BOARD MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING AGENDA MONDAY – … Agendas/Aug 8 MP agenda.pdf · 2012-2021 TDP...

BOARD MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING AGENDA MONDAY – AUGUST 8, 2011

1:30 – 4:00 PM COMMISSION CHAMBERS

1. LEE TRAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAJOR UPDATE PRESENTER: Steven Myers, Transit TIME REQUIRED: 20 Minutes 2. ANNEXATION AND INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENTS – STATUS REPORT PRESENTER: Karen Hawes, County Manager Mary Gibbs, Community Development TIME REQUIRED: 15 Minutes 3. LEE COUNTY COMMISSION REDISTRICTING PRESENTER: Rick Burris, Community Development TIME REQUIRED: 30 Minutes

BOARD COMMENTS/DISCUSSION

ADJOURN

THIS AGENDA AND BACKUP MAY BE OBTAINED FROM WWW.LEE-COUNTY.COM OR FROM THE PUBLIC RESOURCES OFFICE (239) 533-2737.

The Management And Planning Meeting Is Televised Live On Comcast Cable Channel 97.

kirtonek

Text Box

Item 1

11Lee County

2012-2021 TDPTindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.August 2011

Lee County 2012 – 2021 Lee County 2012 – 2021

Transit Development PlanTransit Development Plan

Presentation OverviewPresentation OverviewPresentation OverviewPresentation Overview

• What is the TDP?

• Existing service levels

• Public outreach

• Situation appraisalSituation appraisal

• 2021 Needs Plan

22Lee County


What is the TDP?What is the TDP?What is the TDP?What is the TDP?

• FDOT requirement

• 10‐year plan

• Strategic plan for transit service

– Evaluation of demographic and travel behavior

characteristics

Assessment of e isting transit ser ice– Assessment of existing transit service

– Public involvement and outreach efforts

– Determination of transportation needs

– Service and implementation plan development

What is the TDP?What is the TDP?What is the TDP?What is the TDP?

• Difference from prior TDP efforts

– Development of a 25‐year vision

– Expanded public outreach

33Lee County


Existing Service LevelsExisting Service LevelsExisting Service LevelsExisting Service Levels

20

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Trend

15.83 16.0916.30 16.44 16.51 16.38

14

16

18

20

10

12

14

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Existing Service LevelsExisting Service LevelsExisting Service LevelsExisting Service Levels

$6.00

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip Trend

$4.12$4.28

$4.69$4.84

$4.18 $4.07

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$1.00

$2.00

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

*Operating expenses were deflated to 2005 dollars to reflect actual trend variation.

44Lee County


LeeTranLeeTran Trends Trends % Change (2005 % Change (2005 –– 2009)2009)

LeeTranLeeTran Trends Trends % Change (2005 % Change (2005 –– 2009)2009)

Summary of Trends

• Strengths

• Passenger trips per revenue hour: (+) 4.3%

• Farebox recovery: (+) 6.7%

• Average fare: (+) 24.1%

h ll• Challenges

• Operating expense per revenue hour: (+) 5.8%

• Average age of fleet: (+) 46.0%

Peer ReviewPeer ReviewPeer ReviewPeer Review

Peer Selection Process

• National Transit Database (NTD)

• Southeastern United States (12 States)

• Peer selection variables:

• Service area population

• Service area size

• Revenue miles

• Passenger tripsService area size

• Population density

• Operating expense

Passenger trips

• Average speed

• Peak vehicles

55Lee County


Peer Review Peer Review Peer Review Peer Review

• County of Volusia (Votran)

• Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT)

• Chatham Area Transit Authority (CAT)

• Capital Transportation Corporation (CATS)

• Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation

Authority (CARTA)

• Lexington Transit Authority (LexTran)

LeeTranLeeTran Peer Review (2009)Peer Review (2009)LeeTranLeeTran Peer Review (2009)Peer Review (2009)

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

Chattanooga, TN

Lexington, TN

Savannah, GA

Baton Rouge, LA

Mean

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Volusia County

Sarasota County

Lee County

66Lee County



Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

Chattanooga, TN

Lexington, TN

Savannah, GA

Baton Rouge, LA

Mean

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00

Volusia County

Sarasota County

Lee County


Summary of Peer Review

• Strengths– Operating expense per revenue mile: (‐) 8.7%– Average fare: (+) 12.2%

