FORT MYERS BEACH

JOINT TRAFFIC MITIGATION AGENCY/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

SEPTEMBER 21, 2004

Town Hall-Council Chambers

2523 Estero Boulevard

FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA

I. CALL TO ORDER: A joint meeting of the Fort Myers Beach Traffic Mitigation Agency and the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency was called to order on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 at 12:00 P.M. by Chairs Tom Myers, TMA and Anita Cereceda, LPA.

Members present at the meeting: Anita Cereceda, Jodi Hester, Harold Huber, Robert Simon, Jessica Titus Hank Zuba, LPA; Tom Cameron, Ken Katcko, & Tom Myers, TMA.

Excused absence from the meeting: Bill McCarthy, Jane Plummer, & Betty Simpson, LPA; Tom Merrill & Fank Schilling, TMA.

Staff present at the meeting: Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Community Development Director Jerry Murphy, Chris Swenson (CRSPE Consultant), Lee County Planner Bill Spikowski, Town Attorney Richard Roosa

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: All those present assembled and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Transcriptionist’s note: The tape began with the last several words of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ms. Segal-George explained that this was an unusual joint meeting of the two groups for the purpose of discussing the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. She said it was felt desirable to discuss respective duties and responsibilities of each of the groups. She also mentioned that attorney Beverly Grady was in attendance to make a presentation during Agenda Item VI. These are examples of the kinds of issues coming up that will have implications for both groups. She also noted that the TMA has not been meeting because of the storms, and there are agenda items to be established for both groups.

Ms. Cereceda asked those in attendance to state their names for the record.

III. INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – BILL SPIKOWSKI:

Mr. Spikowski recalled attending a meeting of the TMA in July where he had presented an introduction to the transportation element. He said that there have been many ideas discussed and/or tried, and there aren’t many new ideas. He explained that this would be a basis of knowledge with respect to the pros and cons of these ideas, and what has been tried with what results. He also called attention to the pent-up demand of people wanting to visit the Island, especially during Season. He suggested that the first step in updating the element would be for everyone to read it and refresh their memories. In addition to the benefits in documenting this for the public, when professionals are involved they will not have to start over in order to understand what has been done in the past. He explained that this element was written and adopted in 1998 and has really not been amended at all since then, adding that this is an appropriate time period for updating, slightly earlier than the State’s requirements. The storms have put this slightly behind schedule, but the only penalty for being late is that no other Comp Plan amendments can be done during that time period, so he cautioned against feeling pressured. One of the questions discussed at the last LPA and TMA meetings was how to get people involved in providing input and also in learning throughout the process. This was seen as a benefit of today’s joint meeting. The LPA is officially in charge of the project, but in 1998 there was a separate subcommittee which had the role that the TMA now has.

Ms. Segal-George pointed out that since she works with both groups, she will require some direction as to how the groups want to work through this transportation element so that efforts are not duplicated, and the groups are working cooperatively together. For example, she asked whether the LPA wants the TMA to work on the transportation element independently and then bring their recommendations to the LPA. Ms. Cereceda asked the TMA members for any ideas.

Mr. Katcko expressed the opinion that it was essential for the two groups to work together on traffic issues.

Ms. Hester agreed that the TMA should work independently but suggested that an LPA member volunteer to sit as an ex officio member and report back to the LPA.

Mr. Cameron recalled a scheduled test that was cancelled due to Hurricane Charley. It was explained that some of the Season goals would not be met because of the delays, but that everything that had been previously considered and set in place would go forward.

Mr. Zuba agreed with Ms. Hester and recalled numerous cases before the LPA in which traffic impact was a consideration.

Mr. Huber suggested that TMA should come up with a plan, and then there be another joint meeting with the LPA for revision, approval or disapproval as the senior agency. He does not feel that LPA attendance at the TMA meetings is that important, adding that their results could be presented to the LPA all at one time.

In reply to a question, Ms. Segal-George explained that the TMA has met as often as every other week. Minutes would be available for LPA review.

Mr. Myers noted that traffic is always going to be a problem, but by putting heads together there can be some progress and positive results.

