enter into the Joint Project Agreement. City Manager Sollenberger stated that overruns of budgeted funds will be the responsibility of the local government; that SMH will split any overruns 50/50 provided the costs do not exceed 20 percent of the planned cost; that this provision must be incorporated into Phase 2 of the Interlocal Agreement with SMH; that the City is not anticipating overruns over 20 percent. City Manager Sollenberger continued that it is the Administration's recommendation to authorize the execution of the Joint Project Agreement between the City and the FDOT. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the Joint Project Agreement between the City and the FDOT and to authorize Mayor Merrill to sign and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to attest said agreement. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she understood there would be two project phases. BOOK 38 Page 11884 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11885 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. Ms. Hay stated that the letter dated May 15, 1995, from District Secretary May, indicates the following: It is our intent to start construction on or about April 8, 1996, but no later than June 8, 1996. Ms. Hay stated that these dates accommodate the time frame of starting after season, but not too much after season that the project would run into the following season. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the project was to be completed in two phases over a period of two seasons; and asked the date of the second phase of the project? Ms. Hay stated that the above dates refer to the FDOT work which will be completed next year; that Phase 1 is the City's water and utilities project which is not a part of the FDOT project. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to approve the Joint Project Agreement between the City and the FDOT and to authorize Mayor Merrill to sign and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to attest said agreement. Motion carried unanimously: (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill requested city Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND EQUITY PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS SOUTH GATE SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 41) AND SIESTA DRIVE, WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 3501 SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL, TO EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THREE (3) YEARS TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME TO SATISFY THE CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSPORTATION CONTAINED IN THE CITY'S COMPREKENSIVE PLAN - APPROVED WITH A CHANGE TO STRIKE THE LANGUAGE "FEBRUARY 20, 1998" AND SUBSTITUTE "TO AN EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE TO BE NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND THE DEVELOPER WITH IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SURFACE OF EAST AVENUE.' . (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1006) through (2275) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission, displayed the site plan on the overhead projector, and stated that this proposed amendment to the Development Agreement with the South Gate Shopping Center is necessary to satisfy the concurrency requirements for transportation contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; that the original development agreement with the South Gate Shopping Center required the following items to be completed: a. Improve the bus facilities on Siesta Drive; b. Construct a right-turn lane from U.S. 41 onto Siesta Drive; C. Construct a concrete traffic separator from north of Versailles Street, and south on U.S. 41 to Bee Ridge Road; and d. Improve the driveway entrance into the site from Bee Ridge Road. Mr. Daughters stated that the most difficult project, improving the bus facilities on Siesta Drive, is completed; that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) would not issue a permit for the construction of a traffic separator on U.S. 41; therefore, the traffic separator was not completed within the scheduled time frame; that the authorization to construct an improved driveway on Bee Ridge Road was received and the project will proceed as planned; that the FDOT will fund the right-turn lane from U.S. 41 onto Siesta Drive project; that the developer provided the rights- of-way (ROW) necessary to complete thé right-turn lane and the project will begin this summer or autumn; that the proposed amendment will extend the term of the development agreement for a period of three years and will amend three of the original concurrency project improvements as follows: a. Improvements to the Median on U.S. 41 Section 7(a) which pertains to the design and construction of a median improvement located north of Versailles Street on U.S. 41 and running south to the intersection of Bee Ridge Road and U.S. 41 is deleted in its entirety; and b. Right-Turn Lane for U.S. 41 Section 7 (b) is amended to revise the deadline for the design and construction of a north-bound to east-bound BOOK 38 Page 11886 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11887 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. right-turn lane from U.S. 41 onto Siesta Drive to February 20, 1998; and C. Driveway Improvements Section 7(c) is amended to revise the deadline for the design and construction of improvements to the first existing driveway of the development accessing Bee Ridge Road, east of the intersection of U.S. 41 and Bee Ridge Road, to February 20, 1998. Mr. Daughters stated that the right-turn lane for U.S. 41 and the driveway improvements projects could be completed in less than one year. Commissioner Patterson asked if impact fees have been collected on this project? Mr. Sollenberger stated that impact fees would be collected on or before issuing the certificate of occupancy (CO) required once the building improvements are completed. Commissioner Patterson stated that impact fees are collected by the City and sent to the County, and the City advises the County on the use of those funds; and asked if impact fees can be used to pay for the road improvements necessary to mitigate the expansion impact? Mr. Daughters stated that impact fees could be used, but the State is paying for this project, not the City. Commissioner Patterson stated that the agenda materials indicate that the City's contribution is $15,000 and the developer's cost is $7,000; and asked if the City's contribution of $15,000 for this project can be obtained from impact fees? Mr. Daughters stated that the City is obligated to pay the $15,000 if funding is not obtained; however, the City has been successful in obtaining funding from the FDOT. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if restriping can be done where the right-turn lane on Siesta Drive is being installed? Mr. Daughters stated that the County is responsible for Siesta Drive, east of U.S. 41. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to approve the' execution of the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement between the City and Equity Properties and Development Limited Partnership for the South Gate Shopping Center. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Lawrence M. Hankin, Esq. 2033 Main Street (34237), representing Dr. and Mrs. Kantor, came before the Commission and stated that Mrs. Kantor owns the Kantor Eye Institute located next to East Avenue; that in March 1991 the developer signed an agreement with the City agreeing to provide: 1) median improvements; 2) a right- turn lane; and 3) East Avenue improvements. Attorney Hankin stated that the Kantor Eye Institute was constructed in the spring of 1992; that Dr. Kantor relinquished access to Bee Ridge Road because of the development agreement; therefore, the only access to the Kantor Eye Institute is from East Avenue; that under the development agreement, the developer was to make application to the City to vacate East Avenue, which was not done until December 1994; that the development agreement stipulated a certificate of occupancy (CO) would not be issued for this 40,000 square foot facility in the shopping center until the East Avenue improvement was completed; that the CO was issued, the building is occupied and the consideration to the developer was granted; that the East Avenue improvements have not yet been addressed; that the developer has requested another three-year extension in order to complete the East Avenue improvements; that Dr. and Mrs. Kantor have requested the East Avenue improvements be completed within the next six months. Commissioner Patterson asked for staff's input regarding this issue. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City's water tower project may have delayed the commencement of the East Avenue improvements project. City Attorney Taylor stated that the East Avenue improvements project has been delayed because the owners, Equity Properties and Development Limited Partnership, have not supplied the necessary utility easements to the City. Bruce Franklin, 149 Cocoanut Avenue (34236), representing the Equity Properties and Development Limited Partnership, came before the Commission and stated that the two issues with respect to East Avenue are: 1) the necessity to complete the water tower project prior to commencing the East Avenue improvements project; and 2) the question of legal title of the underlying land along East Avenue. BOOK 38 Page 11888 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11889 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Franklin further stated that a question existed as to the conveyance of the necessary utility easements by the owners of the South Gate Shopping Center; that a quit claim deed was transferred from Equity Properties and Development Limited Partnership to the City in January 1995 to resolve the utility easement issue; that the quit claim deed expired on February 20, 1995; that the extension request is being made because regulations allow a three- year extension; that a timetable is not available at this time for the FDOT to begin the East Avenue improvements project; that the three-year extension is for: 1) the right-turn lane on U.S. 41; and 2) the East Avenue improvements. Mr. Franklin continued that Equity Properties and Development Limited Partnership has already paid $7,000 for improvements made and has dedicated the ROW; that the FDOT has agreed to pay for the East Avenue improvements project resulting in no cost to the City; that Equity Properties and Development Limited Partnership did not want to pursue the East Avenue improvements project before a new site plan is developed to replace Publix, the current anchor store of the shopping center; that the East Avenue improvements project should be constructed in conjunction with a new parking lot and drainage improvements; that the quit claim deed has expired and Equity Properties and Development Limited Partnership has agreed, in good faith, to obtain a revised agreement through the City Attorney's Office prior to public hearing. Commissioner Pillot stated that Dr. and Mrs. Kantor's concern is valid; that "February 20, 1998" could be struck from the amendment to the Development Agreement and the wording: "that it would be completed at the earliest date determined by negotiations between the City of Sarasota and the developer" substituted. Mr. Franklin stated that he agrees with the language substitution; that, as a temporary solution to this problem, the developer will bring East Avenue up to an acceptable standard; that a discussion with the City to accelerate construction plans could be held. Commissioner Pillot stated that the amendment to the Development Agreement could also include that the Equity Properties and Development Limited Partnership will immediately construct the road to meet acceptable standards. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a construction plan for driveway improvements should be negotiated for the project to be completed prior to the three-year limitation. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to approve the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement between the City and Equity Properties and Development Limited Partnership for the South Gate Shopping Center with a change to strike the language "February 20, 1998" on page 4 subsection (c) and substitute "to an earliest possible date to be negotiated between the City of Sarasota and the Equity Properties and Development Limited Partnership with immediate improvements to the surface of East Avenue. 1 Commissioner Patterson stated that the motion does not place a time frame for project completion; and asked City Attorney Taylor to comment on the motion. City Attorney Taylor stated that the date, February 20, 1998, was selected allowing for a three-year extension and was to be used as a "not to exceed date"; that the presumption is a project of this type would be completed prior to three years; that the developer should interpret the motion to read the project is to be completed as expeditiously as possible. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3877, PERTAINING TO AN INCREASE IN THE FEE CHARGED FOR THE DEMOLITION OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE AND THE USE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE INCREASE TO SUBSIDIZE THE FEES AND CHARGES FOR PROCESSING A PETITION FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION: AMENDING THE CITY OF SARASOTA AMENDMENTS TO THE 1991 EDITION OF THE STANDARD BUILDING CODE, SECTION 103.7.4, SCHEDULE OF PERMIT FEES, TO INCREASE THE COST OF A PERMIT TO DEMOLISH ANY BUSINESS OR STRUCTURE FROM ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS TO ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS; MAKING FINDINGS PERTAINING TO THE USE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE INCREASE; REQUIRING THAT THE FIFTY DOLLAR FEE INCREASE BE USED TO SUBSIDIZE THE COST OF PROCESSING A PETITION FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION ON A FIRST-COME FIRST-SERVED BASIS TO THE EXTENT OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (2276) through (2390) City Manager Sollenberger stated that proposed Ordinance. No. 95-3877 will increase the fee charged for the demolition of any building or structure from $100 to $150; that the $50 fee increase will be used to subsidize the cost of processing petitions for Historic Designation on a first-come first-served basis to the extent of availability of funds; that the City Commission at its meeting of May 1, 1995, set this proposed Ordinance for public hearing; that the Administration's recommendation is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3877 on first reading. BOOK 38 Page 11890 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11891 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3877 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3877 on first reading. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Merrill, yes. 12. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS - REFER THE ISSUE OF NORTH LIDO BEACH TO THE ADMINISTRATION: REQUESTED THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING RESIDENTIAL HOMES AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (2391) through #2 (0583) Sidney Shapiro, 176 Emerson Drive (34236), Christina Bales, 213 North Polk Drive (34236) and Frank McConnell, 160 Whittier Drive (34236), came before the Commission. Mr. Shapiro stated that the Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Department, in almost total disregard of a 1977 Bond Issue, carried out what may be termed a "chain-saw massacre" of North Lido Beach Park by destroying nearly 700 Australian Pine trees; that the County Parks and Recreation Department indicated Step III of the North Lido Beach Management Plan calls for the following: a. Removing Brazilian Peppers; b. Girdling Australian Pines encroaching on mangrove swamp along Pansy Lagoon; C. Removing Australian Pines encroaching on mangrove swamp along Pansy Bayou; d. Controlling new growth of Australian Pine; and e. Replacing the removed vegetation with native vegetation. Mr. Shapiro stated that many of the Australian Pines cut down were not near the mangrove swamp; that the County Parks and Recreation Department indicated money is not available to replace the cut pines with native trees of similar size; that the dying and dead trees create a risk of falling limbs to persons walking nearby; that the City should order the County Parks and Recreation Department to cease and desist from any further tree cutting; that the City should insist that the County Parks and Recreation Department provide money for the reforestation of mature native trees at North Lido Beach Park. Ms. Bales stated that the 1977 acquisition of the North Lido Beach Park was accomplished through the issuance of bonds by the City; that these bonds were approved by the residents of the City based upon the understanding that such property would remain in its natural and pristine state; that the intent of the Commission as reflected in Ordinance No. 87-3136 is to maintain the property as a public park in a natural state without development; that the destruction of 700 Australian Pines by the County Parks and Recreation Department violates the pledge to allow the natural beach process to continue; that the North Lido Beach Park is successful as long as it remains in its natural state; that she requests the Commission stop further destruction of the park and enforce the replanting of native vegetation. Mr. McConnell stated that he represents himself, his wife, 15 neighbors who are in the audience, and Ruth Richmond, one of the people responsible for overseeing the original plan which was to keep the North Lido Beach Park pristine; that the County Parks and Recreation Department after becoming aware of a public hearing, killed even more trees; that the County Parks and Recreation Department should help to protect the environment, not destroy it. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, distributed copies of the North Lido Management Plan to the Commission and stated that the plan summarizes what the City Commission adopted in 1990; that Step III of the North Lido Management Plan indicates that native vegetation would be replaced after the removal of Australian Pines or Brazilian Peppers; that the County indicated that approximately 800 Australian Pines should be removed from the North Lido Beach Park and has already girdled 400; that the County Parks and Recreation Department agreed to discontinue girdling after meeting with neighbors of the North Lido Beach Park; that the crew was not informed to discontinue cutting trees until after the meeting with the neighbors, which explains why the crew was cutting down trees this morning; that the County plans to revegetate the area before resuming any tree cutting; that he requested a written plan from the County Parks and Recreation Department regarding revegetation of the area. Commissioner Dry left the Commission Chambers at 7:20 p.m. Mr. Schneider continued that girdled trees take some time to fall; that the County Parks and Recreation Department, as a safety precaution, should remove girdled trees before they fall. BOOK 38 Page 11892 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11893 05/15/95 6:00 P.M, Commissioner Patterson stated that, at the request of North Lido Beach Park neighbors, she viewed the area of the park which had been girdled as of Friday, May 12; that she felt the County Parks and Recreation Department clearly went beyond the guidelines of the North Lido Management Plan; that the trees were only to be girdled near the mangrove areas; that she is pleased to hear that the County Parks and Recreation Department will stop removing trees and has allocated funding for native vegetation replacement; that the City should convey to the County Parks and Recreation Department that no further girdling is to occur until funding exists for native vegetation replacement; that the County Parks and Recreation Department should closely adhere to the North Lido Management Plan which specifies removing trees that encroach on mangrove swamp only; that one neighbor's privacy has been impaired because of the recent girdling; that two neighbors are willing to "adopt" an area and replant trees. Commissioner Dry returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:23 p.m. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to refer the issue of maintenance of the North Lido Beach Park to the Administration and to encourage the County to: 1) abide by the North Lido Beach Management Plan; and 2) work with the Lido Beach residents to provide labor and/or plantings for North Lido Beach Park above the existing plans. Mr. Shapiro stated that he does not want a precedent established shifting responsibility for maintaining the North Lido Beach Park from the County to the residents. Commissioner Patterson stated that the decision to accept additional responsibility will be up to the residents. Mayor Merrill stated that the intent of the motion is not to shift the responsibility for maintaining the park. Ms. Bales stated that a representative from the County Parks and Recreation Department informed her this morning that money is not available for revegetation and that the funding may be available next year; that she has concerns that the County Parks and Recreation Department is removing trees without having the funds to replace the vegetation. Commissioner Patterson stated that the intent of the motion is that the County will not remove trees unless funding is available to replace vegetation. Mayor Merrill stated that a third item to the effect that "the County is not to remove plants until funds are available to replant" could be added to the motion if there is no objection; that hearing no objection, this statement is added to the motion. Mr. McConnell stated that his proposal is to supplement the County Parks and Recreation Department's obligation, not replace it. Commissioner Patterson stated that was the intent of the motion as well. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to refer to the Administration the issue of encouraging the County Parks and Recreation: 1) to abide by the North Lido Beach Management Plan; 2) to work with the Lido Beach residents to provide labor and/or plantings for North Lido Beach Park above the existing plans; and 3) not to remove plants until funds are available for replantings. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Merrill, yes. Devin P. Rutkowski, 1920 Laurel Street (34236), representing the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA), came before the Commission and stated that he was contacted by Cheryl Wilson from Coastal Recovery Centers Inc.; that Coastal Recovery Centers Inc. inténd to purchase one or two buildings in Laurel Park in order to expand their outpatient treatment facilities; that the LPNA Board studied Chapter 419, Florida Statutes, which addresses community residential homes, and the Coastal Recovery Centers Inc. proposal; that the LPNA Board is not comfortable with converting a 22-unit apartment complex into a community residential home; that on April 11, 1995, the LPNA Board sent a letter to Coastal Recovery Centers Inc. indicating that the LPNA Board is more comfortable with converting older homes to include a maximum of 14 individual units and integrating these smaller number of units within the neighborhood; that on April 30, 1995, the LPNA Board learned that Coastal Recovery Centers Inc. has the Brandy Lee apartment building under contract for purchase. Mr. Rutkowski continued that the definition for a residential home as defined in Chapter 419, Florida Statutes, is as follows: "Community residential home: means a dwelling unit licensed to serve clients of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, which provides a living environment for 7 to 14 unrelated residents who operate as the functional equivalent of a family, including such supervision and care by supportive staff as may be necessary to meet the physical, emotional, and social needs of the residents." Mr. Rutkowski further stated that the above definition is the one used by Coastal Recovery Centers Inc. with the Brandy Lee apartment building which has 22-units; and asked if the interpretation of the Statute, for this situation, is as follows: BOOK 38 Page 11894 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11895 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. 1. The complex includes 22-units and could include 7 to 14 persons per dwelling unit; therefore, there could be as many as 308 persons living in the complex; or 2. The entire Brandy Lee complex is considered as one dwelling unit; or 3. A converted home could include 7 to 14 people? Mr. Rutkowski stated that the LPNA Board interprets the Statute to read that only 7 to 14 people are allowed in the entire complex. Mr. Rutkowski presented a drawing of the Laurel Park neighborhood indicating the 1,200-foot radius from the Brandy Lee apartment complex and stated that Chapter 419, Florida Statutes, has a 1,200-foot distance requirement between the community residential home and residential homes; that Coastal Recovery Centers Inc. refers clients to the Twin Oaks Motel which is 150 feet from the Brandy Lee apartment building, clearly not a distance of 1,200 feet as required under the Statute; that the LPNA Board believes the intent of the distance requirement is to avoid concentration of community residential homes in one neighborhood; that the Statute allows community residential homes to contain anywhere from 7 to 308 people, depending upon the reader's interpretation; therefore, it is imperative that a clear interpretation of the Statute is determined prior to placing community residential homes in neighborhoods. Mr. Rutkowski further stated that the Coastal Recovery Centers Inc. building includes 11 living units, a portion of which is considered a group home, and the remainder of the building is rented to tenants using a sliding scale payment; that Chapter 419, Florida Statutes, does not indicate that a Department of Health and Human Service (HRS) licensed agency may use a portion of the facility as a group home or rental rooms; that only those persons living in a group home environment require 24-hour supervision; therefore, only a portion of the residents at Coastal Recovery Centers Inc. are supervised; that the LPNA welcomes a community residential home but is concerned about the interpretation of the Statute; that he requests the Administration and the Commission make their views known as to the interpretation of Chapter 419, Florida Statutes, in the next 60 days. Mayor Merrill stated that Mr. Rutkowski brought up several issues; and asked if the Commission is to respond to these issues tonight or to obtain answers to be presented at a later date? Mr. Rutkowski stated that is not necessary to respond immediately; that the LPNA 's intent is to make the Commission aware of the issue concerning community residential homes. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to refer the issue of community residential homes to City Manager Sollenberger and city Attorney Taylor for recommendations to be made to the Commission at the earliest possible date. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 13. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: PLACING THE NON-BINDING REFERENDUM OUESTION OF CITY/COUNTY CONSOLIDATION ON THE BALLOT FOR THE MARCH, 1996 PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE ELECTION - NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #2 (0584) through (2083) Mayor Merrill stated that a non-binding referendum question of City/County Consolidation should be placed on the March 1996 Presidential Preference Election ballot. On motion of Mayor Merrill (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Cardamone), it was moved that the City initiate a study of City/County consolidation and refer this issue to City Manager Sollenberger to develop a study process and to report back to the Commission at the July 17, 1995, regular Commission meeting. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Mayor Merrill (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Cardamone), it was moved to set the City/County consolidation issue for a referendum on the March 1996 Presidential Preference Election ballot. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Patterson stated that citizens are signed up to speak on this issue; that she requests the citizens be allowed to speak even though no motion on the floor. The following people came before the Commission: Virginia Haley, 1646 South Orange Avenue, representing the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations (CCNA) (34239), stated that sufficient time was not available for a formal position on the consolidation issue; that discussions regarding relief on dual taxation and efficiency in the delivery of services such as the consolidation of the City and County Fire Departments have been held; that the CCNA has been operational for six years and a City/County consolidation discussion has never been held; that the CCNA does not want to relinquish access to its Commissioners which citizens enjoy in Sarasota; that an example was provided earlier this evening of a citizen's frustration when attempting to get a simple answer from the County Parks and Recreation Department; that the CCNA likes being able to call the Commissioners; that the CCNA likes having Commissioners walk through the neighborhoods to explore problems and stand on street corners viewing traffic problems; that she commends the Commission for allowing this issue BOOK 38 Page 11896 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11897 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. to die for now; that the issue should proceed with community discussion; that if the community is interested in a City/County consolidation, the process could proceed. Bart Cotten, 451 Woodland Drive (34234) and Jack Gurney 825 Tennessee Lane (34234). Mr. Cotten stated that