• Challenges– Passenger trips: (‐) 12.9%– Passenger trips per revenue mile: (‐) 30.6%– Operating expense per passenger trip: (+) 22.0%– Average age of fleet: (+) 27.7%

% indicates LeeTran’s deviation from the peer group average

77Lee County


Expanded Public Outreach

Public InvolvementPublic InvolvementPublic InvolvementPublic Involvement

• Community group presentations (5)

• Public workshops (4)

• Discussion group workshops (6)

St k h ld i t i (19)• Stakeholder interviews (19)

• On‐board survey

• LeeTran operator interview and survey

• Community Groups

Community & Discussion GroupsCommunity & Discussion GroupsCommunity & Discussion GroupsCommunity & Discussion Groups

• Discussion Groups

– Bike/Walk Lee

– Community Sustainability Advisory Committee

– Reconnecting Lee

– Horizon Council

T i T k F

– LeeTran bus users

– Students

– Social service agency representatives

– Business/medical/educationindustry representatives– Transit Task Force industry representatives

– Transportation planning agencies

– County departments

88Lee County


• January and July 2011

Public WorkshopsPublic WorkshopsPublic WorkshopsPublic Workshops

• Top three improvements

– More benches and shelters at bus stops

– Later service on existing routes

– More frequent service on existing routes

Customer Satisfaction Levels

OnOn‐‐Board SurveyBoard SurveyOnOn‐‐Board SurveyBoard Survey

4.06

4.06

4.15

4.17

4.20

4.33

Directness of Route

Bus Timeliness

Overall Satisfaction

Ease of Schedule Information Use

Bus and Stop Safety

Driver Courtesy

3.40

3.63

3.73

3.77

4.01

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Shelter or Shade

Number of Transfers

Trip Length

Frequency

Bus and Stop Cleanliness

99Lee County


Trip Purpose


35%

6.8%

30.3%

3 3%6.4%

3 8% 4.6% 4 0%

11.9%

28.9%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

3.3% 3.8% 4.6% 4.0%

0%

5%

Reasons for Using LeeTran


9 8%f h l

3.6%

0.6%

8.9%

10.1%

18.1%

12.0%

3.9%

0.5%

9.1%

9.6%

16.5%

9.8%

Safer/less stressful

Parking is expensive/difficult

More convenient

Fits my budget

Car is not available

I prefer LeeTran to other alternatives

2.2%

25.0%

19.5%

2.2%

31.7%

16.5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Other

I do not have a car

I do not drive

2010 2006

1010Lee County


Service Improvements

42.2%More frequent service


34.1%

8.2%

24.9%

39.8%

42.2%

Service to new areas

Express service

Earlier service

Later service

More frequent service

10.8%

48.2%

15.4%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Other

More benches and shelters

Bike racks at bus stops

• Operator concerns include:

Operator Interview and SurveyOperator Interview and SurveyOperator Interview and SurveyOperator Interview and Survey

– Improving poor connectivity/timing

– Providing more frequent service during peak periods

– Expanding service in Lehigh Acres, Cape Coral, and to

surrounding counties

Improving capital infrastructure and equipment– Improving capital infrastructure and equipment

1111Lee County


Situation AppraisalSituation AppraisalSituation AppraisalSituation Appraisal

• Appraisal of changes in:

– Transit markets

– County demographics

– Local policies

– Other relevant issues

• Demand assessment


• Peer review/Trend analysis

– Trends: Flat/stagnant ridership levels

– Peer Review: Less ridership per unit of service supplied

• Land use

– Coordination with local efforts

– Integrate transit infrastructure

1212Lee County



• Technology/Capital Needs

– Replacement of older vehicles

– Improved station infrastructure

– New administrative and operations facility

• Funding

– Funding limited/constrained

– Difficulty in securing new funding sources


• Service Needs (2012 – 2021)

– Improvements to existing service

•More weekend and evening service

• Efficiency improvements

– Service expansion

• New local service (10 routes)

• Express bus service with park and ride (4 routes)

• Bus Rapid Transit (1 route by 2021)