Mr. Cameron recalled positive actions that came out of the TMA. Ms. Segal-George stressed that these kinds of things will be accomplished, just on a later timetable. She emphasized that many of the buildback cases before the LPA and Council center around what constitutes density and intensity and continually cause problems with respect to possible impact on traffic, and that this is something which can be addressed in this transportation element. There will be some interesting new opportunities due to availability of FEMA funding after the recent disasters.

Mr. Zuba asked whether there is a process under which the TMA could review these cases, and it was explained that there is a statutory problem because of the responsibility of the LPA which cannot be delegated to the TMA. There was discussion about how such a procedure might be established wherein the TMA is not sitting in the same capacity as the LPA.

Ms. Hester pointed out that the issue is whether the LPA wants to delegate the traffic mitigation portion of the Comp Plan review to the TMA. Since the LPA now meets twice a month, she suggested one joint meeting per month to discuss their findings. Ms. Segal-George pointed out the workload, including the Glitch Ordinance.

Ms. Cereceda also expressed concern with the workload and pointed out that with an agency now created to deal specifically with issues related to traffic provides the opportunity to take this task from the LPA as the rest of the Comp Plan is being reviewed. She noted that the TMA when established was “temporary,” suggesting that if it is to be a permanent committee it is unfair to its members not to have better definition of its mission and responsibilities. Ms. Segal-George explained that the committee itself was not intended to be temporary, just the initial appointments. The TMA already has a mission statement. Ms. Cereceda said she felt it was an excellent idea to have the TMA work on the traffic element independently, and asked other LPA members for their opinion about an LPA member attending.

Mr. Huber did not feel that an LPA member needs to attend TMA meetings. The LPA can approve or disapprove their findings at one time after receiving their input.

Mr. Zuba suggested that past LPA experience might be useful to the TMA. Ms. Segal-George felt that it might be advantageous to have the TMA take their own approach.

There was consensus that the TMA would independently take on the review of the traffic element and report their findings back to the LPA.

Mr. Huber noted that in his opinion, intensity should not be figured by square footage but rather by trips per day generated by the property.

Ms. Cereceda invited the LPA members to discuss issues with the TMA members.

VI. POSSIBLE DISCUSSION OF A CONCEPTUAL LAND USE CASE WITH SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES:

Beverly Grady with the law firm of Roetzel and Andress came forward and provided copies of the case to members. Ms. Cereceda pointed out that it is in the best interest of clients to provide material to the LPA members beforehand. She asked Mr. Murphy to remind people of that. Ms. Grady proceeded to present her conceptual case. The area involved included Times Square, Estero Blvd. and Crescent St. Estero Blvd. would be realigned and the pedestrian area within Times Square would be greatly expanded. The owners of 2 properties are involved. She asked for an opinion from the groups whether this was considered an opportunity that should be explored, and if so, what the appropriate process would be.

Mr. Huber described this proposal as “very exciting” and said he would approve of the concept.

Ms. Hester said she was “excited about it, too” but observed she had not been involved in TMA discussions. She asked Fire Chief Markus how he felt about the concept because of the left turn elimination, which she recalled had been an issue. Ms. Segal-George cautioned that she did not feel it appropriate to ask others for input at this point. Ms. Hester then said she would like to hear from the Fire Department before making a final decision.

It was pointed out that this conceptual project has implications for the Comp Plan, and this was part of the reason for introducing it at this time.

Ms. Cereceda recalled past issues with parking garages, roundabouts and walkovers. She pointed out some stumbling blocks such as adjacent properties’ access. There was discussion about the traffic alignments and other aspects of the conceptual plan.

Mr. Katcko observed that this was a perfect example of something the LPA would like to pass on to the TMA. He noted that there would be significant traffic issues that would have to be addressed at a separate meeting.

Mr. Myers asked for an overlay of what it looks like now. Ms. Grady pointed out that the color copies, not immediately available, were easier to understand for this purpose.

Ms. Cereceda said she would like to be assured that the developer has the capacity to perform, not just the financial capability. Ms. Grady replied that if the Town sees positives, this is the time to consider them in view of the recent disasters. Ms. Cereceda also pointed out that she would need to know what the “cost” would be to the Town, and not just the financial cost.