some people say the consolidation of the City and County is inevitable, but he does not believe that to be true; that he believes that hard work with purpose and patience will preserve the unique identity of the City; that many recent projects such as the Bayfront, North Tamiami Trail landscaping, Laurel Park, Pineapple Park, Main Street, and other projects may not have occurred if the City were under County rule; that these projects are a good start, but only a start; that the downtown area is being revitalized, but more must be done to attract people to live in the City; that the City's assets must be utilized to make it worth paying more taxes in the City; that he and others have been working for eight months towards a solution of the dual-taxation problem by resolving the issue of the Sheriff's Road Patrol; that a solution to this problem will result in a narrowing of the distance between city and County taxes; that work is almost complete on the consolidation of the City and County Fire Departments, which will result in additional savings in City taxes; that other areas of consolidation must be examined; that all the efforts taken so far to resolve the dual taxation issue will be dead if the resolution introduced tonight is passed; that even consideration of this resolution could damage the City's position; that the citizens have become accustomed to the "family atmosphere" of City government; that the citizens believe concerns are better addressed by people who govern 56,000 residents rather than those who govern 225,000. Mr. Gurney stated that discussions regarding City/County consolidation should be postponed until autumn; that the City built a water and sewer infrastructure for City residents; that developers have built separate infrastructures in the County with the promise the infrastructures would one day be connected; that the cost of having separate infrastructures has been laid upon the City; that, as an example, the cost for septic tanks in the Phillippi Creek area is $72 million; that five to six years ago the County estimated the cost for consolidating the infrastructures to be nearly $500 million; that some areas of consolidation are worth exploring; that the City is unique, and separate from the County, in that it supports the arts; that he is concerned by: 1) a County economy driven by building permits, tourism and some agriculture; and 2) an impact fee structure which has grown to such an extent that industries are discouraged from moving into the County. Mr. Gurney continued that the downtown redevelopment is a successi that the initiatives and imagination to develop the downtown area could be applied to other areas of the City. Paul N. Thorpe, 157 Garden Lane (34242), stated that he agrees with Mr. Cotten's and Mr. Gurney's statements; that the City of Sarasota is known for its culture, arts and economic development; that he did not vote for any of the City Commissioners to dissolve the City of Sarasota; that the City/County consolidation issue should not be put to referendum until discussions have been held; that he requests the Commission give further consideration to this issue. Edward Harding, 136 Golden Gate Point (34236), stated that he has a concern about the global economy's effect upon Sarasota; that U.S. citizens are competing with the entire world, and industry is downsizing and becoming more efficient; that he envisions a consolidated Board to include five County Commissioners and two City Commissioners which would be downsizing as is being done in industry; that a metropolitan form of government is not new and is successful in Minneapolis, Louisville and Jacksonville, Florida; that two department heads for each department is not necessaryi that the City is wasting money and this money could be directed to educators and new and improved housing; that impact fees have little to do with losing new industries; that the City should have a Small Business and Investment Corporation (SBIC) and banks which would Einance start-up companies. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City/Commission consolidation issue was initiated by Mayor Merrill at the May 6, 1995, goal setting meetingi that Commissioner Pillot agreed the issue could be set for referendum; that she agreed to set the issue for referendum as a non-binding issue; that having thought it through, she does not agree to set the City/Commission consolidation issue for referendum; that a referendum indicates the City is serious about consolidation which would cause poor morale for citizens and staff and could be a disadvantage for the bond rating of the City. Commissioner Patterson stated that the consolidation of the City and County Fire Departments could equitably reduce the tax differential between City and County property owners; that she did not support the dual taxation issue as a City goal for this year because the consolidation of the City and County Fire Departments should be resolved first; that the downtown area is doing better than it. has in years; that the downtown neighborhoods are increasing in value, where the property values were decreasing in prior years; that the millage has held steady and staff was downsized; that placing the City/County consolidation issue for referendum indicates to residents that the City is not doing well, but the City is doing very well; that the consolidation issue could be discussed at a later date, but now is not the time. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the consolidation issue should not be discussed for a long time after tonight; that the Oath of Office, which is taken by all Commissioners, stipulates that each BOOK 38 Page 11898 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11899 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner pledges to support, protect and defend the City of Sarasota; that setting the issue of consolidation to referendum demonstrates that the Commissioners are not fulfilling their Oath of Office; that she has not had the opportunity to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of City/County consolidation and discussion is premature; that a meeting with the County is scheduled to discuss areas of further consolidation to reduce some inequities City property owners endure; that Sarasota is recognized as one of the premiere, small cities in America; and asked the following: 1. What would a consolidation do to the image of Sarasota? 2. What would happen to the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall, the Ed Smith Stadium, the Municipal Auditorium, the water treatment plant, and other infrastructures which the City owns? 3. How would debts and bonds be addressed? 4. Would the County want to govern a metropolitan area with all the special considerations of a built-out City? and 5. Would the County be able to afford to keep Sarasota in a style to which it has become accustomed? Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the City-owned amenities is what sets the city apart from the unincorporated areas; that the residents of the City live here by choice; that commercial property owners are investors in the City by choice; that consideration of consolidation should not occur until the advantages and disadvantages are thoroughly studied; that to entertain an idea of this magnitude with no real supporting information would be irresponsible. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with Vice Mayor Cardamone's comments regarding the consolidation issue; that several citizens have voiced their opposition to consolidation; that Mayor Merrill explained his reasons for considering consolidation at the goal setting meeting; that the Commission must respect Mayor Merrill's logic in his presentation of the consolidation issue; that Mayor Merrill's reasons are ethical and proper, though the Commission has not chosen to discuss the issue further. Commissioner Dry stated that residents indicated opposition to full consolidation with the County during her campaign for Commissioner; that she opposes the consolidation as a representative of her District; that all City and County government functions must be studied before considering a consolidation. Mayor Merrill displayed a chart of the Inflation Adjusted city Tax Base from 1971 to 1994 on the overhead projector, and stated that his first motion was that the consolidation issue should be studied; that typically money is what drives most decisions during consolidation; that the tax dollars for each year on the chart were inflated using the value of 1994 dollars; that the chart demonstrates periods of flat growth and periods of major upward assessments; that the City's property value has decreased since 1984; therefore, an increase in monies to provide new services for Sarasota will not be available. Mayor Merrill displayed a chart of the Annual Percentage Change in City Tax Base Adjusted for Inflation on the overhead projector, and stated that this chart indicates the change in the tax base from 1971 to 1994; that the peaks in the chart are caused from a large adjustment made by the Tax Appraiser; that the large peaks are trending downward and he believes this is caused by the build-out of vacant land; that the tax base has declined in value since 1990. Mayor Merrill displayed a chart of the Cumulative Change to Inflation Adjusted Tax Base since 1989 on the overhead project, and stated that the recession has played a role in the decline in property values; that the chart illustrates changes in the City versus the changes in the County; that the net change to the city's tax base has declined by 7 percent while the County's tax base increased 8 percent since 1989 and the values of the County outside the City limits increased 10 percent; that the bottom line is, if the trend continues: 1) less money will be available for employees; and 2) less money will be available for new projects. Mayor Merrill stated that this trend is occurring nationwide; that cities unable to capture new growth in suburban areas must offset the services from the older neighborhoods; that the general prognosis for Sarasota, with its limited ability to expand and its redevelopment efforts which have not kept up with inflation, is not good; that Sarasota is beginning to have big-city problems; that planning must take into consideration that the metropolitan area of Sarasota is the equivalent of a big city. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that consolidation is no longer an issue to discuss at this time; that it is a dead issue. Commissioner Patterson stated that the consolidation of the City and County Fire Departments should be explored before discussing other consolidations. City Manager Sollenberger stated that two consolidation efforts are currently under study which are: 1) the Fire Departments; and 2) Public Safety Communications; and that further consolidation studies should not occur at this time. BOOK 38 Page 11900 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11901 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the presentation on consolidation of the City and County was given months ago and she anticipated this issue as a part of this fiscal year's budget process; and asked the time frame for these consolidation study efforts? City Manager Sollenberger stated that a determination must occur as to how to bring the funding together; that he and the County Administrator have discussions scheduled to address this issue; and that the results of these discussions will be presented at the May 31, 1995, joint City/County workshop. Commissioner Pillot stated that consolidation efforts should not be rushed. Mayor Merrill stated that if there is no objection, there will be a five-minute break. The Commission recessed from 8:26 p.m. until 8:32 p.m. 14. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: CHARTER REVIEW BOARD = APPROVED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT BE REVIEWED; STIPULATION RECONSIDERED IN THE OTHER MATTERS /ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS' SECTION - NOMINATIONS TO BE PRESENTED AT THE JUNE 19, 1995, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #2 (2084) through (2921) Commissioner Patterson referenced her memorandum dated May 9, 1995, which was included in the agenda materials and stated that the City Commission should appoint a Charter Review Board; that each City Commissioner would appoint one member to serve on the Charter Review Board; that staff liaison would be provided by the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk; that the Charter Review Board would be created for a maximum duration of nine months; that topics to be considered by the Charter Review Board would be as follows: a. Form of government for the City of Sarasota, including an elected Mayor; b. Residency requirements for elected officials; C. Date of election; and d. Other items as the Board deems appropriate. Commissioner Patterson stated that at the end of nine months, the Charter Review Board would report its findings back to the City Commission for consideration and possible action as a referendum for the fall 1996 election. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to approve the establishment of a Charter Review Board as outlined in Commissioner Patterson's memorandum dated May 9, 1995. Commissioner Pillot stated that he endorses having the elections changed from March in the odd numbered years to November in the even numbered years in order to encourage greater voter turn out and lessen the costs by having elections coincide with the national elections; that the initiation of a Charter Review Board for a 1996 referendum is too early for a review of the Charter; and asked if the City Charter is scheduled for review by 1999? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a review is to be held at least every 10 years. Commissioner Pillot asked if at least three years are left until the current Charter must be reviewed? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a review is to be conducted at least every 10 years and the last review was in 1988. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the group should be called the Charter Review Committee to distinguish it from the County Charter Review Board; that she finds it interesting to debate different forms of government; that the Committee should consider requirements for election other than just residency such as requiring officials to be property owners; that she supports the motion on the table, but does not support a maximum nine-month term for the Charter Review Committee. Mayor Merrill stated that if there is no objection, the group will be called the Charter Review Committee; that hearing no objections, the group will be called the Charter Review Committee. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Committee could always request a term extension at a later date; that Committees usually work better within a shorter time frame; that striking "residency" from the requirements is acceptable, however, a requirement that officials be property owners may not be possible. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to strike the word "residency" from Commissioner Patterson's May 9, 1995, memorandum. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Commissioner Pillot stated that anyone frightened by the thought of consolidation of the City and the County should be even more frightened by the thought of having an elected Mayor replace a City Manager form of government; that he has been involved with the BOOK 38 Page 11902 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11903 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. management and administration of school systems, which is analogous to city government; that he is familiar with school systems which have an elected superintendent with no other requirements than being a registered voter and also with school systems which have an appointed superintendent so a school board can choose the person they believe to be the most qualified; that he is frightened by the thought that the City Manager form of government could be replaced; that he will not support a Charter referendum as long as replacing the City Manager form of government remains a possibility. Commissioner Patterson stated that her intent is not to remove the Administrator or any responsibilities of the Mayor; that the City Manager's and Mayor's jobs could remain the same with either a strong Mayor or with the City's current form of government; that she has no objections if the Commission desires to maintain a paid Administrator. Mayor Merrill asked City Attorney Taylor if the Commission is allowed to limit the scope of topics the Charter Review Committee can study? City Attorney Taylor stated that this procedure is documented either in an ordinance or a resolution when the prior Charter Review Committee was formed; that the document contains the parameters, administration and requirements for the Charter Review Committee; that public input is received prior to adopting the committee guidelines. Commissioner Dry stated that Commissioner Patterson's memorandum indicates the following: The topics which would be considered by the Board would be as follows: form of government for the City of Sarasota, including an elected Mayor; Commissioner Dry stated that the wording in the memorandum does not limit the topic of discussion, but that voting for a mayor could be one possibility for the form of government; and that the Committee may or may not recommend this form of government for Sarasota. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that when the previous Charter Review Committee was established, the topics for investigation included reviewing the entire Charter, but stipulated the Committee would not change the form of government; that she does not support changing the form of government but it is worthy of being studied by a citizens' groupi that if the Commission does not agree with the Committee's findings, the recommendation would not become a referendum for vote by the residents. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Mayor Merrill (who passed the gavel the Vice Mayor Cardamone), it was moved to amend the motion to specify that the City Manager form of government is not open for consideration to be changed. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with Vice Mayor Cardamone in that the Commission does not have to adopt any recommendations made by the Committee; however, the amendment to the motion would alleviate wasting the Committee's time and efforts in studying an issue which would not be considered by the Commission. Vice Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the amendment to the motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Dry, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to - approve the establishment of a Charter Review Committee in accordance with the guidelines in Commissioner Patterson's memorandum dated May 9, 1995, as amended by: 1) striking the word residency"; and 2) including the restriction that the City Manager form of government is not open to change. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked when the Committee will be established? Commissioner Patterson stated that the May 9, 1995, memorandum indicates each Commissioner will appoint one member. Mayor Merrill stated that the May 9, 1995, memorandum reads as follows: Each City Commissioner would appoint one member to serve on the Charter Review Committee. Staff liaison would be provided by the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk. Commissioner Pillot asked if there is a date by which the nominees are to be submitted? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson asked when the Commissioners could submit the nominations? Commissioner Pillot stated that he will be out of town most of the next two weeks. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the nominations could be submitted at the June 19, 1995, regular Commission meeting. Mayor Merrill indicated a consensus to return the nominations at the June 19, 1995, regular Commission meeting. BOOK 38 Page 11904 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11905 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that the motion indicates the possibility of a decision to elect a Mayor, but the City Manager form of government will not be considered for change; and asked if a strong Mayor is not possible for consideration? Commissioner Pillot stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that there are strong Mayors in the world who work with a City Manager. Commissioner Patterson stated that a strong Mayor form of government is not the same as a City Manager form of government. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she may like to change her vote for the amendment to the motion to establish a Charter Review Committee to exclude consideration by the Charter Review Committee of the issue of the City Manager form of government. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that since Vice Mayor Cardamone's vote is in the affirmative, a motion to reconsider can be made. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she would like a few minutes to reconsider. Commissioner Patterson asked if Vice Mayor Cardamone could make a motion to reconsider later in the meeting? Mayor Merrill stated yes, since Vice Mayor Cardamone announced her intent to reconsider. 15. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: REVISED 1995-96 BUDGET WORKSHOP SCHEDULE = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #2 (2922) through (3031) Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that a Special Commission meeting is scheduled at 6:00 p.m. on Friday, July 21, 1995, to certify the millage to the property appraiser; that the revised schedule moves the Special Commission meeting to Thursday, July 20, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. for the same purpose and eliminates the budget workshop scheduled for Friday. Commissioner Patterson stated that this change is being made because she could not attend the Friday, July 21, 1995, budget meeting; that her plans have now changed and she is able to attend a meeting on July 21, 1995; however, the Commission may want to attempt to complete the budget workshop in four days and leave July 21, 1995, open if the workshop requires the extra day. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with the proposed change. Mayor Merrill stated that the proposed change is acceptable to him. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no objection, the proposed schedule change is approved by unanimous consent. 