1313Lee County


2021 TDP Needs Plan2021 TDP Needs Plan2021 TDP Needs Plan2021 TDP Needs Plan

2021 TDP Needs Plan

Improved Local ServiceNew Local ServiceE S iBRTExpress Service

Financial Plan Financial Plan –– Operating Operating Financial Plan Financial Plan –– Operating Operating

$40

ns

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

Mill

ion

10 Year Costs: $280 7 million

$0

$5

$10

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Operating Costs Operating Revenues

10-Year Costs: $280.7 million

10-Year Revenues: $213.3 million

1414Lee County


$40

ns

Financial Plan Financial Plan –– Operating Operating Financial Plan Financial Plan –– Operating Operating

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

Mill

ion

10-Year Shortfall

$0

$5

$10

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Operating Costs Operating Revenues

$67.4 million

Financial Plan Financial Plan –– Capital Capital Financial Plan Financial Plan –– Capital Capital

$35

ns

$15

$20

$25

$30

Mill

ion



$0

$5

$10

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Capital Costs Capital Revenues

1515Lee County


$35

ns

Financial Plan Financial Plan –– Capital Capital Financial Plan Financial Plan –– Capital Capital

$15

$20

$25

$30

Mill

ion 10-Year Shortfall

$47.1 million

$0

$5

$10

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Capital Costs Capital Revenues

Financial Plan Financial Plan –– TotalTotalFinancial Plan Financial Plan –– TotalTotal

$50

ns

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

Mill

ion

10 Y C t $383 9 illi

$0

$5

$10

$15

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Total Costs Total Revenues



1616Lee County


$50

ns

Financial Plan Financial Plan –– TotalTotalFinancial Plan Financial Plan –– TotalTotal

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

Mill

ion

10-Year Shortfall

$0

$5

$10

$15

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Total Costs Total Revenues

10 Year Shortfall

$114.5 million

1010‐‐Year TDP PrioritiesYear TDP Priorities1010‐‐Year TDP PrioritiesYear TDP Priorities

Operations

• Maximize existing service efficiency and resource utilization

• Implement high‐frequency premium bus service along US 41

• Implement new fixed‐bus routes

• Implement inter‐county bus service

/• Continue expansion of marketing efforts/program

1717Lee County


1010‐‐Year TDP PrioritiesYear TDP Priorities1010‐‐Year TDP PrioritiesYear TDP Priorities

Capital

• Replace aging vehicle fleet with

hybrids/”green” vehicles

• Improve stop amenities and

infrastructure

C t t d i i t ti• Construct new administration

and operations facility

Comments & QuestionsComments & QuestionsComments & QuestionsComments & Questions

kirtonek

Text Box

Item 2

1

MEMORANDUM FROM

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER

DATE: August 5, 2011

TO:

Board of County Commissioners

FROM:

Holly Schwartz

Assistant County Manager

RE: Annexation and Interlocal Service Boundary Agreements August 8th Management and Planning Committee Meeting At the June Management and Planning meeting, the Board directed staff to meet with each of the Cities to continue the discussions that had been previously initiated regarding urban service boundaries and annexation related issues. The attached lists summarize the recent meetings and issues specific to each city. The pages with the strikethrough language are the issues lists generated by the previous meetings and the strikethroughs indicate those items that have been mutually addressed or are no longer of concern. The remaining items will be addressed through continued discussions. The City and the County agreed that those cities that do not have direct annexation concerns (Sanibel and Town of Fort Myers Beach) will receive an enhanced level of notification regarding zoning and land use issues that may affect their incorporated areas. Providing the enhanced level of notification may be accomplished through amendments to current Interlocal Agreements or through the creation of new Interlocal Agreements. In light of the fact that Sanibel and the Town of Fort Myers Beach do not have annexation concerns and the ability to address the notification enhancements exists through the normal Interlocal Agreement process, the creation of an additional Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement for these two municipalities would be unnecessary. The Cities that do have annexation issues have agreed to resubmit or re-evaluate proposed maps where the City and the County could continue discussions to address land use and existing infrastructure issues. We have communicated to the Cities that the Board is interested in resolving these issues quickly and both staffs have committed to meet again to finalize any of the remaining issues in an expeditious manner.

2

For purposes of transparency, the County is also committed to adding a feature to our website that lists all County Interlocal Agreements and their contract periods with links to the complete document. cc: Karen Hawes, County Manager Michael Jacob, Assistant County Attorney Mary Gibbs, Director, Community Development Attachments: Meeting Notes Lists of Issues

Interlocal Meeting Lee County / Sanibel (July 11th)

Attendance:

City of Sanibel: Judie Zimomra, City Manager Bill Tomlinson, Chief of Police Kenneth B. Cuyler, Sanibel City Attorney Jim Jordan, Planning Director Pamela Smith, City Clerk Gates Castle, Director of Public Works

County Staff: Holly Schwartz, County Administration Michael Jacob, County Attorney

Doug Meurer , Public Works Dave Loveland, DOT Pam Keyes, Utilities Paul O’Connor, Planning Bob Stewart, Community Development

Mary Gibbs, Community Development

Main items discussed included hurricane evacuation and the causeway. Annexation is not an issue. The City suggested, and the County agreed, that any agreement should be simple. Several items are still a concern for future coordination (septic tanks, sludge treatment and disposal) but do not need to be included in an interlocal agreement. Follow up items: Sanibel’s attorney was going to review the existing interlocal agreement regarding Comprehensive Planning (land use and zoning) to see if it needs to be updated.

Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement City of Sanibel

Lee County Issues of Mutual Interest: Fishing pier. Blind Pass. Development in Iona McGregor Corridor. Hurricane evacuation. Road Infrastructure. Cooperative efforts to address regional water quality, with specific emphasis on septic tanks. Captiva Island. Future Role of Community Redevelopment Areas/Tax increment financing. Blueways coordination. Sanibel Issues of Mutual Interest: Joint Planning Issues related to the Causeway and Causeway Islands including, but not limited to, any proposed recreation uses, proposed Fishing Pier, or proposed commercial or quasi-commercial uses. All matters relating to Blind Pass. All matters relating to development in the Iona-McGregor Corridor. All matters relating to road infrastructure in the Joint Planning Areas. All matters relating to cooperative efforts to address regional water quality, with specific emphasis on septic tanks. All potential matters of Joint Planning relating to Captiva Island. All matters relating to the future role of community redevelopment areas/tax increment financing. All matters relating to Blueways coordination. All matters relating to solid waste disposal as part of the County contract. All matters relating to sludge treatment and disposal.

Interlocal Meeting Lee County / Cape Coral (July 13th)

Attendance: Cape Coral: Gary King, City Manager Derek Burr, Planning Wyatt Daltry, Planning Dolores Menendez, City Attorney Steve Griffin, City Attorney Paul Dickson, Community Development


Doug Meurer , Public Works Dave Loveland, DOT

Pam Keyes, Utilities Matt Noble, Planning

Mary Gibbs, Community Development The meeting focused primarily on annexations and related issues which revolved around identifying a realistic map for future annexations. The map attached to the City’s responding resolution extended all the way to properties along US41 in North Fort Myers. The City had prepared an alternative map – a scaled back version. It was agreed to use this map as a starting point for discussion and to simplify issues as much as possible. With regard to the few non-annexation issues, County Administration will have appropriate Parks staff contact the City Parks staff regarding blueways coordination. Slough water quality is still an issue but the City is preparing a stormwater master plan and the County has requested to be a “stakeholder”. The Assistant County Manager discussed the County’s position on CRA’s, being project and time specific. Follow up items: The City will review its revised annexation map and will forward to the County for review. The revised map does not go all the way to US41 and focuses on a strategy to eliminate enclaves.

1

Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement City of Cape Coral

Lee County Issues of Mutual Interest: Wetland protection and native vegetation protection. Gator Slough water quality. Spreader canal. Absence of utilities in annexed areas. Allocation of impact fees generated from annexed areas. Addressing impacts from increased development potential and unincorporated public

facilities such as roads, utilities, and emergency management services. Annexation of property in and adjacent to Charlotte Harbor Flatwoods. Uses permitted on property annexed in and adjacent to Charlotte Harbor Flatwoods. Blueways coordination. Future role of Community Redevelopment Areas/Tax Increment Financing. Land Use Planning Post Annexation. Cape Coral Issues of Mutual Interest: The process, definitions, requirements and criteria for voluntary and referendum

annexations contained in Ch. 171, Part I, F.S., which may be modified in accordance with Chapter 171, Part II, F.S.

The establishment of municipal service areas, as defined in §171.202(1)(a), F.S., within which the City of Cape Coral may plan for and annex, and conversely, unincorporated service areas, as defined in §171.202(16)(1), F.S., which shall remain unincorporated as depicted on the attached map (Exhibit A).

Pursuant to the declaration of legislative intent contained within Chapter 171, Part II, F.S., the creation of alternative procedures for municipal annexation agreed to by Lee County within the planning and annexation areas described in paragraph B above.

The establishment of municipal service areas, as defined in §171.202(11), F.S. The establishment of unincorporated service areas, ad defined in §171.202(16), F.S. The definition of enclaves and the creation of alternative procedures for the elimination

of enclaves, as set forth in §171.031(13) and 171.202(2), F.S., and the annexation and elimination of al enclaves located within the City of Cape Coral, in accordance with Chapter 171, F.S., and in particular, §171.046, F.S.

The ability of the City of Cape Coral to annex any and all unincorporated areas within its service area, if such a municipal service area is agreed to in an interlocal service boundary agreement, without the municipality having to submit an ability to serve report for the unincorporated area if otherwise so required. In the alternative, if no municipal service area is agreed to, the exact criteria and relevant information needed for an ability to serve report, if required under §171.042, F.S., to be provided to the Board of Lee County Commissioners, shall be determined.

The ability of the City of Cape Coral to annex any and all unincorporated areas contained within its service area pursuant to §171.204, F.S., if such municipal

2

service area is agreed to in an interlocal service boundary agreement, regardless of whether the area to be annexed is contiguous as defined in §171.031(11), F.S., compact as defined in §71.031(12), F.S., or is an enclave or creates an enclave as defined in §171.031(12) and §171.202(2), F.S.

In the event municipal service areas are agreed to, the process and establishment of a schedule for annexation of areas within those service areas, pursuant to §171.203(6)(e).

The appropriate length of term for the interlocal service boundary agreement and the process for periodic review, as required by Section 171.203(12), F.S., including consideration of a term of 20 years.

In the event of the establishment of municipal services areas and unincorporated service areas, the incorporation and exercise of those joint planning procedures set forth in Ch. 163, Part II, F.S., and in particular §163.3171, F.S. If the interlocal boundary services agreement addresses the responsibilities for land use planning under Ch. 163, F.S., the agreement must provide for the establishment of procedures for preparing and adopting comprehensive plan amendments, administering land development regulations and issuing development orders.

The identity of the local government responsible for the delivery or funding of the following services within the municipal service area or the unincorporated service area:

• Public safety, including hurricane preparedness and emergency medical

services. • Water and wastewater (including emergency water service). • Road jurisdiction, construction, and funding for maintenance. • Conservation, ecological restoration, parks, and recreation. • Storm water management, water quality and drainage.

Establish a process and schedule for annexation of an area within the designated

municipal service area consistent with §171.205, F.S. Address other issues concerning service delivery, including the transfer of services and

infrastructure and the fiscal compensation to one county, municipality, or independent special district from another county, municipality, or independent special district.

Provide for the joint use of facilities and the co-location of services. Any other issue raised in the responding resolution of any other invited municipality

which would be of interest or benefit to the City of Cape Coral.

Interlocal Meeting Lee County / Fort Myers (July 15th)

Attendance: Fort Myers: Marvin Collins III, Assistant City Manager Robert (Bob) Gardner, Director, Community Development Nicole DeVaughn, Community Development Mark Moriarty, City Attorney Richard Calkins, Community Development


Doug Meurer , Public Works Dave Loveland, DOT Pam Keyes, Utilities, Paul O’Connor, Planning Mary Gibbs, Community Development

Matt Noble, Planning Brandon Dunn, Planning

The main issues revolved around annexation and a map. There were a few non-annexation issues where it was agreed that mutual coordination was occurring and could continue to occur (Blueways, impact fees, cooperative efforts to address regional water quality and watershed management). The County staff explained the County’s policy on CRA’s, being project and time specific. The County suggested the City review the map they submitted with their responding resolution to scale it back to a more achievable area, and focus on enclaves. The City suggested that their map was long term but they would look at phasing it because it had already been to City Council for approval. Follow up items: The County will evaluate the City’s map and provide comments to the City, particularly regarding conflicts with County utility investments within the next few weeks.

1

Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement City of Fort Myers

Lee County Issues of Mutual Interest: Treatment of Enclaves. Wetland protection and native vegetation protection. Areas served by Lee County Utilities. Allocation of impact fees from annexed areas. Addressing impacts from increased development potential and unincorporated public facilities such as roads, utilities, and emergency management services. Connectivity between commercial development. Cooperative efforts to address regional water quality and watershed management. Future role of Community Redevelopment Areas/Tax increment financing. Annexations of the Rural Community Preserve. Blueways coordination. Land Use Planning Post Annexation. Fort Myers Issues of Mutual Interest: The process, definitions, requirements and criteria for voluntary and referendum

annexations contained in Chapter 171, F.S., which may be modified in accordance with Chapter 171, Part II, F.S.

The establishment of municipal service areas, as defined in Chapter 171, F.S., within which the City of Fort Myers may plan for and annex, and conversely, unincorporated service areas, as defined in Chapter 171, F.S., which shall remain unincorporated as depicted on the attached maps in Composite Exhibit A.

Pursuant to the declaration of legislative intent contained within Chapter 171, F.S., the creation of alternative procedures for municipal annexation agreed to by Lee County within the planning and annexation areas describe in paragraph b. above.

The establishment of municipal service areas, as defined in Chapter 171, F.S. The establishment of unincorporated service areas, as defined in §171.031(16). The definition and treatment of enclaves and the creation of alternative procedures for

the elimination of enclaves, as set forth in §171.031(13) and 171.202(2), F.S., and the annexation and elimination of all enclaves located within the City of Fort Myers, in accordance with Chapter 171, F.S. and in particular, §171.046, Florid Statutes.

The ability of the City of Fort Myers to annex any and all unincorporated areas within its service area, if such a municipal service area is agreed to in an interlocal service boundary agreement, without the municipality having to submit an ability to serve report for the unincorporated area if otherwise so required. In the alternative, if no municipal service area is agreed to, the exact criteria and relevant information needed for an ability to serve report, if required under §171.042, F.S., to be provided to the Board of Lee County Commissioners, shall be determined.

2

The ability of the City of Fort Myers to annex any and all unincorporated areas contained within the Urban Reserve Boundary or its service area pursuant to §171.204, F.S., if such municipal service area is agreed to in an interlocal service boundary agreement, regardless of whether the area to be annexed is contiguous as defined in §171.031(11), F.S., compact as defined in §171.031(12), F.S., or is an enclave or creates an enclave as defined in $171.031(13) and 171.202(2), F.S.

In the even municipal service areas are agreed to, the process and establishment of a schedule for annexation of areas within those service areas, pursuant to §171.203(6)(e), F.S.

The appropriate length of term for the interlocal service boundary agreement and the process for periodic review, as required by Section 171.203(12), F.S., including consideration of a term of 20 years.

In the event of the establishment of municipal services areas and unincorporated service areas, the incorporation and exercise of those joint planning procedures set forth in Chapter 163, F.S., and in particular §163.3171, F.S. If the interlocal boundary agreement addresses the responsibilities for land use planning under Chapter 163, F.S., the agreement must provide for the establishment of procedures for preparing and adopting comprehensive plan amendments, administering land development regulations and issuing development orders.

The identity of the local government responsible for the delivery or funding of the following services within the municipal service area or the unincorporated service are:

1. Public safety, including hurricane preparedness and emergency medical services.

2. Water and wastewater (including emergency water service). 3. Road jurisdiction, construction, and funding for maintenance. 4. Conservation, ecological restoration, parks, and recreation. 5. Storm water management, water quality and drainage. 6. General government services. 7. Human services. 8. All other services a municipality may provide under Home Rule Powers. Establish a process and schedule for annexation of an area within the designated

municipal service area consistent with §171.205, F.S. Address other issues concerning service delivery, including the transfer of services and

infrastructure and the fiscal compensation to one county, municipality, or independent special district from another county, municipality, or independent special district.

Provide for the joint use of facilities and the co-location of services. Any other issue raised in the responding resolution of any other invited municipality

which would be of interest or benefit to the City of Fort Myers.

Interlocal Meeting Lee County / Fort Myers Beach (July 20th)

Attendance:

Town of Fort Myers Beach: Terry Stewart, Town Manager Tina Ekblad, Planning Coordinator

Walter Fleugel, Community Development Director Leslee Chapman, Zoning Coordinator Marilyn Miller, City Attorney (via phone)

County Staff: Holly Schwartz, County Administration Michael Jacob, County Attorney Doug Meurer , Public Works Dave Loveland, DOT Pam Keyes, Utilities Paul O’Connor, Planning Bob Stewart, Community Development

Mary Gibbs, Community Development Brandon Dunn, Planning Kara Stewart, Community Development

Several items were discussed with regard to land use and annexation; an area of mutual concern is San Carlos Island. The County currently notifies Fort Myers Beach of zoning cases within proximity of the beach, and that informal system works well. The County staff suggested the option of continuing the current informal system of notification, or an interlocal agreement to formalize the notification process. The beach will consider the options. Another issue related to municipal boundaries extending to the water’s edge of San Carlos Island and whether that affects permitting. The city and county attorneys will review this further. The majority of issues were not related to annexation and land use. Most related to public works issues. There was a discussion of coordinating the Town’s rebuilding of its water system with potential county road work (Estero Boulevard redesign) to minimize construction disruption. The County is looking at additional trolley stops. The Town has done a survey for its Comprehensive Plan EAR and identified bike paths, sidewalks and trolley system as very important. Coordination will continue on these items. Other issues include representation on the MPO and TDC, but there are statutory limitations to consider. Follow up items: Town Manager will discuss with the Town Council and see if they have any other issues that need to be added and they will advise us.

1

Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Town of Fort Myers Beach

Lee County Issues of Mutual Interest: Transit and trolley service. San Carlos Boulevard Bridge. Hurricane evacuation. New bridge. Regional beach management. Blueways coordination. Cooperative efforts to address regional water quality. Utilities. San Carlos Island Redevelopment. Future role of Community Redevelopment Agencies/Tax increment financing. Fort Myers Beach Issues of Mutual Interest: Town’s participation in the County’s Tourist Development Council. Traffic mitigation issues. Issues related to the Municipal Planning Organization (MPO) as well as the proposed

creation of a taxing authority related to the MPO. Issues related to Estero Boulevard. County-Town issues related to school concurrency. Issues related to economic matters, including, but not limited to, the Lee County five (5)

year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Issues related to the waters adjacent to and within the Town and any waterbodies within

the joint planning area and related maters. Other matters of joint interest.

Interlocal Meeting Lee County / Bonita Springs (July 28th)

Attendance:

Bonita Springs: Carl Schwing, City Manager John Gucciardo, Assistant City Manager John Dulmer, Community Development

Audrey Vance, City Attorney Jacqueline Genson, Community Development Jenn Hagen, Community Development

County Staff: Holly Schwartz, County Administration Michael Jacob, County Attorney Dave Loveland, DOT Paul O’Connor, Planning Mary Gibbs, Community Development

A review of items listed in the County’s and City’s resolution and responding resolution indicated that most of the items were not related to annexation. Many of the items had either been addressed or call for continued coordination. Remaining items which are still issues for the City include: - Manna Christian Mission - Gun Range off Bonita Beach Road - Identifying an urban reserve or annexation area or notification area. Items for continued coordination include: - Complete streets efforts on Bonita Beach Road - Blueways coordination - Mass transit efforts. Follow up items: The City Manager would like to review the list of issues from the City’s responding resolution to see if they have any other issues that need to be added and they will advise us. The City will be conducting a strategic planning session for City Council in October.

Strikethrough Comparison Chart-Bonita Springs.docx

Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement City of Bonita Springs

Lee County Issues of Mutual Interest: Bonita Beach Road. Allocation of impact fees generated from annexed areas. Agri Partners property. Hurricane evacuation. Continuity of transportation facilities and road classification. Regional beach management. Blueways coordination. Treatment of enclaves. Addressing impacts from increased development potential on unincorporated public facilities including roads, utilities, and emergency management services. Cooperative efforts to address regional water quality and watershed management. Annexation of property within the DR/GR Estero. Future role of Community Redevelopment Areas/Tax increment financing. Land Use Planning Post Annexation. Bonita Springs Issues of Mutual Interest: Creation by the County of a clear, mathematical formulation for computation of fair share development contributions, amenable to understanding by persons of reasonable, ordinary intelligence, so as to conform with requirements of state law. Creation by the County of a listing of outstanding obligations for impact fee credits (or other acceptance requirements by Lee County Board of County Commissioners or the successor government, i.e., Bonita Springs) within the City of Bonita Springs made prior to its incorporation, and a current listing for the Urban Reserve Area and Joint Planning Area. Conveyance by the County in fee simple to the City of park lands within the beach areas, including, but not limited to the beach accesses, Pine Lake Preserve, the boat ramp at Lover's Key and certain other properties. Implementation by the County of a plan to address the Manna Christian property on Bonita Beach Road, so as to transition the property in a manner . to reduce the blight caused on Bonita Beach Road, Cessation by the County of any further approval of any community development districts or other independent districts within the urban service areas and joint planning areas, unless consent is obtained from Bonita Springs, inasmuch as such communities may not be conducive to the creation of a unified whole with respect to municipal services and prevent the inhabitants of such communities from fully associating and trading with others within the City, socially and economically. Cessation by the County of any further approval of any MSB/MSTU dependent districts within the urban service areas and joint planning areas, unless consent is obtained from

2

Bonita Springs, with respect to providing enhanced municipal services since this also prevents the inhabitants of such communities from fully associating and trading with others within the City, socially and economically. Correction by the County of certain deficiencies with drainage and paving on County residential roads, both within the City limits and adjacent to City limits, upon understanding that once such deficiencies are cured the City may then address County concerns about the City assuming responsibility for such roads incident to annexation of adjoining lands of such roads. No opposition by the County for legislative annexation of various areas of the Urban Reserve Area so as to annex residents who have to go through the ' City to access any services. Cessation by the County of any further approvals for storm water retention/detention ponds located along public roadways unless water features, enhanced landscaping, and other requirements are provided for consistency with the City's storm water retention/detention ordinance. Cessation by the County of any further approvals of buildings and implement design review standards that are incompatible with the City's design review standards. Improve the Site Plan and Concurrency Review process by sending the City all site development applications to City Staff for review for properties within the Urban Reserve Area and Joint Planning Area. Assist by considering a governmental annex for the constitutional officers within the City, Urban Reserve Area or Joint Planning Area for a Courthouse, Clerk of Courts, and centralizing the other offices so as to be efficient and green (e.g., less travel for traffic tickets). Implementation of the County to coordinate and exchange GIS database information with the City as the City implements its GIS system. Improve coordination with the City on all projects that may be part of the Conservation 20120 for the City of Bonita Springs walkway adjoining the start of the Caloosa Blueway. The existing Conservation 20120 penalizes urban acquisitions for their smaller size, yet critical acquisition by Lee County Board of County Commissioners is lacking, although the residents of Bonita Springs, the Urban Reserve Area and Joint Planning Area, all contribute a large part of the revenue. Given the coastal and riverine environment of both unincorporated Lee County and the municipalities, provide overall waterway planning to fully implement the Clean Water Act and environmental regulations. The County may coordinate efforts with the City to look for additional trails and connections within the City for pedestrian and mass transit access. Restoration of County roadways located within City limits to include drainage improvements, construction of sidewalks for pedestrian connectivity and resurfacing of roadways in poor condition. Provide maintenance and necessary improvements to drainage facilities under County jurisdiction which are located within the City limits. Establish policy with regards to jurisdiction and maintenance responsibilities of street right-of-ways and drainage right-of-ways/easements for newly annexed parcels into the City.

kirtonek

Text Box

Item 3

BOARD MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING AGENDA MONDAY – … Agendas/Aug 8 MP agenda.pdf · 2012-2021 TDP...

Documents

Transcript of BOARD MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING AGENDA MONDAY – … Agendas/Aug 8 MP agenda.pdf · 2012-2021 TDP...