Ms. Segal-George emphasized that this presentation is conceptual and not specific. She said that some of the issues could be dealt with if the opportunity is perceived as beneficial to the Town. There is no way to determine the quid pro quo at this meeting. She said she felt that this case would be appropriate for the two groups to consider conceptually. She pointed out that Ms. Grady represents a property owner with some possible consolidated ownership, and the Town, not the client, will have to deal with other individuals who may be affected.

Mr. Huber said he saw this as very exciting with a lot of potential, and he did not think all problems could be solved on one level. With respect to whether the developer should proceed or not, his personal opinion is that they should.

Mr. Spikowski expressed disagreement with a statement by Ms. Cereceda that this belongs with the TMA and said that there are other elements to be considered that go far beyond traffic.

Mr. Simon pointed out that concepts do not always hold up under further consideration, and also called attention to the fact that the Town does not own Estero Blvd. There is another governmental agency that will have to be involved in the decision. He also asked whether the developer will pay for the realignment. He also would be opposed to a quid pro quo involving several high rise condominium projects. He called for more information and agreed that the TMA would be appropriate to look into the traffic issues.

There was further discussion about whether or not the Town wishes to pursue the concept. Mr. Swenson noted that while it would not be feasible to conduct a physical study of the road realignment, it would be possible to computer model such a study. He said that this would give some answers to the specific questions being asked. The CRSPE study avoided the taking of right of way and the realignment of Estero Blvd., whereas it now appears that this possibility exists, and the TMA is set up to investigate this.

Mr. Katcko said that while the TMA would be happy to look into this, he feels the LPA must first decide whether it is an overall concept it wishes the Town to pursue. He felt the traffic, while a major component of the plan, was secondary.

Mr. Myers said he did not feel comfortable making a go- no-go decision at this time without more time to consider the issue. He recalled past discussions of other concepts in that location.

Ms. Segal-George pointed out that this was being presented as an example of the kinds of cases the LPA and TMA will be called upon to decide, but that no decision was expected at this time other than whether the potential is desirable.

The consensus was that that since there is direction that the TMA is going to handle the traffic element, with subsequent LPA review, and the LPA will begin the EAR process, it would be a good idea for the TMA to decide how to encompass this in the LPA’s review of the entire Comp Plan, and what issues it raises with relation to that, and how the TMA should look at this in relation to traffic issues. It was pointed out that the EAR is on the schedule for upcoming meetings.

V. MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS:

Jodi Hester said she was unable to find last year’s budget because of the storms, but it looked like the LPA budget had been decreased by $50,000.00 and she asked for clarification. The comments were not audible.

Harold Huber noted that pictures of all the signs on the Island had been put into the computer this morning.

Adjournment of the Joint Meeting

The joint meeting was adjourned by Ms. Cereceda. LPA members were excused for the duration of the TMA meeting.

VI. BRIEF DISCUSSION AND SETTING OF NEXT MEETING AND AGENDA FOR TMA:

October 6^th at 10:00 A.M. was chosen as the date & time for the next meeting. With respect to the agenda, Ms. Segal-George recommended an update on everything. She also recommended taking up the suggestion that the TMA go back to Council regarding permanency, since there is sufficient on its agenda to go beyond the first of the year.

She also mentioned that she had copied the TMA members on a letter she sent to the County Commissioners on the Lee County Staff recommendation not to support the funding request of $149,000.00 for the trolley/tram system. The last budget hearing at the County is tomorrow night, and the letter was sent to all of the Commissioners and the Chairman explaining that the Town feels it had met the criteria with regard to getting those funds. The Council also authorized a letter at their meeting last night asking the County to set funds aside in their coming budget for Estero Blvd. because FEMA funds could greatly multiply these funds. Ms. Segal-George explained how the Town feels it has met the criteria the County was concerned about. Staff and at least one Council member will attend the County hearing.

She added that everything is behind schedule due to the storms. There is a long list of projects.

In response to a question, Ms. Segal-George explained how FEMA reimbursement percentages apply.

There was some discussion about storm debris removal. Everything was checked and weighed in accordance with FEMA requirements. She complimented Director of Public Services Matt Feeney on heading up the debris removal, as well as all of the Staff. Mr. Myers also complimented the Staff.

Mr. Katcko asked whether TMA representation at the County budget hearings would be beneficial, and Ms. Segal-George felt that the Town was well represented, although everyone was welcome to attend.

Mr. Cameron had some comments for the Fire Department regarding traffic flow.

The TMA meeting was adjourned by Mr. Myers at 1:35 P.M. Ms. Cereceda reconvened the LPA meeting at 2:10 P.M.

VII. CONVENING OF THE LPA – PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TOWN OF FORT MYERS BEACH CIP AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL:

Town Attorney Richard Roosa explained that one of the LPA’s duties every year is to look at the capital improvements that are proposed as part of the budget process and give to Council any recommendations on the substance thereof. This is normally done in August or the beginning of September, but this year in addition to that meeting there will be a formal Public Hearing at the same time having to do with amending the Comprehensive Plan to put that new schedule of improvements into the plan. He explained that his used to be done with all the other Comp Plan amendments in January or February, but this year there is an attempt to save some meetings and advertising costs by doing it together. At today’s meeting the LPA is to look at the substance of the proposed capital improvements and also having a public hearing and asking for public input, then making a recommendation to Council on the amendment to the Comp Plan that will incorporate that schedule of improvements.

Ms. Hester asked about changes to the CIP budget, and Ms. Segal-George advised that this would show in the Contingency and Reserves. There are no changes to the CIP, and most of what was done within the first 72 hours will be 100 per cent reimbursed, with the rest at an average 75 per cent reimbursement. Congressman Porter Goss is trying to get this percentage increased. Debris removal alone will be over $1 million. We should be reimbursed in the next budget year. She said there was substantial public damage that has been documented, and that we are doing very well with negotiating higher reimbursement rates. There are also a number of interesting possible mitigation projects. There is a consulting group that has been used by Wauchula and Arcadia and a number of other places who have been particularly good at getting FEMA funds and mitigation dollars, and the Town is looking into hiring this firm. There may well be Federal money available to help pay for such things as canals to improve drainage, transportation, and projects such as the conceptual plan discussed earlier. A list has been compiled. None of this applies to the CIP budget. Most of the CIP money is directed at traffic mitigation projects, although it is not known what those projects are going to be. Laguna Shores is another large project.

Ms. Cereceda asked about the neighborhood tree program. Ms. Segal-George said that next week the Council will be asked to put more funding into this program. The problem has been getting a neighborhood to arrive at the required consensus.

The issue of the Town Hall lease was brought up. Ms. Segal-George pointed out that the speaker at last night’s meeting had prefaced his remarks by mentioning the Mound House and the Newton Property, which were bought with grant money rather than general funds. She said there is no grant money available to purchase or build a Town Hall. She added that attempts to purchase the current building have been to no avail, and pointed out that there are a limited number of possibilities on the Island. Ms. Segal-George said she has never been comfortable with personally advocating a new Town Hall. Pros and cons of renting at the current location were discussed, as well as co-locating with the Fire and Sheriff’s Departments. She recalled experiences during the post-storm emergency operations.

Ms. Cereceda called for public comment at this time. Seeing no public in Chambers, the public hearing was closed.

MOTION: Motion was made by Mr. Zuba and seconded by Ms. Hester to approve the CIP as presented and recommend that Town Council approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous vote.

VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Murphy had some comments concerning signs that have been damaged and a possible moratorium on non-conforming signs to bring them all into compliance with Code rather than attempt to determine the 50 per cent of value for each sign, or have non-conforming signs put back when they will have to come down in 2007. Mr. Huber noted that he has taken pictures of all signs within the past 3 or 4 days, and expressed the opinion that there may not be so many, as some are completely gone and several are just leaning which just need to be straightened. He did not believe there would be many in the 50 per cent repair area. Signs cannot be repaired without permits, and none have been issued to date. Mr. Roosa described some work that he has done on the “Glitch Ordinance,” some of which apply to signs.

Ms. Cereceda pointed out that some small business people might not be able to afford a full replacement at this time. Temporary signage was also discussed.

Ms. Segal-George advised that Ginny Ross had passed away and provided information about her memorial service on Friday.

The Mid-Island Laundry sign was also discussed.

IX. ADJOURN: Meeting was adjourned by Ms. Cereceda. Time was not stated.

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia L. Middlekauff

Transcribing Secretary