16. BOARD APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT RE: CITY COMMISSION REPRESENTATION ON BOARDS AND COMMITTEES - APPROVED THE FOLLOWING APPOINTMENTS: COMMISSIONER PATTERSON AND COMMISSIONER DRY TO THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION: COMMISSIONER PATTERSON TO THE MANASOTA LEAGUE OF CITIES; VICE MAYOR CARDAMONE TO THE SARASOTA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY POLICY COMMITTEE AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD: AND MAYOR MERRILL TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (AGENDA ITEM IX) #2 (3032) through (3135) Mayor Merrill stated that the Commission has representation on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Policy Committee, the Tourist Development Council, the Economic Development Board and the ManaSota League of Cities; that Commissioner Patterson and Commissioner Dry are interested in appointment to.t the MPO; that Commissioner Patterson is interested in the ManaSota League of Cities appointment; that Vice Mayor Cardamone is interested in the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Policy Committee and the Economic Development Board appointments; that Mayor Merrill is interested in the Tourist Development Council appointment. Mayor Merrill stated that the appointments of those who expressed an interest in the various Boards/Committees will be approved if there is no objection; that hearing no objection, the appointments are approved by unanimous consent. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that there has been an alternate to the Economic Development Board; and asked if an alternate should be selected for this committee? Mayor Merrill stated that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson could select alternates for each committee. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Tourist Development Council will not allow an alternate; that alternates for the other committees will be selected. Mayor Merrill stated that any Commissioner wishing to serve as alternate is to contact City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 17. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS ELIMINATED THE STIPULATION THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WOULD NOT REVIEW THE CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT (AGENDA ITEM XI) #2 (3136) through (3171) BOOK 38 Page 11906 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. - R BOOK 38 Page 11907 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. stated that the St. Armands speed humps installation began today and will be completed by the end of the week. VICE MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to clarify the procedure to reconsider a vote? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a vote can be reconsidered by a motion introduced by a Commissioner who voted with the prevailing position; that such a motion requires a second, is debateable, and requires a majority vote. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to reconsider the amendment approved to exclude consideration of the City Manager form of government which amended the motion to establish a Charter Review Committee. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she is reconsidering her vote because there are operations in this State and in the Nation with a strong Mayor and a City Manager; that she did not intend to support eliminating consideration of having a strong Mayor work with a City Manager; that she believes strongly in the City Manager form of government, but discussion about having a strong Mayor and a City Manager should not be foreclosed; that the Commission should investigate how this system works in other communities. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a clarification of the definition of a strong Mayor is necessary; that a strong Mayor form of government connotes that the Mayor has administrative and management responsibilities and is not responsible to the City Commission for the administration of the affairs of the City; that there are Mayors who are strong in the policy realm who function in cities with a counsel-manager form of government; that San Diego has a counsel-manager form of city government in which the City Manager is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the city and the Mayor does not have the administrative responsibilities; that the former Mayor of San Diego was subsequently elected to the United States Senate and is now Governor; that San Antonio, Texas, is another example of a city with a counsel-manager form of government; that a former San Antonio Mayor, who worked in a counsel-manager form of city government, is now influential at the national level; that these are examples of Mayors who have functioned in a strong role in policy formulation in a counsel- manager form of government. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she appreciates City Manager Sollenberger's clarification of a strong Mayor form of government. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Charter could specify there is to be an Administrator; that a strong Mayor form of government connotes that the City Manager answers directly to the Mayor and the Council would have the ability at some level to veto any actions taken. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Charter should not be rewritten at the table; that the issue of a strong Mayor should be discussed by the Charter Review Committee. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to reconsider stipulating that the Charter Review Committee would not review the issue of the City Manager form of government which was an amendment to the motion to establish a Charter Review Committee. Motion to reconsider the amendment carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no; Merrill, no. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the amendment to exclude consideration of the City Manager form of government. Amendment failed (3 to 2) : Cardamone, no; Dry, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill asked if another vote on the motion is to be made? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that another vote on the motion can be made if .someone moves to reconsider the motion. Commissioner Pillot stated that he voted for the motion based upon approval of the amendment to the motion and, therefore, he would like to move reconsideration of the vote. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Mayor Merrill (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Cardamone), it was moved to reconsider the motion to create a Charter Review Committee in accordance with the guidelines in Commissioner Patterson's memorandum dated May 9, 1995, as revised by striking the word "residency. 1 Motion to reconsider carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone called for a vote to approve the establishment of a Charter Review Committee in accordance with the guidelines in Commissioner Patterson's memorandum dated May 9, 1995, as revised by striking the word "residency. 1 Motion carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no; Merrill, no. BOOK 38 Page 11908 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11909 05/15/95 6:00 P.M. 18. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #2 (3759) The Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of May 15, 1995, was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. 20 DAVID MERRILL, Mayof ATTEST: illuE Rabnson BILLY Ec7 ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK