Town Council - Regular Meeting

ALL RIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2026. IT IS 1-0-1 P.M. ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. TOWN MANAGER, DEPUTY TOWN MANAGER, TOWN CLERK. OH, WE'RE MISSING ONE. JOHN MCCLAIN, THAT'S RIGHT. HE'S GOT AN EXCUSED ABSENCE FOR THIS MEETING. TOWN MANAGER, TOWN ATTORNEY, BE PLEASE RISE FOR INVICATION, FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

As we gather today in service to Fort Myers Beach, let us pause in gratitude for this community, its residents, businesses, and all who visit our shores. May we lead with integrity and make decisions that support our continued rebuilding and reflect our commitment to fiscal responsibility. May our efforts strengthen the foundation of our town and honor the resilience that defines us. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, Next is the approval of the final agenda. Is there a motion or any changes to the final agenda?

Move.

Got a motion by Councilor Link.

Second.

Second by Councilor King. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries four to zero with Councilor McLean being absent. Next is public comment. Madam Clerk.

I'm sorry, I have one signed up. Kevin Besser. Good afternoon, Kevin.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Kevin Besser. I'm the Vice President of Public Policy.

Make sure your mic's on.

Hi, everybody. Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Besser. I'm the Vice President of Public Policy for the Royal Palm Coast Realtor Association. I represent about the 9,000 realtors, brokers, property managers, and affiliate members of our association in Lee County. And we're here today to talk about the proposed budget fee increases on vacation rentals that you guys will hear tonight at 5 o'clock. I saw that there will be a possibility of adding a $100 fee per bedroom. I just would like to let you guys know that our non-homesteader property owners are already paying increased taxes. They're already paying a registration fee. It's making it more expensive for tourists to come to Fort Myers Beach in the current political and economic climate of our country. And raising those costs is not what we need to do right now to make sure that visitors continue to come here. I'm interested in looking at another increase in a small increase in the fee for enforcement. I understand that you guys, every town has issues with enforcement. We are not against enforcement. We understand that everyone should follow the rules. Everyone should pay their taxes. We just want some fairness for all of our secondary homeowners who rent those properties out. So thanks very much.

Thanks, Kevin. Anyone else? That's all I have signed up. Okay. Anyone else like to speak in public comment? All right. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Next is local achievements and recognitions. Counselor link. We'll start with you.

Yes. Thank you, mayor. There were a lot of great things going on on this Island this weekend. Um, but today I'd like to briefly thank the town staff for all the work they've done in the last month or so, uh, getting us prepared for not just this council meeting, but, uh, the budget it's a, it's a heavy load this time every year. And I want to thank them for that work.

Vice Mayor Safford.

Yes, I'd like to thank Mr. Rizzo and the Lee County Sheriffs for the weekend. It went real smooth. Thank you very much. Labor Day is always a challenge, and you guys sailed right through it, so thank you.

Councilor King. Well, for the Deputy Town Manager, I'll offer these words of wisdom from Frosty the Snowman and say, happy birthday.

Okay, go ahead and have a seat. We'll call you.

Okay.

Well, now you're able to go out and have a legal drink. Congratulations.

She can only sip.

Yeah, there you go. All right, I have nothing new to add to that.

Mr. Mayor? Yes. We have one more lady that would like to speak in public comment.

Okay. Is it general public comment or is it about one of the public hearings? One of the public hearings. Okay, then if you want your testimony to be part of the record for the public hearing, save that. You'll have public comment options or availability to do that during the public hearing as well. OK? Next, we have two people here for advisory committees. We've got Vice Chair Vaughn from CELCAB and Michelle Cherney from BORCAB. Miss Vaughn?

I know.

I don't know how she can hide with those awesome dresses.

I'm Ellen Vaughn, Vice Chair of CELCAB, is the official role I'm here for today. And I'm on the agenda to provide our CELCAB report. We had intended to report on our strategic plan, but life gets in the way, and we're not ready to do so at this time. So I beg your, well, I ask for your whatever, for needing an extension, and we will ask to be put on the agenda at the appropriate time. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ellen. Michelle?

Good afternoon, Michelle Cherney, the chair of BoardCab. I just have two topics, and I'm going to keep coming until we get action. Pickleball courts. Friends of Bay Oaks has got the money. We will pay for whatever it takes. The next step is to determine where they're located, and we need, I'm not sure if it's a town or a consultant to do the drainage plans, the easement, and yes, the donor slash the friends will pay for it. Can we please get it going? The pickleball courts are full, and it's not even season. We have four free courts. THE SECOND ONE IS I RECEIVED TODAY ACTUALLY ALL OF BOARCAB THAT WE WILL BE HAVING THE POOL COMPANY COMING AND PRESENTING AT BOARCAB AND THAT IT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA. I'VE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE REACHING OUT. I THINK WE NEED TO PUT A PUBLIC RELEASE OUT NOT WITH THE BOARCAB AGENDA THAT SAYS THAT THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO BE OPEN TO PREVIEW THAT. Now and give them a couple weeks notice people don't read the board cab notes I know we don't have anybody attend so I would just recommend that Announcement goes out prior to our board cab notes so that everyone can have the opportunity to see it Thank okay, and we have any questions for Michelle before she runs off Thank you

All right, next we have the approval of the minutes for the Town Council meeting from August 24th, 2026. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Second. Motion by Councilor King, seconded by Councilor Link. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries four to zero with councilor McLean being absent. Next is our consent agenda. We have three items versus resolution 26 dash one 85 through 26 dash one 89 for the extension of local emergency tropical storm. Debbie second is resolution 26 dash one 90 through 26 dash one 94 extension of local emergency hurricane Helene. And the last one is resolutions 26-195 through 26-199 for the extension of local emergency Hurricane Milton. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Motion by Councilor King. Second. Seconded by Vice Mayor Safford. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously. There are no items that were removed from the consent agenda, which brings us to our public hearings.

We have... You have three items, Mayor.

I was just going to remind you.

Oh, sorry.

Go ahead. Very strict instructions to follow. Yes. Okay. Here we are.

This was just a carryover from yesterday's LPA.

Got it. The next three items on our agenda are public hearings for review of various land use requests. For the benefit of the public, please be aware that these items are quasi-judicial in nature. Our attorney will further explain.

Thank you, Mayor. So the three items that you have are two rezonings and one development agreement, which constitutes the equivalency of a rezoning. These rezoning requests are quasi-judicial in nature, and this requires that the public hearings today comply with procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in our land development code. So our quasi judicial proceedings, they are less formal than the proceedings before circuit court, but they are more formal than the rest of our meeting. And we must follow some basic standards of due process, which requires that certain notices have been provided. the application of the correct standards and that the council's decisions be made on competent substantial evidence that is presented to them either in written form or through oral testimony. The town council's responsibility is to evaluate that testimony and the information that's in the record for each of these three items And then draw a conclusion regarding whether the criteria in the land development code or in state law has been satisfied. So speculation or just an opinion that is not based on competent facts cannot legally be considered by the town council when they evaluate one of these three agenda items. Testimony by professionals who have been qualified as experts in a particular area has been considered competent evidence by Florida courts, as well as testimony from neighbors and residents who have fact-based information such as minutes, surveys, engineering reports, or testimony that is based on their personal knowledge. So the Town Council's decision is final. If a decision of approval is not obtained or if there is a tie vote, seeing that we do have four members present today, then the matter being considered is denied unless there is, from the majority, present an alternative motion. If the Town Council decides to deny any application or request, the reason for the denial will be stated in their motion. Um, so members in the audience, uh, if you intend to speak, please keep my comments in mind. And when you come forward, state your name clearly for the record, whether or not you've been sworn in and your qualifications or your interest in the matter. So for matters of efficiency, we would like to go ahead and take care of a few housekeeping matters. I need to ask our town clerk whether all the three agenda items have been properly noticed pursuant to our land development code. Yes, they have been. And do any of the four of you have a conflict of interest that would prohibit you from voting on any of these quasi-judicial items?

Councillor Link?

None.

Vice Mayor Safford? I do not. Councillor King? None. I do have a conflict with item C, ordinance 26-10 for 1207 Estero Boulevard, one particular harbor. I have filed my form 8 with the town clerk.

And I, can you just state the nature of your conflict for the record?

I have a business agreement with a TPI hospitality.

Okay. Thank you. And, um, at this time, then we would go ahead and ask anyone in the audience who is present, including, um, town staff and any, um, land use professionals, if you would please stand and be sworn in by the town clerk.

Well, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Okay.

Everyone's been sworn. Take it away, Mayor.

All right. The first quasi-judicial item on the agenda is a first reading and public hearing on Proposed Ordinance 26-13. If approved at first reading, a second reading and final adoption hearing will be scheduled on Monday, October 5, 2026. OR AT ANOTHER TIME IDENTIFIED BY TOWN COUNCIL. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS OR DENYING AN APPLICATION TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 584-582 WISTERO BOULEVARD GENERALLY IDENTIFIED AS STRAP NUMBERS 24-46-24-W4-0060D.017A, and 24-46-23-W4-0060D.017H, Fort Myers Beach, from residential multifamily, RM, to residential plan development, RPD, TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ABOVE FLOOD ELEVATION AND SEVEN DEVIATIONS FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, PROVIDING FOR CLARIFICATION AS NECESSARY, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS OF LOSS, SCRIBNER'S ERRORS, SEVERAL ABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. IF ANY TOWN COUNCIL MEMBER HAS HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO DISCLOSE, PLEASE LET US KNOW THE SUBJECT DISCUSSED AND THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON, GROUP, OR ENTITY WITH WHOM THE COMMUNICATION TOOK PLACE, ANY CORRESPONDENTS THAT YOU RECEIVED, OR OBSERVATIONS MADE OF THE SITE. COUNCILOR LINK?

No ex parte.

Vice Mayor Safford? None. Councilor King? Nothing that I recall. And I do not have any as well. Jason Green has been qualified as an expert already by this town council based on his education and experience has been accepted as an expert in the field of land use planning and development in the town of Fort Myers Beach. Are there any other individuals who would like to be qualified as an expert witness on behalf of the applicant at this time? Mr. Ink? Well, I think you've been... He's been...

Experted.

Experted already. Do we need to? Okay.

We've noted for the record that he has been qualified as an expert in land use planning in town of Fort Myers Beach.

Very good. And has a property owner applicant seen a copy of the agenda backup materials from staff?

They have.

He is saying they have. Go ahead. The applicant want to go first or Jason's going to go first? Go ahead. I'll go first. I'll be brief. You already read a lot of that.

Yes, the request before you is a rezoning to residential plan development. Essentially, it's a small subdivision. The main purpose of the request is to rezone it so that they can move the property lines. And what it'll do is it'll increase one lot and decrease another. It's really the only way to do that, to be able to increase the footprint of the homes that are proposed for the site. The two lots previously did exist prior to town being incorporated. Again, this just shrinks one lot and increases the size of the other to make them have a more reasonable building footprint. These lots were created back in 1992, I believe, originally when they were subdivided and created. Staff has reviewed and found it consistent with the land development code and the comprehensive plan. And we've provided a list of conditions of approval, recommended conditions of approval. The applicant has requested deviations. Most of them have to do with lot coverage and setbacks to be able to, different setbacks to apply to this RPD.

And that's all. Any questions for Jason?

I have none at this time.

Vice Mayor Safford? Not at this time. Councilor Payne? Nothing currently. Jason, have you received any or staff received any information from any neighbors objecting to what they're asking for?

I have not seen any.

Okay. That I recall. No. All right. Mr. Ink?

Mr. Mayor? Yes. Did you do ex parte? I'm sorry.

Yes, I did. Get your mic on.

It is now. It's always a pleasure to be back. I got a PowerPoint presentation. There it is. What we're here for today is 584, 582 Estero, which is the two lots which Jason talked about. The main reason we're doing an RPD is the Gulf front lot is just a 50 by 50 and the back lot is a 50 by 100 round terms. We just want to balance them up to be 50 by 75. And in doing so, we shrink a non-conforming lot, which you can't do under variances. Otherwise, we'd be at the variance process. So that's what we're here for is 582 and 584. The owner, Jeff Grafen, who's in attendance today if we need him, and then myself in the whole process. What we're here to do is allow for rezoning from residential multifamily to residential plan development. As residential multifamily, there's a lot of uses. Historically, these two lots had two single families on it. We still have two single families on it. It's not changing in use whatsoever. It's just like we said before, the balancing of the lot. Why grant the request? Well, we're here for trying to get to the second hearing so that you can actually vote on it. And granting the request will allow this a lot line adjustment with some deviations for variances of the setbacks and the lot coverage a little bit. Like what we've been doing a lot of in the 700 block and the 400 block and but they've all been done with variances So we've not been elevated to your level. We've handled it all through the LPA So this is not a new process. It's just as the RPD we have to come before you for two two things LPA and staff comments have been added They're underlying so you can see just a little bit of differences there But what the request is to rezone point one nine acres of point four four acres of land the remaining point two five is Environmental critical its seaside of the 78 line. We're leaving that exactly the way it is It's not changing it in any use And we have seven deviations, a proposed property regulations table for what these lots to be conforming will become with action of this and 10 staff conditions, which was added in the LPA process, which we have no disagreement with, with those conditions. So here is the property on the southeast side. We've got a high rise condo. We've got another set of lots similar to everything on the north end of the island. You've got these little six, eight, 12 lot single families intermixed amongst the multifamily. And this just happens to be the 500 block that has these. This is two out of six. that are there. The future land use is mixed residential, no impact there. It's zoned right now residential multifamily. This is the existing survey, and you can see where the front lot has just a small area that's buildable of 912 square feet, and it's oriented, the front, The front yard faces towards the sea. The other lot, the bigger lot, it faces up the page more to the north, as you see, because it's an easement. We're not on Estero Boulevard, so it's an easement. So that becomes our frontage. And because of that, the bigger lot actually only has that little five foot strip of buildable area there when you do a 25 foot front setback and a 20 foot rear setback, you only end up with five feet. So essentially under the code, it's unbuildable. So we would be asking for variances or in this case, we're asking for deviations. Here is the proposed overlaid over the other. And you can see the common lot line has moved back. And we have two houses, similar size. These are similar size that's being built on the north end of the island. They're not anything any different, two-story elevated structures. And they sit on the two lots of what's there.

Jim, the green on the left, is that the EC?

The green on the left is the EC. You can see we're snug up pretty close to the 78 line like everybody does, and then it's the EC beyond that. There's a break in the line there. It's not to scale going towards the water. It's a lot farther out. So the deviations we're asking for is minimum lot size is 7,500, so we want to bring it down to 3,780, which is the calculated what we need to do. The minimum lot depth, because the lot's sideways, the lot depth's supposed to be 100, but the lots are sideways that are only 50, so we're asking to do the deviation down to 50. The minimum front setback is supposed to be 25, and we're trying to bring it down to 10. which fits with everything that's being built on the north end of the island at the moment. Reduce the minimum rear setback from 20 to 5, which is kind of normal. It's really, people would think it's a side setback, but it's not because of the orientation of the lots. Reduce the minimum side setbacks two and a half feet from 10 and from 7.5 to 5. We originally thought it was going to be 10 when we went through the LPA process. We all decided it was really 7.5, but end result is we want it to be 5. And then increase the lot coverage from 40 to 55%. which is similar to what's being done right now on the other parts of the north end. But the maximum impervious remains 67. And in doing this, What we have to do, like on my house on 430, we're going to storm chamber systems. We're not having the little swales that will fill in over time. It's actually a French drain, aggressive French drain to meet the requirements that has to be there because of the design. It's kind of an interesting story that they went out for final drainage inspection and the inspector didn't think we did anything. because they didn't see the swale. And it prompted a phone call, and it's like, oh, it's underground. Look at the plant. And it then was fine. But that, we're asking for a little bit more. 55 is real similar to other lots up on the 75. And then one other one is because of the orientation of the houses, the front yard technically is the side yard, and we're asking to put the air conditioners Not in, not in the setback, but on that side of the house, but it's legally the front yard, but it's a side yard. It's just catastrophic. And one of the staff conditions was to screen it. So we're going to, we're going to screen it as part of the process. So that's the deviations that we're asking for. The proposed property regulations, when you're all said and done, front setback at 10, side setback at 5, rear setback at 5. The gulf stays the same 50 because right now it's, I don't know, 300 feet out there. FAR is not applicable. We're setting the building coverage at 55. The height stays exactly the same as what the code is today. We're not changing that. And since it's single family, no buffers are required. So that's our new property development regulation. This is what we're looking at as the houses. You can see the Astero view, which ultimately will be blocked by the lot in front when that gets constructed on the left. And on the right is the Gulf side that shows the Gulf side. This is the side elevation to the street. So it's the front elevation, not side elevation. And it's got frangible walls, but breakaway where it's enclosed. And it's got some garages and stuff. One thing to note on the far right, elevated where that blue rectangle is, the pool is elevated. Not doing a pool on the ground. The pool is actually elevated. So the lowest structure member has to meet the DEP requirements there for the pool. So the house is, because of the height restriction, we're still staying within the standard height restriction. So it's squished a little bit. This is the other side. Going to the left is to the water. Shows the house in front and then the house in back. Again, the request statement, what we're asking for is to rezone from an RM to the RPD with the seven deviations, with the proposed property regulations table and the 10 staff conditions. Council requirements, this is what you know of the areas there. Whether there exists any error in beauty, no. Whether there exists change or changing conditions, I don't think so. The impact of the pro change on the intent of the chapter, the intent, two single family homes historically, two single family homes when we're done. The testimony of the applicant, that's listening to me ramble for a little bit. The recommendations of staff and LPA, we have staff approval. LPA was unanimous. The testimony of the public, which we might hear in a few minutes. Consistency of the comprehensive plan, I'll address that in a minute, but we're not really changing anything, so we are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The request, meet or exceeds all performance locational standards for the proposed use. Single family to single family. Nothing changes. Urban services are there. Protection of the environment. We did not go into the EC lands at all. Would cause damage, hazard, nuisance to persons or property. It's still the same use that's there. And ultimately, there'll be six houses there to make its own little neighborhood. Burdened on existing transportation. Two houses, historically, two houses when we're done. then the conditions of 34 216 which is these and the existing property allows for two family homes to start with the lots were legally created as as jason says i'm not sure the 1990 was correct i think it's older than that but it doesn't matter it was it predates the town The deviations to the property regulations are similar and historically existing approved by the variance of the other Gulfside lots in the 400, 700 blocks of Estero. The remaining ones are just not applicable to this project. So council requirements, first hearing, hopefully you'll look at this and think it's worthy of going to the second hearing. If any comments are made, we would adjust as needed before we got to the second hearing. So as I like to do, because I'm a little forward sometimes, I always put a motion up there. You don't see this, because I do it at LPA a lot more. But what I'm asking for is just basically to go to a second hearing so that we can formalize this at a later date. And that's my presentation, if you have questions.

Jim, is the driveway in the same location as it was previously?

Yes. What's actually going to happen is the front lot, the easement into the driveway, into the straight end, but by moving the lot line back, now it's a side entry. So other than that, we didn't change the orientation of anything.

And it looks like it's going to be a 15-foot roadway is what your plans say, the best I can see?

Yeah, it's seven and a half feet on either property line. It's one of the larger ones on the Indian Island. Some only have 10.

It's going to be a tight turn.

It is. Tight turn.

Councillor Link, any questions for Jim?

I think they'll need to use golf carts. Good idea. No questions, Jim. Thank you.

Vice Mayor Saffron?

You took my question.

Councilor King? Nothing. Thanks, Jim. Thank you. All right. Public comment. We'll now open public comment. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this matter? If so, please come forward to the podium and identify yourself, provide your address, and whether you were sworn in. Any public comment? All right, seeing no public comment, I will close it. I'm assuming you have no rebuttal. Okay. I will now close the public hearing and request a discussion or a motion from town council to approve, approve with conditions or deny with reasons or a continuance to a time certain.

Mayor, can you please, whoever makes a motion, include the 9 a.m. start time or whatever time that meeting starts for the second reading if one is offered.

Thank you. I will make a motion to approve Ordinance 26-13 RPD 20529 for 584-582 Estero Boulevard to go to the second reading on October 5, 2026 at 9 a.m. I'll second that, Mayor. Got a motion and a second by Councillor Link. Any further discussion? I'm an aye. Councillor Link?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Safford? Aye. Councillor King? Aye. Motion carries four to zero with Councillor McLean being absent. That brings us to our second public hearing. which is a quasi-judicial agenda item, and it's the second and final adoption hearing. This is an ordinance, I'm gonna read this, it's ordinance 26-02, DA20250277, for 6890 Estero Boulevard, the old Wyndham Garden. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida approving or denying a home rule development agreement for the property located at 6890 Lestero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, Florida. Strap number 03-47-24-W1-00003.0010 owned by FMBH LLC as authorized by section 2-100. OF THE TOWN'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES FOR APPLICATION AND APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH TWO PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT AND A REQUEST FOR SEVEN DEVIATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW RESTAURANT ENTERTAINMENT, COMMERCIAL PARKING AND RECREATIONAL USE providing terms and conditions including but not limited to the identification of the proposed use of the property, a finding of consistency with the town of Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan, commitments and development obligations, deviations needed for the development, providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scrivener's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. If there is any town council member that has had any ex parte communication to disclose, please let us know the subject discussed and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place, any correspondence that you received, or observations made of the site. Councilor Link?

Yes, so I met with Patrick and the team, the attorney, and the applicant's representative. I also received many, many emails, and I will say that I have none requesting denial and quite a few requesting approval. Okay. Mr. Safford?

Since the last meeting, I have not met with anyone, but I've received the same emails that Council Member Link received.

concert king the only difference is since the last hearing i received one email in support

Since the last hearing, the same thing, same e-mails. I did have a brief call with the applicant yesterday just asking if I had any questions before today. It was maybe a two-minute call. I did not have any questions. I said if I had any, I would bring them up today. So that's the only thing different from last meeting.

The attorney for the applicant, did you have any questions regarding the ex parte disclosures?

No, I did not. Thank you. All right.

The Jason Smalley and Jason Green have been qualified as experts by this town council based on his education and experience has been accepted as an expert witness in the field of land use planning and development in the town of Fort Myers Beach. Are there any other individuals who would like to be qualified as an expert witness on behalf of the applicant at this time that were not at the first hearing?

Any of the experts that would be testifying today would be limited to Mr. Patrick Vaness from the neighborhood company that testified as well as at the first hearing.

Very good. And has the property owner applicant seen a copy of the agenda backup materials from staff?

Yes, we have. Thank you.

Okay, take it away.

Okay, excellent. There is a PowerPoint, if we can pull that up. As previously stated, this is our request for a development agreement. This is our second reading. I believe that we should be able to move through this somewhat quickly. I think we went through a very good first reading where we incorporated all of the LPA recommendations. We reviewed that at the first hearing. At the first reading, there was a couple of items that You all had brought up, so we've incorporated those. And so really this presentation is going to be limited to reviewing the changes that have been made from the first reading until today. By all means, as I'm going through these slides, if you all have questions, feel free to stop me and we can take them as they come. I believe since really this is limited in scope to reviewing the proposed development agreement, You might be stuck listening to me today unless there are certain specific questions that Mr. Van Ness will need to address. But along with me, again, my name is Megan Strayhorn for the record. I'm counsel for the applicant. Along with me is, of course, Mr. Patrick Van Ness, our certified planner, as well as the family owner-operator representative, John Callis, for the property owner. Before you, this is just, there has been no changes made to the site plan. This is just reminding everyone that this is a two-phased approach to the development agreement, whereas that first phase is going to be really the only interim phase. The second phase is going to be the permanent phase. Once the wave mitigation wall gets in place, then the map is changed, then these structures will become permanent. I do want to go back and just note that I think this was cleared up at the first reading, but this is a proposal to have one restaurant that will be operated out of mobile units. It is not intended to be a food truck park, just to clarify that. In addition, there was some clarifications made upon the master concept plan just removing, making sure that that shared parking space is limited to the second phase. It is not included in the first phase.

Megan, just before you go on, you said the words and just the legal part of me, my brain kicked in. You said it's not intended to be a food truck. Will it not be?

It will not be a food truck part. Thank you, mayor. Now. I just wanted to clarify, cause I have seen some comments and some questions about it being a food truck part. And I want to, again, reiterate, that's not what is being proposed. It is one restaurant that will be run out of a maximum of six mobile units until the wave mitigation wall is in place. and they can become a permanent structure. So thank you for clarifying. And this is, again, once that weight mitigation wall is in place, once the map revision is made, we're able to provide permanent structures as well as the water recreational area. And the tiki barn, pole barn structure will become permanent. The restaurant will become permanent. The restrooms, I should say, will become permanent, as well as the addition to that joint shared parking area on the south. That will only come in the second phase. And therein we are adding in that shared parking agreement or shared parking access area to the Phase 2 within the Master Concept Plan on this slide. Now I will turn to the Development Agreement. So I'm going to kind of roll through the slides which do not include any changes. So bear with me because I did forget my glasses today apparently. So this might take me some time. These are all the same. Thankfully, the fabulous team has highlighted things in red so I don't have to look too hard. But this is, my apologies. So this is talking about the curbing on the landscaping which will be contained within the parking area just to make sure that that mulch does not kind of disperse. There was a good deal of discussion at the last hearing about whether to include the large planters or keeping it as curb landscaping so we memorialized that. Next turns to, there are two entrances to this parcel that have always been there. We addressed this a lot at the last hearing. I don't believe it was incorporated formally. So this is adding this language in to retain the right to use both the north and the south entrance as ingress egress from an operational pragmatic standpoint. it's very likely that that south entrance will be used only when it becomes busy. So it'll usually be an egress. Once there's a lot of traffic and becomes busy, it can also be opened as an ingress egress. Next discusses the there is a condition imposed or clarification really imposed at the last hearing clarifying that for the what I call the drop dead date that it includes both a final certificate of occupancy as well as a temporary certificate of occupancy. So we made sure to include that language in this condition as well. I DON'T GENERALLY TAKE INSTRUCTIONS FROM PUBLIC, BUT I WILL IN THIS. I'M NOT SURE WHICH SLIDE. SO THIS IS THE SLIDE ABOUT THE DROP DEAD DATE OR THE KIND OF IF PHASE TWO NEVER HAPPENS, THEN WHAT HAPPENS. SO FOR BACKGROUND AT THE FIRST READING MAYOR ALLERS SUGGESTED THAT TO MAKE IT VERY, VERY CLEAR THERE HAVE BEEN PROJECTS IN THE PAST THAT HAVE OPERATED UNDER A TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. So we included that has always been the intent for it to include either temporary or final. And we included that language here and to make it crystal abundantly clear. Since there was a member of the public that was concerned, I'm just going to let this slide sit for a second as well.

So Megan, while you're going through this, one of the questions I was asked is on your packet page 179, when you look at this from a distance, it says optional gate. There was concern that what has always been a... EASEMENT OR PATHWAY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET TO USE TO GET TO THE BEACH. THERE WAS CONCERN THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A WALK GATE THERE BLOCKING PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO ACCESS WHERE THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN TO ACCESS BEFORE. CAN YOU TOUCH ON THAT?

100%. I BELIEVE THIS WAS ADDRESSED DURING THE FIRST READING WHERE THERE WAS Concerned that it wasn't crystal clear that that easement extended all the way to the wet sand if you will so we have revised that condition and I believe that was modified at the first at the first reading as well So that easement will extend from Estero Boulevard to the wet sand and I see Mr. Van Ness wants to touch on that

Yeah, for the record, Patrick Van Ness, I think, Mayor, you're talking about optional gate where we're looking at the entrance gates for vehicular access.

Yeah, when you zoom in on it, you can see it's just the vehicular access, but when you're just looking at it, it could look like it's a walk gate as well. So there was just concern that there was going to be no access blocked off for that.

So to clarify, no, no gating off for the pedestrians, but that optional gate, it's either we're going to have an attendant and at night they might put a rope or they might go fully automated with, with gates and cards.

And you'll still be keeping that first six foot crush shell sidewalk on the South end for access, but that's not going to necessarily go all the way to the wet sand. Cause I thought phase two, it's going to turn potentially and go through the restaurant. Correct. CORRECT.

SINCE THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT THAT ARE INTERESTED, I'LL SLOWLY GO THROUGH THESE. THE NEXT CHANGE, MEANING I WON'T NECESSARILY TOUCH ON THEM, BUT I'LL ALLOW THEM TO SIT QUICKER THAN TWO SECONDS AS I WAS GOING THROUGH QUICKLY. But the next changes will be the additions to the signage. There was a couple of educational signage provisions or recommendations made at the last hearing that we have incorporated. There were two varieties. One was the educational signage regarding All dogs must be on a leash on the public beach, which is consistent with the town's ordinance. And the other signage was in regards to the environmentally critical area. So we did include both of those. As well as the no campers and overnight parking. And these stemmed from the aggrieved party that had raised some concerns. And these were what I believe was the agreed upon solution that you all proposed as well. There was also a condition suggested by the town manager, which we believe is a good idea to incorporate those conditions for the temporary placement permits to just make sure that the mobile units are kept in good condition. They can be removed in the event of a storm. So what we did was we literally copied and pasted those conditions from the emergency temporary placement permit and included them herein. So those are what you're looking at now. And I believe that completes all of the changes that were made from first reading until today. I believe we had a very robust hearing at the LPA level. So going back to the beginning of the presentation, I do ask that the LPA presentation, the public testimony that was presented at LPA, the public and the expert testimony that was presented at LPA at the first reading is incorporated herein, as well as those presentations, as well as these presentations. And we request for everyone to move this forward and for an approval of this proposed development agreement. And we're here for any questions that you all may have.

Council Link, any questions for the applicant?

I don't, thank you, but it is nice to see you incorporated all those great ideas and it shows the process working. Yes. Thanks, Maggie.

Vice Mayor Safford? I do not. Council King?

Nothing currently.

All right. Jason, you got anything to add?

No.

All right. Thanks, Megan. All right. We have public comment. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this matter? If so, please come forward to the podium and identify yourself, provide your address, and whether you were sworn in.

I have one signed up, Mayor. Mike Close.

Afternoon, Mike.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Mike Close, longtime resident of the island here, although I've only been in here once before, and that was about turtles climbing my fence. Generally, I'm not opposed. I'd like to see another restaurant go back in there. We live the, I'm sorry, I'm the president of the Crest Andy Condominium Association, which is just south of the site. We'd be delighted to see a restaurant back in here. There's a couple issues along the way, though, that give me serious concern. You guys remember back 12, 13 years ago where you could barely move on the island because of traffic congestion. And then we were blessed with the expansion of Estero Boulevard, which was going to relieve it all. And it pretty much did until the hurricane came and then shut that down also. I am concerned that we miss an opportunity here if this plan is approved as submitted because we've got an opportunity to not increase the congestion that exists today. And nobody can say the congestion isn't a problem. Nobody can be critical of the fact that council has done the best they can over time to try to relieve much of that congestion. This is going to create an additional problem. How do I know that? Well, they've got to have a deviation for their parking in two regards, but most importantly, they're going to have so many parking places there and they acknowledge in their own deviation that this is a turnover parking lot. It isn't like going into a hotel or a house where you're in and out once or twice a day. This is a turnover parking lot, which means it's going to be worse. Even by the number of parking spaces, we know that it's going to be worse. Secondly, we've got the provision of the overflow parking. which means that anybody basically almost to the south end of the island can park there if they want to, increasing the potential for abuse. Now, I'll tell you this, the only thing that's been good about the restaurant not being there is at Chrysantia, we have not had nearly the number of cut-throughs and illegal parking take place. This is gonna exacerbate that for every condominium and private property along the rest of the way down the south end, and probably the north, into the property. Secondly, and I'm advised by a representative of the applicant that there will only be one truck, one food truck allowed. I question how the city is going to enforce the noise laws knowing that anything over or up to 90 decibels is going to be too loud. Is anybody going to be around to monitor that? You know, I guess my biggest problem is as I understand this and as I rapidly reading the presentation made by the young lady. This is for five years. I don't know that I'm old enough to appreciate being around for five years anymore, but that's a long time, and I have very dramatically opposed that length of time. I think something along the lines of two years would be reasonable. Somebody's had that property for over four years as far as...

Please wrap it up for us, Mike. Your three minutes, please wrap it up for us.

It always amazed me that applicants get more time. Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

I have one more signed up. Okay. Dan Dugan, Dugan.

Thank you. I appeared at the last hearing indicating I represent Captain's Bay South as the president, the five buildings at 22704 Island Pines Way as the assessor identifies it. What I didn't mention the last time was on a couple occasions put together by several of the associations in the area, including our neighbors Stero Cove and our master association, Island Pines Recreational Association, in which we had a group meeting and social showing support for the project. That included Captains Bay South, North 2, Captains Bay North 1, Back Bay, Admirals Bay, and Estero Bayside. So we have six associations there that were all involved in it with an overwhelming support. I've not heard one contentious comment made in the entire process. As far as vehicles go, my personal observations is over the years I've walked through that parking lot going to the beach or going to the pinchers in the back, various times of day and night. The vast majority of the vehicles I've noticed were hotel residents. Are other people driving there? Sure. To say otherwise, you know, it'd be ludicrous. But I never noticed any backup in traffic other than what we see in the island on season anyways. So... I just wanted to put out there that, and hopefully to allay the gentleman's concerns, that I really feel from my own personal observations that the traffic is not going to be exacerbated by reopening. That a lot of it was the hotel. The hotel is not going to be there. Maybe in the future, if anybody would ever want to fund the money to build a new hotel down there, it may come to fruition. But for right now, what we're discussing is just the plans that were proposed, phase one, phase two, and I just don't see the increase in traffic that would become a problem. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dan.

Anyone else like to speak in public comment? Is that all you have? Were you here for the swearing in?

Yes, I was here for the swearing in. I'm Joanna Farley, J-O-H-A-N-N-A, and I live at 22628 Island Pines Way. I'm the vice president of the Island Pines Recreation Association, representing 192 families in the six condos that are along Island Pines Way. And I'm also representing my own condo association, Estero Bayside, the 45 families there. And we wanted to just express our appreciation for the good neighbors that the Wyndham and the Holiday Inn have always been. And we would like to fully support this. As far as four years not doing anything, Those four years were taken up with hurricane help for all of us on Island Pines Way. There was the emergency room that was there. There was the sand re-nourishment projects that were operating out of there. So I think that they have proven to be good neighbors over the whole time and we just wanted to all throw our support wholeheartedly behind this.

Thank you. That's it. Anyone else like to speak in public comment? All right, seeing none, we'll close public comment. Any additional comments or rebuttal comments, Megan or Patrick?

Yes, I would like to have the opportunity to clarify. The first gentleman, I apologize, I believe his name is Mr. Close, brought up something that I did not clarify, but it does provide me an opportunity to clarify. He discussed the overflow parking. So I want to reiterate that that joint shared parking, which exists in Phase 2, is not considered overflow parking. This parking, trying to find it in the slide show, this parking area is going to be limited to ideally hotels that have a shortage of parking that will be able to utilize this. It will be valet only, so it will be locked. It will not be available for the public to use. And it won't necessarily constitute overflow parking for the general. This request is fashioned in a way, this development agreement, I should say, is fashioned in a way to ensure or to attempt to get something on this property as fast, as soon as possible. That's why we have included that interim first phase. that we can get the restaurant on site, bring back exactly what was there within reasonable requirements, exactly what was there before, just absent the hotel. So this property has always had a somewhat large COP boundary. We're asking to continue that. We're asking to bring back the restaurant and eventually bring back the water recreational area, some outdoor recreational areas to really continue doing what was done on this property for years, well before even the existing owner has owned it for the past 20 years. So it's not necessarily increasing anything. It's the same accessory uses, just absent the hotel. And regarding the timeframe, I believe he was mentioning the five years. Phase two, I would also like to just clarify that phase two, the permanent phase, is entirely contingent on the timing of forces outside of our control. So we'll have to get the wall approved by FEMA. There'll have to be a map revision approved. If we could snap our fingers and use our crystal ball to predict how long that would take, I guarantee you just about every property owner would do so. So we're erring on the side of caution with the timeline that has been provided. And we've worked with staff as well in creating that time frame. And I'm not sure if Mr. Van Ness has anything else to add.

Well, I have a question for probably Patrick. Mike brought up something about parking, obviously, and transient parking, and you may or may not have been here to hear at the first hearing, Mike, what was covered. Can you reiterate what you said at the beginning at the first public hearing as far as how many parking spaces were there for hotels versus non? What would the increase of actual parking and how that correlates to what Megan just said with valet parking that we've blocked off?

Yes, if you give me a second, I will find the numbers, the exact numbers, and give that to you.

So in Phase 1, the required parking per code

is 144 spaces and we are providing 163 and five golf cart spaces and some bicycle parking also. So it's just slightly more than what code requires. But that requirement is for the restaurant and the outdoor seating. So it's not public parking for the beach. It's all related to the proposed use on site.

How many parking spaces did the Wyndham have before? And are you going to be doing the same thing that you did before, where you paid to park and then you could use the credit to go towards the restaurant?

Yeah, so I'll see if we can get the exact number of what it was before. I don't have it in these notes today, but I'm sure we've got it in our packet. Just want to clarify, though, in the second phase, second phase, the use has changed a little bit with the pool in the lazy river. We have a slight increase in requirement. We go to a requirement of 147, and that's where we are asking for 237. And the difference between phase one and phase two is that shared parking where that is completely controlled. It's only for valley parking and it's only for other businesses on this island that may have a shortage of parking on their site and they enter into an agreement with this property owner. and the only way people can access in and out are through the Valley services and that will be gated, controlled, and the public will not have access to that at night. Just a quick follow-up on that.

So you said the second phase because of the water and then you mentioned that you're going to be adding the parking spaces. So those parking spaces that you're asking for, in the second phase from the first phase, the additional, that would be all blocked off VIP or valet parking. It wouldn't be because you're adding a water feature. It could be used for that overflow, but it wouldn't be open access for anybody to park there. Is that correct?

Basically, okay.

Scott?

Patrick?

So that... And we're still looking for the exact number of what it was previously, and we did a count, but... It was very close to that 237 number we have. If I remember, it was slightly over 200 prior to Hurricane Ian.

I thought 212 stuck in my head, but I... It was probably less because there was a... You weren't counting those tennis courts that you sometimes used, is that correct?

Yeah, and I think with the tennis courts that they were using for valley parking, we were, if I remember correctly, close to the 220 range, but a little less without the tennis courts.

Okay, so the number you gave was phase one, the 160- What I gave today or what? No, what you just quoted, Dan, was phase one. Did you also ask him what parking will be in phase two? Yeah, so I can reiterate that. Okay, please.

So phase one, the required parking is 144 parking spaces. And we are providing 163 parking spaces in phase one. In phase two, the requirement is... 147 goes up very slightly, and we are providing 237. Okay.

Patrick, you also said that there were five golf carts and bicycles in phase one. Would they roll over into phase two as well? Yes. Okay, thank you.

we actually have more golf cart parking in phase two and more bicycle parking in phase two.

So it sounds like essentially 74 more spaces that will be valet parking, if my math is close based on what you said, give or take 74 roughly, that would be in a secured area that would be for valet only. Yes. Any other questions, Scott, John?

No. Okay.

All right, there's no other public comment. I'll now close the public hearing and request a discussion or a motion from town council to approve, approve with conditions, deny with reasons, or a continuance to a time certain. Discussion or a motion? guess i'll just do a little discussion before we get to a motion in in my conversations with the applicant and people on the island about this particular project it was very clear to me that what they wanted to see was obviously something open but obviously something that didn't go far beyond what they had previously. And what I mean by that, and speaking with the applicants and through these two hearings, two right-of-way accesses or two egress ingress, beach access, those kind of things, not a tremendous amount of parking. It doesn't sound like you're going to change how you operated it before. People, if I remember correctly, could park there before, but you had to pay to park, and then you could get a credit inside of the restaurant. So it wasn't just for transient people to come in and out and go to the beach, or if you did, you were going to be paying for it. So for me, that was part of the reason why I wanted to move to the second hearing. And it's the majority reason of why I'm going to support this proposal as you presented it. Any other discussion? Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Ordinance 26-02DA202502776890, Cero Boulevard, the old Wyndham Garden, as discussed here today, and with the additions to the change in the development agreement as laid out by the applicant's attorney. Second. Got a motion by Mayor Nallers, seconded by Councilor King. Any further discussion? I'm an aye. Councilor King? Aye. Vice Mayor Saffron? Aye. Councilor Link?

Aye.

That motion carries four to zero with Councilor McLean being excused.

This is the title. It's the next one.

This one? Yeah. Okay. All right. We've got to get back in. Sorry. All right, the next agenda item is Ordinance 27. Wait, actually, you know what? I've got to hand it over to Scott. Never mind. So that's your title, which you need to read. And I will shut up. Is this different from that? It's different from that.

So what needs to be read into the record is the advertised title, which is what you have.

Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. This is Ordinance 2610, CPD 20250286, 1207 Estero Boulevard, One Particular Harbor, AKA Silver Sands Resort. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving with conditions denying a rezoning of property located at 1207 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach. Generally identified as strap number 19-46-24-W4-0150D.0050 from downtown zoning district to a commercial plan development with 12 deviations to allow for a 60-unit hotel and a 2,500 square. It says 11 on here. It says 12.

Okay. It says 12. That's okay. Okay.

with 12 deviations to allow for a 60-unit hotel and 2,500 square feet of commercial retail space and 51 parking spaces, providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scrivener's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. We've got Jason Green. has been qualified as an expert already by this town council based on his education experience and has accepted as it has been accepted as an expert in the field of land use planning and development in town of Fort Myers beach. Are there any other individuals who would like to be qualified as expert witnesses on behalf of the applicant at this time? Okay. I forgot about expert take communication. I'm sorry. So if any town council member has had any ex parte communication disclosed, please let us know the subject, discuss the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place, any correspondence that you received, or observations made of the site. Ms. Link?

I have viewed the site, and I had three ex parte. They were emails hoping for denial.

Okay. Councilman King? Same. And I'm the same as well.

Any questions from the applicant's attorney regarding the disclosures?

No questions based on the disclosures. We did receive two additional emails, I believe, this morning that were reviewed.

Have you seen a copy of the agenda backup materials from staff?

Yes. Thank you. Yes, we have.

Okay. Jason, would you like to start?

Sure. Jason Green, Community Development. As you mentioned, rezoning to allow for the resort. I think we need to clarify with the applicant, it was 10 deviations that were modified, too. So there are some edits in the staff report that shows those edits between the readings.

So just to clarify then, we have advertised as the title was advertised, we've read the title, but the applicant is going to be asking to reduce the number of deviations from 12 to 10.

Correct. So through this process, through the changing of the Master Concept Plan, there have been a reduction of the deviation, so we would ask for that number to be reduced to Now I'm losing. To 10. To 10. To 10, sorry. I had to keep it straight.

OK, great.

Go ahead, Jason. And just for procedural clarification, this actually came up yesterday at the LPA. And your staff report has recommended or found that it's consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan. However, as a reminder that we are not charged with evaluating the public benefit component of the application that is your review and your analysis based on your policy. So there was some confusion over that based on recommendations. So our recommendation doesn't evaluate the public benefit offer, I guess I'll call it. So just to clarify that. There are some recommended conditions based on the previous meetings. There was one that was added, the number 10 for condition of approval. As I said, based on the findings of 3485B, C, and 34216.2, and consistent with the comprehensive plan 2045, those portions were responsible for reviewing, found it to be consistent with those requirements.

Any questions for Jason?

No, not at this time.

Councilman? Nothing currently. Nor do I. Thank you. Can we have the applicant, please? Megan?

Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor. There is a PowerPoint. If we could pull that up, please, for the record, while we're getting that up. For the record, my name is Megan Strayhorn. I am counsel for the applicant and property owner. With me, we have our team present. This is a request to rezone the parcel as a commercial plan development. So along with me we have, I believe an owner representative will be present, we have myself. For expert witness testimony we have Albert from Studio 80 Architect who is deemed an expert, presented at LPA. I don't recall if he provided any testimony at the first hearing, but we asked for him to be tendered as an expert. We also have Brandon from J.R. Evans Engineering. We asked to be tendered as an expert. And, of course, Mr. Patrick Van Ness. Ted Trish did work on this case, but I do not believe that he is present. But he did provide the traffic impact study that is contained within the packet. Again, this is a request to rezone from downtown commercial to a commercial plan development to allow for a 60 unit all suite boutique hotel to be located on Primo drive. It will also include roughly. 2,500 square feet of commercial space at the ground level as well as parking. There was a good hearing at the first reading. There was a couple of issues that were addressed from LPA at the first reading and so today's presentation I will allow Mr. Patrick Van Ness to get up here and speak with you all and review all of the items which have been revised and amended from the first reading until today which REALLY JUST MAKES EVERYTHING CONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER CONCEPT PLAN AND WITH THE CHANGES. SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, BEFORE I HAND IT OVER TO PATRICK, I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD. WE ARE ASKING FOR THE RECORD TO INCLUDE NOT ONLY THE PRESENTATION AT LPA, THE PRESENTATION AT THE FIRST READING, ALL OF THE MATERIALS, THE EXPERT TESTIMONY, AS WELL AS THE PRESENTATION THAT'S BEING PRESENTED HERE TODAY. AND WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I'LL ALLOW PATRICK TO WALK THROUGH THESE WITH YOU.

Good afternoon. For the record, Patrick Vanass, certified planner with the Neighborhood Company. Happy to be here to walk you through the changes that we've made since the first reading. So feel free to interrupt me if you have any questions. And if you want to discuss anything that was reviewed and discussed previously, happy to answer that. But I'll try to keep it brief for you and just look at those changes that we've made. So as you may recall, we made some changes to the site plan based on some concerns associated with Primo right of way. And what we were proposing and what we have gotten support from you at the first hearing was to provide a five foot easement to provide that to the city for the ability to wind that roadway. And in doing so, we had to shift our components within our site plan a little bit. So that led to some changes on the MCP and also led to some changes in our various documents, our narratives, our deviations, our architectural elevations. So we are just presenting the latest changes so we have a nice clean record of those changes and to allow you to ask me any questions or any clarifications so on the mcp by by moving the site slightly and allowing for wider right of way, we also tweaked our parallel parking and as you may recall, we had some parking spaces that were close to the intersection and we removed those and we have fewer parallel parking spaces and we had fewer overall parking spaces. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE IS THAT WE HAD SUFFICIENT PARKING TO BE CONFIDENT THAT VALLEY WOULD NOT BE NEEDED FOR THE SITE, THAT PEOPLE COULD DO SELF PARKING. SO WE REIMAGINED THE SITE A LITTLE BIT. IF YOU REMEMBER, WE HAVE A LOOPING INTERNAL DRIVE AISLE AND WE EXTENDED THAT LOOPING DRIVE AISLE ALL THE WAY ALONG THE CANAL TO THE BACK. what that allowed us to do is to have more parking spaces and to also allow for more stacking if ever we've got busy days for check-in we don't really think we'll ever need all that stacking but added benefit more stacking so traffic doesn't back up on on the roadway so in doing so also that loop road we had By the canal, we had a little green space that we envisioned as possibly an area that could be used for little reception, cocktail hours, that type of stuff, and we had requested COP for that area. That area is gone, and the request for that COP for that area is also gone. We have a dumpster that we have towards the rear of the property also. In reconfiguring the site a little bit, we were able to widen our buffer. and have one continuous enhanced buffer against the abutting residential property, but that did affect the location of our dumpster, so that has been relocated slightly. We initially had a sidewalk along Primo. As you may recall, that sidewalk is not required. We were providing that as a benefit. with the reconfiguration of the site and with comments talking about right-of-way and we thought that was a bigger priority to allow for widening of that right-of-way and that sidewalk has been removed. And on the MCP, I think that covers everything. I did mention the two parking spaces at the intersection of Primo that have been removed. So then we'll jump into the deviations. And the reason we're presenting these deviations again today IS THAT SOME OF THOSE WERE BROUGHT UP AND CHANGED AT THE FIRST READING. SO WE WANT TO MEMORIALIZE WHAT WAS DISCUSSED THERE AND GIVE YOU THE FINAL VERSION. AS YOU MAY RECALL, DEVIATION NUMBER 4 WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE BLADE SIGNS AND THE SIGNAGE NEEDED FOR THE FACILITY. And the area in yellow is really the deviation from the code requirement. So the code allows for 32 square feet of signage and we are allowing for 80 square feet for the decorative vertical blade signs and also an additional 81 feet for some facade signs that would be directly on the building. AND THIS IS THE RENDERING THAT WE SHOWED YOU LAST TIME WITH THE RENAMING OF THE PROPERTY FROM SILVER SANDS TO ONE PARTICULAR HARBOR THAT DEPICTS THE SIGN AND KIND OF DEMONSTRATES WHY WE NEED THAT EXTRA SQUARE FOOTAGE. DEVIATION NUMBER EIGHT AGAIN DEALS WITH THE LOCATION OF THAT DUMPSTER. SO WE'VE REVISED IT SLIGHTLY TO SHOW THAT SEPARATION FROM THE CANAL AND WE'VE KEPT THE OTHER DEVIATION TO ALLOW FOR GREATER SCREENING UP TO EIGHT FEET FOR THAT DUMPSTER. As you may recall also, when we talked about parking, we were able to add some parking because of the new configuration and that reduced our deviation when it came to the amount of parking. We initially had a 21% reduction and because of the added parking, our reduction is 10.5%.

Patrick, can I stop you there for a moment? Yes. Can you tell me, maybe Jason can, what was the required parking? AND WHERE ARE YOU NOW?

THE REQUIRED PARKING, I HAVE TO GO TO MY PREVIOUS NOTES. OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I THINK IT'S 57. THERE YOU GO. MEMORY STILL WORKS. 57 AND WE ARE PROVIDING 51. THANK YOU. And so that's deviation number nine that does address that reduction in parking. And we are at a 10.5% reduction. Last but not least, we introduced that At the first reading, we want to do something very similar to what is right by the entrance of Margaritaville, where they've got a pole sign identifying different attractions. So we want to do something similar to what they have there. We have a picture depicting that. And the last deviation would be to allow that pole sign. So with that said, that concludes our brief presentation of the changes that we made from the first reading. As mentioned by our attorney, what Megan highlighted is we've provided full application packet and explaining all facets of this project. And that's part of the public record, so we're not gonna go through that all over again. And we have provided some expert testimony coming from the entire team, which supports the application. So with that said, it is my professional planning opinion that we are consistent with the comp plan and the line development code. and we respectfully request your approval for this petition. We'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Questions?

I do have questions. So is this applicant required to provide public benefit, or do they fit nice and neatly into the requirements? We are providing the ones that you provided.

Yeah, we do provide public benefit. I'll pick my entire list out.

Thank you.

I will just reiterate what we discussed at the first reading and to go over this list of public benefits. So, and I'll just go quickly through that list and we can talk about it in more detail if you need it. Thank you. We're providing a pedestrian barrier across from the property to minimize any kind of potential jaywalking and that slows down the traffic. It'll be decorative, it'll be attractive. We are enhancing the sidewalk in front of the property so it can be at least 15 feet wide. We are providing public realm enhancements at the corner. It's a little plaza where we're going to have some seating. We're going to have a flagpole. And we are... ENHANCING THAT LITTLE PUBLIC SPACE. WE ARE GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DO NOT RENT CAR PROGRAM, EDUCATING GUESTS THAT IF YOU CAN, PLEASE KEEP YOUR CAR AT HOME OR PLEASE TAKE AN UBER TO THE ISLAND. So we will do that. We will educate the guests. We'll have bicycles for all hotel guests available. We're providing hardened and resilient structures. We are going to be providing a positive economic impact from ad valorem taxes, from bed taxes, from employment, and from secondary impacts by encouraging and working with local businesses. We still have in there supporting the Fort Myers Beach Elementary. I did see something online that, hey, looks like your list is a little dated, cuz we don't have the school anymore. But I wanna make sure that everybody understands that we are still fighting for that school. and we are going to do our best to bring that school back. And when we do have a school on the island, and probably going to be a charter at that point, we will work with that charter to have flexible hours and try to get as many of the kids from those employees to go to our beach school. And last but not least, we had that we are helping redevelop the island. We are providing some hotel rooms to replenish what we've lost. We are going to be getting some heads in the beds. And I think there's going to be an economic benefit to the island from that. And also, hand in hand with that, as we discussed last time, TPI is a proven entity on this island. They've demonstrated that they are good neighbors, good stewards. and they're ready to go. They want to get this built, so it's not one of these projects that may linger for years. They're going to be actively permitting this, and they want to proceed as soon as they can.

Any other questions?

That concludes the benefits.

I do have another question, but I'd rather everyone else have a chance to speak, and then I can sum it up.

Okay. John?

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm trying to find it. Again, I think I mentioned it this last time. How do you address the concerns of the residents about the height?

We, we address the concerns about the height in that we believe that it is consistent with the downtown district. It is consistent with the character of the surrounding commercial uses in other hotels. AND THAT SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN VOICED IN THE PAST WERE ABOUT THAT VIEW CORRIDOR COMING FROM THE BRIDGE. THIS IS SLIGHTLY REMOVED FROM THAT VIEW CORRIDOR. WE THINK IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE BUILDING. IT'S BEEN DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY WHERE IT'S STAIR STEP TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE HEIGHT CONCERNS. AND WE BELIEVE THAT IT FITS WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF A DOWNTOWN BUSY ACTIVE DISTRICT.

Also one of the emails we received there was a concern about the five foot easement and whether there actually can be found the property lines where they exist.

So I will let our engineer discuss this but we have a recent survey, a valid survey. And what you have to keep in mind is the survey DEPICTS OUR PROPERTY AND THAT EASEMENT IS COMING FROM OUR PROPERTY. OUR PROPERTY HASN'T CHANGED IN ANY WAY. THERE HAS BEEN NO TAKING ON THIS PROPERTY SO WE CAN STILL PROVIDE THAT EASEMENT AND THAT EASEMENT IS STEMMING FROM THAT BOUNDARY THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS. SO I'LL TURN THINGS OVER TO BRANDON AND HE CAN WALK YOU THROUGH THAT.

Brandon Fry, for the record. Like Pat said, we have a surveyor on our team. The surveyor tells us what he believes the boundary is, and we took from that line, and we went five feet from there to provide an additional five feet of right-of-way for premium drives. The absence of stakes doesn't change the fact that that line exists and we're providing five feet of our property to the town for its benefit and expanding the pavement along with that, along our frontage. I'm not sure if I answered your question.

I think you gave me some answer, yeah.

Okay.

Anything else? Okay, I have a couple questions for you, Pat. With regard to the retail space, what is planned there?

So what we're going to have on the ground level, and I think we talked about this last time, we're in a coastal A, so it'll be dry flood proof. We are going to have the lobby. And associated with the lobby, there's going to be some extra space. Good chance that it might just be sundries and kind of a convenience store. But there's enough room for other types of retail there. And I think the final decisions have not been made. AND TOM IS HERE AND HE'S GIVING ME THE NOD AND RIGHT NOW IT'S STILL UP IN THE AIR AS TO WHAT THE EXTRA SPACE OTHER THAN THE LOBBY, WHAT THAT WILL BE EXACTLY, BUT IT WILL BE SOME MOST LIKELY SOME KIND OF RETAIL.

SO THERE'S NO RESTAURANT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IN THIS BUILDING?

NO, THERE IS NO RESTAURANT.

word that there was, I just want to re, have you reiterate that there is, there's not.

No, restaurant is not included in our list of uses. There is no restaurant.

Okay. Let's see, my, my third question was, we had, I had spoken to you about this last time, want to make sure, reiterate that that parking on Primo is, is used. That's very, those are the very last four spots you're going to use.

Yes, and I think what we talked last time is You know, if, if they're not needed, maybe put some cones or, or barriers and, and try to make it that they are not used and when needed we use those.

Okay. Mr. Torgerson, do you want to say a word?

GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. SOME THOUGHTS THAT I JUST WROTE SOME THOUGHTS THAT I JUST WROTE SOME THOUGHTS THAT I JUST WROTE DOWN THIS AFTERNOON. DOWN THIS AFTERNOON. DOWN THIS AFTERNOON. YOU TALK ABOUT PUBLIC BENEFITS YOU TALK ABOUT PUBLIC BENEFITS I HOPE I'M NOT KIND OF STEPPING OUT OF BOUNDS HERE, BUT I JUST KIND OF JOTTED DOWN SOME NOTES HERE IN REGARDS TO PUBLIC BENEFITS. YES, IT'S A 60-UNIT BOUTIQUE HOTEL. IT'S NOT AN EXPANSIVE RESORT. LIKE A MARGARITAVILLE CAN'T QUITE SUPPORT THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT MARGARITAVILLE CONTRIBUTED TO THE COMMUNITY. I AS WELL LISTENED TO A RECENT, MAYBE IT WAS A DAY OR TWO AGO, MEETING WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT PUBLIC BENEFIT AND HOW THEY FELT WITHIN THEMSELVES THAT PUBLIC BENEFIT IS HEAVILY DEFINED BY SOMETHING THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC THAT PERPETUATES INTO WHATEVER THE FUTURE AND ONGOING. AND I JUST WANTED TO TODAY I JUST KIND OF PUT A LIST OF SOME OF THOSE THINGS ON THIS PROJECT THAT I THINK FIT THAT CATEGORY. AND THEY'VE BEEN SPOKEN ABOUT BUT I ACTUALLY PUT SOME DOLLAR SIGNS TO THEM. PRORATING OUR LAND ACQUISITION COST, ALONG WITH OUR HOLDING COST OF THAT LAND, ALONG WITH CONSTRUCTION COST TO DELIVER UPON THOSE PUBLIC BENEFITS. I ESTIMATED IT IN TODAY'S DOLLARS. SO FIXED IN TODAY'S DOLLARS. ONE OF THEM IS TO SPEAK OF THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT WE WOULD BE CONTRIBUTING TO THE TOWN. be a permanent easement to five feet along Primo. Our property extends a depth of 300 feet, 297 to be exact. So five feet wide by 300 feet long. THE PRO RATA COST OF THE LAND IS ABOUT $350,000 FOR THAT CONTRIBUTION. AND I FIGURED ABOUT ANOTHER $100,000, $125,000 TO MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE BEGINNING, OUR SIDE OF THAT FIVE FOOT EASEMENT ALL THE WAY TO EXTEND THE ASPHALT. TO THE EXISTING STREET THAT IS THERE TODAY, WHICH IS FURTHER AWAY THAN FIVE FEET. I THINK IT'S ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT FEET TO GET TO THE EXISTING STREET. SO WE WOULD PAY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT, NOT ONLY OF THE DONATED FIVE-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT ALSO TO MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE IT CONTIGUOUS WITH THE STREET THAT'S THERE. NUMBER TWO IS, YOU KNOW, WELL, NUMBER TWO WAS INCLUDED IN NUMBER ONE, I'M SORRY. IT WAS A COMBINATION OF THE FIVE-FOOT EASEMENT PLUS EXTENDING THE ROADWAY UP TO THAT FIVE-FOOT EASEMENT. THAT WAS ACTUALLY ANOTHER $250,000. THE PUBLIC PLAZA, I SAW SOME PEOPLE SHAKING THEIR HEADS A LITTLE BIT WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT UP, BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT HOW IMPORTANT THAT PLAZA IS. FIRST OF ALL, TO MAKE THAT PLAZA HAPPEN AT THE CORNER OF SO THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER OF YOUR MASTER CONCEPT PLAN THERE, WE HAD TO TWIST THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS FACING A STERILE BOULEVARD. SO ARCHITECTURALLY, ELBERT HAD TO TWIST THE BUILDING, WHICH IS EXPENSIVE TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE. I DIDN'T EVEN ADD THAT COST IN HERE. But to do it, it's way expanded space from the vehicular triangle that's considered a requirement by the town. It enlarges that triangle, that safety triangle, immensely. AT A PLACE THAT I'M EVEN HEARING THE LOCAL PEOPLE THAT LIVE ALONG PRIMO FEEL THE IMPORTANCE OF ADDRESSING CONGESTION AND VISIBILITY AT THAT SPOT THERE. SO WE SPENDED SIGNIFICANT DOLLARS TO MAKE THAT PLAZA HAPPEN. YES, IT WILL BE PRETTY WITH A FLAG POLE. YES, IT WILL BE PRETTY WITH A COUPLE OF BENCHES AND WHAT HAVE YOU. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE OF THAT PLAZA IS THE SAFETY THAT IT PROVIDES TO THE PUBLIC ONGOING IN PERPETUITY. AND I FIGURED THE COST OF THE LAND IN DOING THAT IS ABOUT $250,000. NOW, ALSO, PATRICK, OUTLINE THAT WE REMOVED TWO PARKING STALLS ALONG PRIMO, AND THEY'RE THE ONES THAT LEAD UP TO THE PLAZA, SO THEY'RE THE ONES CLOSEST TO THE INTERSECTION OF ESTERO BOULEVARD. AGAIN, THAT WAS DONE TO FURTHER REMOVE CONGESTION RIGHT UP AT THE INTERCHANGE WITH ESTERO, BUT NOT JUST VEHICLE CONGESTION, PEDESTRIAN. You know, there's many VRBOs that operate out of Primo and residents that live there. But it's a busy, busy, I think the VRBOs are the ones that really create the pedestrian traffic. I live on Palermo. I see it all the time. You know, they walk down the street like they think it's a sidewalk. AND THEY ARE HAND IN HAND AND FIVE ACROSS. YOU COME UP WITH THEM SLOWLY AND STARTLE THEM UNINTENTIONALLY AND TRY TO WEAVE THROUGH THE CUSTOMERS BUT NOT THEIR CUSTOMERS, I GUESS. BUT LEADING UP TO THE PLAZA WHERE WE REMOVED THOSE TWO PARALLEL PARKING STALLS, WE ADDED A SIDEWALK. THAT ALLOWS THE PEDESTRIANS THAT WALK DOWN THE STREET TO NOW DIVERT ONTO THE SIDEWALK WELL BEFORE YOU GET TO THE INTERSECTION AND YOU'RE OUT OF TRAFFIC'S WAY AND YOU'RE STARTING TO GET INTO THAT NICE BIG VISIBILITY AREA THERE WHERE YOU CAN SEE WHATEVER HAZARDS ARE COMING YOUR WAY. E-BIKES, BICYCLES, PEDESTRIANS, CARS, SEMI TRUCKS, WHATEVER IT IS. PATRICK ALSO MENTIONED THIS DECORATIVE JAYWALKING BARRIER. WE WERE ABLE TO OFFER THIS. WE HAD OUR WHOLE TEAM SIT DOWN AND MEET WITH THE LEAD DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THEY THOUGHTFULLY ASSEMBLED THEIR WHOLE DOT TEAM, THE TOP PEOPLE IN THEIR ORGANIZATION. And we sat down at a round table and brainstormed this together. And through the process, they felt it would be a great test experiment in trying to mitigate the jaywalking that happens in this high congested pedestrian traffic area of our town. And we're able to provide this because we own the property on the other side of the street as well. SO PUTTING THE BARRIER IN ALONG THE FINS UP BEACH CLUB. SO BASICALLY IT WOULD BEGIN AT WASTING AWAY. SO THE BEACH ACCESS AT WASTING AWAY, THE FINS UP BEACH CLUB SIDE OF THAT IS WHERE IT WOULD BEGIN. IT WOULD BEGIN ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE CURB OF ESTERO BOULEVARD AND IT WOULD EXTEND ALL THE WAY UP TO THE WALKWAY WHERE YOU CAN ENTER FINS UP BEACH CLUB. SO BASICALLY UP TO CRESCENT STREET. AND THE COST OF THAT I FIGURED AT ABOUT $100,000. PATRICK ALSO MENTIONED ALONG ESTERO, THIS STRETCH OF SIDEWALK IS ONE OF THE MOST CONGESTED IN THE WHOLE SEVEN MILE ISLAND THAT WE LIVE ON. WE'RE WIDENING THAT TO 15 FEET. I FIGURED THE COST OF THAT IS $75,000. IF YOU TALLY ALL THIS UP, THIS LITTLE PROJECT, JUST THESE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT ARE ALL ONES THAT WILL BE A BENEFIT TO THE GREATER COMMUNITY AND WILL BE THERE INTO PERPETUITY, AM I SAYING THAT RIGHT, IS $1,250,000. Lastly, and this isn't, I'm not a planner, and Patrick will probably kick me for doing this, but Silver Sands Resort, pre-Ian, AN AMELGAMATION OF BUILDINGS. THERE WERE 15 OF THEM, TO BE EXACT. AND LET ME GO THROUGH THOSE. I'M GOING THROUGH THEM NOT BECAUSE, BUT OFF OF LEAP OF RECORDS. SO THESE ARE LEAP OF RECORDS DATA ON SILVER SANDS PRE-EN. SO IT'S PUBLIC RECORD. ANYBODY CAN GO AND SEE IT. BUT THERE WERE 15 BUILDINGS ON THAT PROPERTY. ONE OF THEM WAS CATEGORIZED AS A MOTEL, AND THAT HAD FOUR UNITS PLUS AN OFFICE IN IT. BUILDING 13 WAS ALSO CATEGORIZED AS A MOTEL AND IT HAD THREE UNITS IN IT. NUMBER 10 WAS CATEGORIZED AS A DUPLEX, TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE REMAINING 11 BUILDINGS WERE ALL CATEGORIZED AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. NOW, IF YOU TAKE ONE RESTAURANT UNIT, SEVEN MOTEL UNITS AND 13 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND USE THE MULTIPLIER FOR LODGING, YOU GET UP TO 46 UNITS. NOW, I JUST LISTED $1,275,000 OF PUBLIC BENEFITS IN PERPETUITY. WE'RE ASKING FOR A DEVIATION REALLY IN PRACTICALITY FROM 46 TO 60. SO WHAT IS THAT? 14 UNITS IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. THAT'S HOW MY HEAD WORKS. I KNOW NOT EVERYBODY'S HEAD WORKS THAT WAY, BUT THAT'S REALLY WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, ANSWER THE RETAIL SPACE. WE ARE LINING UP ALL OUR DISCIPLINES. WE'RE ALL ON A CALL THIS MORNING. WE'RE ON A STANDING WEEKLY CALL. I SAID I'M REALLY OPTIMISTIC THIS IS GOING TO PASS, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT VISITED WITH A SINGLE ONE OF YOU, SO I DO NOT KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE. I'M OPTIMISTIC. IT'S THE RIGHT PROJECT. IT'S THE RIGHT TIME. IT'S THE RIGHT PROJECT. IT STANDS ON ITS OWN LEGS. IT'S BEAUTIFUL. IT'S PRACTICAL. IT'S IN A COMMERCIAL ZONING. IT'S IN THE MOST HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT WE HAVE ON THE WHOLE ISLAND. YES, IT ABUTS TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL, BUT SINCE IAN THE FIRST TWO HOUSES THAT WERE WIPED OUT THAT WOULD BE ADJACENT TO THE REAR OF THIS PROPERTY HAVE ALL BEEN SINCE REBUILT AND THEY'VE BEEN PURPOSEFULLY BUILT AS VACATION RENTALS. THE FIRST AND THE SECOND ADJACENT PROPERTY. NOW, WE HAVE A 34-FOOT BUFFER DESIGNED IN OUR PLAN BETWEEN US AND THE FIRST PROPERTY LINE, FIRST VACATION RENTAL, 34 FEET. We used to own the salty crab restaurant. That's a 30-foot wide piece of property. They're going to put a beautiful restaurant in there. That restaurant would fit within this 34-foot buffer. That's how big the buffer is. And that doesn't count the buffer set back on the other side. And we've got a wall designed to go in there. And it's the rear of our building. There's no windows. There's no noise. There's no activity that will bleed that direction. WE DO NOT BLOCK ANYBODY'S FRONT OR BACKYARD VIEW. YES, WE WILL BLOCK A SIDE YARD VIEW. I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN POSSIBLY BUILD BUILDINGS SIDE BY SIDE AND NOT BLOCK A SIDE YARD VIEW. IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE. IT'S HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE. BUT WE DON'T BLOCK CANAL VIEWS OF ANYBODY. WE DO NOT BLOCK THEIR FRONT DOOR, THEIR DRIVE UP VIEWS OF ANYBODY. ANY QUESTIONS? YES, THE RETAIL, SCOTT, VICE MAYOR. YESTERDAY IN OUR INTERIOR DESIGN PLANNING MEETING, WE MADE A DECISION TO SPACE MANAGE THAT SPACE AT 2500 SQUARE FEET. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR LOBBY AND ARRIVAL IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT 2500 SQUARE FEET AND WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUR OWN RETAIL SUNDAYS OPERATION OUT OF THE SIZE OF THAT. SO FROM A STAFFING LEVEL, IF IT'S HUGELY SUCCESSFUL, WE'LL HAVE TWO PEOPLE IN THERE RUNNING IT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO WITH THAT RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE. NO, THERE IS NO RESTAURANT IN THE PROPERTY. IT'S REALLY DESIGNED TO BUILD OFF OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE MARGARET REEDERVILLE RESORT THAT ALREADY EXISTS. WE WANT MORE LODGING UNITS, ESPECIALLY IN THE DISTRICT, WHETHER IT'S DIAMOND HEAD OR LIGHTHOUSE OR arches, whatever it is, pink shell. We want more lodging units. We built a pretty big, expansive resort that has a lot of public space. And we need bodies. We need more VRBOs. I HAVE A BAD RAP FOR PEOPLE THINKING THAT I DON'T WANT GROWTH ON THIS ISLAND. IT'S QUITE THE OPPOSITE. I DO HAVE OPINIONS AS TO, YOU KNOW, DENSITIES, HEIGHTS, AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT LET'S NOT GO DOWN THAT PATH. BUT I AM PRO-GROWTH FOR THIS ISLAND. ANY QUESTIONS?

I have one follow-up question on those five or six parking spots on Primo. Besides not using them in high season, can you use those spots for deliveries when you have laundry dropped off, when you have other things coming back and forth? I think one of the complaints from the residents on Primo is the deliveries, how it's always that... Everything's always jammed up there.

So if we can... And I think that what's envisioned are delivery trucks and semis just kind of sitting in the middle of Primo while they unload. How I think it's going to work, and I'll let him confirm, is that all of the deliveries will be made to Margaritaville, just like it's made today. They'll be loaded in individual golf carts or small electric vehicles and then taken in.

That's even better.

What I envision for those deliveries is that they would be done within the garage, you know, TO THE ELEVATOR UP. I DON'T KNOW THAT I SEE A TON OF INTERACTION BETWEEN PASSERS-BY ON PRIMO AND THE DELIVERIES THEMSELVES.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT'S EVEN BETTER THAN WHAT I ENVISIONED.

IT WILL BE THE LITTLE ELECTRIC FLAT BED GOLF CAR KIND OF VEHICLES THAT WE HAVE THAT WILL RUN THE PRODUCT BACK OVER TO ONE PARTICULAR HARBOR.

NOTHING ELSE?

I do have a few questions, Tom. So would that delivery structure that you're talking about, could that live in perpetuity? Well, this is one business.

It's going to be one franchise. These two properties are going to be inseparable. One particular harbor can't really function without Margaritaville. It can't do it.

Gotcha. That takes care of that question. There are also some utility poles, I think, on Primo there. Are those for you to move, or the utility company, or who picks up that tab? Or can they be underground, replaced underground?

The tab, I think, will ultimately be on ours. We would have to coordinate with them to see who will be doing the physical moving of it. And the approval of it. They would need to be relocated in part to accommodate those parking spaces, the pavement expansion, and potentially anything else that may exist as we go through the design process.

Perfect. And Tom, I have one other comment. One of my biggest concerns, and I think we hear it around town as well, is we are reducing parking for a lot of people. At some point, especially in that area, could we have people that are all driving around looking for the same few parking spots? might you have parking spots at other holdings that you may have on the island up on the north end that you would, as a public benefit, consider for the six spaces that you're going to require, six less spaces that you would deed to the town perhaps for some income?

WE DON'T. I'M NOT SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION CLEARLY, BUT WE HAVE MORE THAN AMPLE PARKING FOR ONE PARTICULAR HARBOR. LIKE I SAID, ONE PARTICULAR HARBOR AND MARGARET REDAVILLE ARE INSEPARABLE OPERATIONALLY. I DON'T CARE IF YOU GO FROM MARKETING TO COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY TO ENGINEERING TO MARKETING TO WHATEVER DISCIPLINE YOU WANT TO GO TO, AND THERE'S QUITE A FEW OF THEM, SECURITY, ON AND ON AND ON. THEY ARE INSEPARABLE, AND THE TRANSPORTATION WE DON'T HAVE LOGOED VEHICLES, SO PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE HOW MUCH SHUTTLING IS GOING ON RELATED TO OUR EMPLOYEES WITH MARGARITAVILLE, BUT WE HAVE 12 PLACE TRANSPORT VANS THAT ARE RUNNING CONSTANTLY OVER THAT BRIDGE BACK AND FORTH TO A PROPERTY THAT WE OWN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BRIDGE WHERE WE HAVE PARKING STALLS. And so we really meet the requirement. We have way more than the 56 stalls because we're not parking any employees at all at one particular harbour.

So I think maybe I didn't explain it perfectly or very well. So I appreciate that and you seem to do it very well now. My question is in light of public benefit, do you have any parking availability that you could give the town, for the town to have revenue that would equate to the six spots. Similar to the waste in a way. Waste in a way. Not that big, but I don't know what other holdings you may have.

We don't have any others.

Okay.

IF YOU RECALL, AT THE FIRST READING, WE HAD A MAP OF ALL THE PUBLIC PARKING SPACES WITHIN A SHORT WALKING DISTANCE FROM THIS FACILITY. AND I'VE HAD THE DISCUSSION WITH NUMEROUS PEOPLE. WHAT WE NEED TO DO AS A COMMUNITY IS WE NEED TO GET A GOOD HOLD ON WHAT OUR INVENTORY IS AND WHAT OUR NEEDS ARE. THE REASON I SAY THAT IS I HAVE SEEN THIS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES WHERE PEOPLE REACT TO THEIR SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO GO TO A SPECIFIC LOCATION. and if they don't have a spot right outside the door they feel there's a shortage of parking but a lot of times when you look at it really it's not the amount of parking it's the proximity of the parking so I think what would be helpful at some point is town's got to get a good understanding of what it is and if it's a proximity issue versus COUNT, YOU KNOW, PARKING COUNT, THEN I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW CAN WE EDUCATE PEOPLE, HOW CAN WE MAYBE USE TECHNOLOGY AND PEOPLE KNOW WHERE THOSE PARKING SPACES ARE AVAILABLE. SO JUST MY TWO CENTS ON THE ISSUE.

I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE, PATRICK. THANK YOU.

SO WITHIN A HALF MILE THERE ARE 722 PARKING SPACES.

Thank you. That's it.

That's it. Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Public comments. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this matter? If so, please come forward to the podium and identify yourself, provide your address, and whether you were sworn in. Tracy, were you sworn in?

If you'll raise your right hand, I'll swear you in real quick. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Perfect. Thank you.

Tracy Gore. I've lived here all my life. I've been on Prima for 30-some years. Is your microphone on? What?

Is your microphone on?

Is it on?

Is it green?

It's green. I HAVE SAT WHERE YOU SAT SO I KNOW THIS IS DIFFICULT SOMETIMES. I HEAR THE COUNCIL OFTEN ASKING THE APPLICANTS WILL YOU, WILL YOU, WILL YOU. YOU HAVE THE LEVERAGE. STOP ASKING THEM WILL YOU DO SOMETHING. They are asking for something they're not allowed to have. They want double the density. They want double six stories where three stories are allowed. They want 60 units where 15 are allowed. You can go back and say there was 22, but they're not going post-disaster build back. They're going brand new. So three stories is what they're allowed to have. 15 units or maybe more. You guys changed the comp plan and I haven't read the whole thing yet. So there may be some stuff since the hurricane that are changed that I'm not up on. But I'm going to get to some of my, I saw in here the condo hotels. I don't know if they're going to try to make it like a pink shell or if they just want that option later on. I'm not sure if that changes parking at all. The five-foot right donation, if they're going to donate it, I'm hoping that you guys make it like a striped fire lane so you know nobody's going to park there. And remember that the donation of the five-foot does not offset the mouth of an ingress, egress of Primo Drive. So it's still hard to get in and out of Primo Drive. That's not going to change that problem. It's going to give us maybe some room to move around when the deliveries are being made of the whale or at whatever, the silver sands. But it's not going to change the pulling in and pulling out. This barrier that they're talking about, is that going to do a line of sight? I don't know. We've never done that before. And it's only going to help That area for because you can't block off the surf club. You can't block off John Shards property You can only go right in front of his property. I'm not sure what they're doing with that The plaza is a dangerous idea because it is so congested there You don't want to ask people to come gather where we have problems. It's already congested and So I'm hoping you say no to that. I see that the applicant is asking to use FDEP, the lowest horizontal structure member to measure height, but they're using FEMA flood for flood proofing. You have to put it in your conditions that they're going to be held to the FDEP and the FEMA for building because FDEP is for wave mitigation. They don't want the waves to hit it, so they don't allow flood proofing. They want the water to go through. FEMA-based flood allows you to do flood proofing, but FDEP, when you use that one, you get to go a little higher. I sent you so many emails, and nobody answered my questions, and now we're getting cut off.

Can you wrap this up, please?

I'm going to try to wrap it up real quick.

Thank you.

So conditions... We want you to see the COP areas outdoors at the pool closed by 9 o'clock. No outdoor entertainment. No commercial uses on the docks to protect the residential over there. In the schedule of uses, I want to correct both the applicant and his planner. It does say restaurant bar for hotel guests only. Also, in the master concept plan, normally you use square footage and you break it down. You say this is how much is hotel rooms, this is how much is lobby, this is how much is restaurant. I don't see that broken down. And when you use a three times multiplier, the three times multiplier is for 450 square foot and less or under 450 square foot. Anything 450 is 750 is 2.5 and then anything over 750 is a 2.0. I don't see that broken down for your parking in four. That's normally all in the Master Concept Plan. I don't see it anywhere. I have a lot more, but my time is up. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else for public comment? Yes, sir.

My name's Tim Newman. I live at 146 Primo. I am kitty corner from that. I think Mr. Torgerson's done a great job. I mean, I will say that much.

Could you step to the microphone so we can hear you, please?

We do think Mr. Torgerson's doing a great job on what he's trying to do. We do oppose the height, the height and the number of rooms. The other problem that we do have is that corner there, I have pictures of it. It's only 21 foot wide. The road is not being made wider at the corner part. When you make the right turn, if you're there, you'll find you take out the curb every time you go over it. There is a fire hydrant there sitting there also that's causing problems. Now, I'm assuming he would move that, so that's, you know, hey, I'm grateful for that. But the corner, when you try and make it, because it's a 110-degree corner, it makes it very hard, and when people are trying to turn into our street, which is very narrow, it creates problems, and all the pedestrians is your other issue that we have is that whole little intersection there. I never thought about what he said about the corner there because I didn't see the diagram before enough. But it is wicked at night. I'll just say that. When everybody's coming out of the whale, they don't know where they're going, and inebriated people, I'll just say that, kind of coming out, and they're walking right into our pass a lot of times. You're trying to turn in, a car's coming out. That is our major concern right there. And I do see, according to the diagram, I just realized that he put grass in there, then the sidewalk. And that's the five-foot easement, the grass on his diagram. If that was made the street, it would tremendously change things there. Just saying and just opposing the height. So that's all I got to say.

Great. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else for public comment? Seeing none, we're going to close public comment. Would the applicant like a time for rebuttal?

For the record, Patrick Van Ness. Just want to quickly touch upon a few of the comments that were made. When it comes to density, I think it's important to focus that we have revised our comp plan. And the decision that was made is to go to a pure FAR when it comes to commercial uses in hotels. And the FAR allowed per the comp plan is 2.5. We are asking for a 2.0, which is significantly lower than what the comp plan allows. With regards to the plaza, I think, again, going back to the comp plan, THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS IN THE COMP PLAN OF PUTTING PUBLIC BENCHES, PUTTING PUBLIC AMENITIES. WE ARE FOLLOWING THE COMP PLAN. IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE VISION OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA. IT'S DESCRIBED. IT'S PART OF THE POLICIES. WE ARE DOING THAT. AGAIN, WE DON'T ENVISION THIS BEING A ROWDY PARK WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE A TON OF PEOPLE OBSTRUCTING THE VIEWS. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE OPEN SPACE THAT PROVIDES A LITTLE RESPITE MAYBE FOR SOMEONE ON A HOT DAY THAT WANTS TO SIT DOWN. IT DOESN'T OPEN UP THE CORNER. IT DOES HELP WITH THE VISIBILITY FOR THE VEHICLES. AND THEN I STAND CORRECTED ON THE RESTAURANT BAR. I DID MISS SPEAK. SO THERE IS NO INTENT TO HAVE A RESTAURANT OR A BAR. However, when we were here last time, what we explained is we wanted the ability to have a card service for the drinks up on the pool deck. And we do see the possibility of having little wedding receptions. And we don't want to have to come back in every single time to ask for a special events permit. So that was the intent. If you look at our parking calculations that we have a detailed breakdown in our application, we do not show required parking for restaurant or bar. AND I THINK LAST BUT NOT LEAST, AND BRANDON MAY BE ABLE TO TOUCH UPON THAT, THE FIVE FEET OF EASEMENT THAT WE ARE DONATING TO THE TOWN EXTENDS ALL THE WAY TO THE CORNER AND YES, IT'S SHOWN AS GREEN SPACE BUT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE USED ALSO IF IT IS THE TOWN'S WILL TO WIND THAT ENTRANCE A LITTLE BIT.

Yeah, I do think that there's opportunity to take that radius and make it a little bit larger. I am of the opinion that that hydrant will shift over because it is at that hard corner. But as a part of our improvements, if you guys were desiring of it or insistent upon it, I think that that's something that we could do.

I think that's important. I think that's very important, especially public safety. I mean, there are a lot of places we would not put a park bench, even though it would be lovely. It would be too dangerous.

Well, I'm not suggesting we wouldn't do the benches or the plaza, but it would just be shifting.

I think this helps the safety issue as well.

Yeah, it would all be shifted back such that that radius could be increased.

So given, John, thoughts on that?

No, I agree.

So would we have to change anything in the...

how we state that motion. In the motion, if you're amending what is before you, then yes, we should add that to the motion itself. The motion is now going to reflect that there are 10 deviations that they're asking for rather than the 12 that we've already announced that in the hearing. Megan, do you want to say exactly what the two are that are no longer applicable?

Yeah, I was going to ask that.

Yes. So let me go back to my deviation. And to clarify, we had removed some, but that added some back in. Oh, here we go. Thank you, Pat. So we have the removal of the deviation for buffer width along the north property line, the removal of the deviation for the sidewalk width along Primo, and then the addition of the deviation for that pole sign. So that's how we went from 12 to 10. So we removed two, added one.

Does that math work?

So what happened is, just to clarify, we had 11 initially. When we came in last time, we added the pole sign, brought us up to 12, and now we're removing two from last time. Yes, sorry.

Okay, and if you were to do what Councilmember Link asked and change the width of the road,

And that could be a condition of approval, and we would not object to that. Again, with the idea of working with the town and making sure that it's practicable, that we can actually do it.

Nancy, could you give us text for that?

Sure. It would just be, I'm assuming it's a motion to approve with... We haven't done, we're not even there yet.

But should we look to adjust that? It's something that you'll work with the town. We can't say right now specifically how it would be. Is that correct? You can't specifically say. We can come up with some wording for that. OK. We don't need to nail it down exactly two feet, three feet, five. It's just working with the town to come up with.

I've been working on some language. So if you're ready for that discussion later on, I'll be happy to help. Thank you. Perfect. If it goes in that direction, I would like to further memorialize the five feet easement, especially in a form acceptable by the town attorney or such. It is on the master concept plan. maybe a little bit of what the purpose of that easement is for and then the the offer to design and construct the improvements of primo within that easement and other parts of the road because it may not be just adding five feet of asphalt it may be exactly overlaying the rest of it to seal it or some other things that the engineer could talk about but so i think i've worked on some of that for whatever you're saying that we could negotiate the terms and conditions of the five foot easement to include

the concern that council member Link and it looks like the attorney is okay with doing that. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other, any other questions? Okay. Well then I'm, I will now close the public hearing and request discussion or a motion from town council to either approve, approve conditions, deny with reasons or continuance to a time certain. We have a discussion or a motion. Council Member King? Working here, buddy. Okay.

Vice Mayor, I will approve with conditions. I may need some help here. Ordinance 2610, CPD 2025-0286. at 1207 Estero Boulevard. And I'm not sure if this is a time when Jason can add

We would start with the 10 deviations that have been discussed and the drafting of a formal easement dedicating five feet to the town inclusive of language to address the safety concern associated with the entrance and egress ingress into Primo Avenue.

OK, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'm sorry. Do you want to add? There isn't a condition speaking to the design and construction of those improvements. They've offered to make those improvements. So we need an additional condition that roadway primo improvements will be provided by design and construction by the applicant.

Adding that condition, the cost.

Yeah. They'll bear the full cost.

OK. Thank you, Nancy. Good with that, Nancy?

Yeah, I'm fine with that. It'll be in the minutes, and then we'll reflect it in writing.

Okay, so we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Okay. How do you vote? Ms. Lund?

Aye.

John? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. Motion carries 3-0 with Mayor Allers abstaining and Councilmember McLean on excused absence. Congratulations. I'd like to take a short break if possible. Can we return 10 minutes, 315? Okay, thank you.

All right, everyone, we're going to call this meeting back to order. It is 318. We are on to our administrative agenda items. The first item is item A. It's a special events for Sands and Suds Brewfest. This is an approval of the Fort Myers Beach Women's Club special event permit for the Sands and Suds Brewfest on October 10th, 2026 at Bay Oaks Recreational Campus, including waivers of the town's open container and noise ordinances, as well as a waiver of parking fees at Bay Oaks. subject to all required approvals and conditions of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Fort Myers Beach Fire District, and Lee County Sheriff's Office. And before we go any further, I did confer with the town attorney that I do not, even though my wife is involved in this, there is no financial impact, positive financial impact, I should say, of this review of this permit, so I do not need to abstain from this vote.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. MAYOR. YEAH, SO THE FORMER SPRUGE WOMEN'S CLUB IS A SAINTS AND SONS BREW FEST. THEY ARE USING THE BASEBALL DIAMOND AT BAY OAKS. THEY EXPECT TO HAVE 300 TO 500 PEOPLE. THEY PLAN TO HAVE A BEER TENT AROUND QUITE A FEW TENTS WITH A NUMBER OF VENDORS. IT IS A TICKETED EVENT, SO THEY WERE HOPING TO HAVE THAT WAIVER FOR THE PARKING FEES. 85 SPACES IN TOTAL. RESPECTING COUNCIL MEMBER'S LINK PREVIOUS QUESTION REGARDING THE ROAR OFFSHORE AND THE PARKING FEES RELATED TO THAT, I HAVE THE MATH IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. SO FOR 85 PARKING SPACES, $5 AN HOUR. THE EVENT IS NINE HOURS TOTAL. THAT IS $3,825 TOTAL. Thank you, Nora. Otherwise, the Lee County Sheriff's Office has already approved this, as well as the Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District. So they have covered their needs and requirements. And if you have any more questions, we have a representative from the Women's Club here today. If you would like to come up.

Nora, do you have any questions from you?

I do not. Nora, thank you.

You just turned it off. You turned the mic off.

Of course. Thank you so much.

Vice Mayor Safford?

I do not. Okay. I'm just looking forward to hearing from the better Allers.

You're too kind. Megan Allers, for the record, representing Fort Myers Beach Women's Club and the Sand and Scents Beer Event. The event will run from, actually begins at noon that Saturday. That's when our VIP access comes in. General admission begins at 1, and we are ending the event at 5. We do have the nine hours on the permit just for setup purposes, although the day before we will be accessing the ball field for the tent rentals, all of the rental equipment that needs to be delivered that day. Like she said, we expect to have about 300, 500 people. There will be about 10 different breweries there. We've got lots of vendors and food trucks and live music, and it's really going to be a nice event for a time when it's a little bit traditionally slower on the island. So we're hoping to bring some people down and encourage them to spend the day on the island.

Councilor Link, any questions? I don't, but I'm looking forward to it.

We hope everyone will come.

Vice Mayor Safford? Taco truck?

No taco truck for you.

Councilor Kee? Thank you. Nothing.

All right.

I just need to know if you would be okay with the condition that the husband of you does not have to do any physical labor for the event? Absolutely not. Okay. Good luck in that, Brady. Know your uncle.

You were on high alert for the whole week. All right. Anything else? No. All right, good to see you guys got the memo to all wear the same shirt today. It's game day. The new shirts came in. All right, thank you guys.

Thank you. Thank you so much. I did miss, they did plan, if it's amenable to council, that they wanted to plant some flags in front of the Bay Oak sign to help guide and welcome people to the event.

Okay. Thank you, Nora.

All right, thank you so much, council.

Any other questions or discussion? If not, is there a motion for the special event for the Sands and Suds Brewfest? So moved.

Second. We all want this one.

Okay. And I'm assuming is that a motion to approve? Yes, sir. Okay. Councilor King has got the motion. Councilor Link is seconded. Any further discussion? Councilor King? Aye. Councilor Link? Aye. Vice Mayor Safford? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. That motion carries unanimously. Next is item B. This is resolution 26-179, five-year interlocal agreement with Lee County for stray animal control services. This is a resolution of the town council, the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving a five-year interlocal agreement between the town and Lee County for stray animal control services for the period of October 1st, 2026 through September 30th, 2031, authorizing the execution of the agreement by the town manager for severability and providing for an effective date.

Will? Connor, you want to come up and speak to this, please?

And before Connor gets up, I believe the town clerk has... Correct.

We have somebody that signed up to speak public comment for this item. Okay.

Normally we don't have public comment, but is there anyone on the council that has objection to the public comment? No. Okay. Go ahead.

Connor Allen.

Conner Alley Contracts and Procurement Manager. This was sent over us to the county. Our five-year agreement is expiring October 1, so it's just a new agreement for animal services on the island.

Any questions, Councilor Lake? None. Vice Mayor Safford? None. Councilor Kane?

The cost and who's paying it?

We're paying it $7,000 a year.

Out of general funds or?

That would be a question for finance.

Yes. $7,087.00 to be exact out of the general fund. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you.

All right. Public comment? Come on up.

Hi, good afternoon. I'm Joanne Noblock. I live at 8273 Estero Boulevard. And for the past five years, I've been running a rescue on the beach. So I'm doing what you want to pay them for for free. And I'm urging that you do not sign this contract. We do adoptions. We do rescuing. We do it all. And we have been for the last five years. We're in the beach bulletin every week. We tell people, call us. If you see any kittens, you see any cats, please call us. After Ian, when we had Ian, I got a call from Lee County, and they said they did not want any cats on the beach. They were going to get them all and kill them. Okay, I called downtown to Cecil Pendergrass. I talked to his secretary. I said, listen, this has to be stopped. We have very few cats left. They were all killed during Ian. and we do not want them taken off the beach and killed and we're going to be overrun with rats if we have none here at all which right now we are because we have very few cats so anyway this is the situation and he had a meeting out there and he told them they were not to come to the beach anymore and take any more of our cats so he got that stuff And I was really happy that he did. So anyhow, that's the story. We do it all. We rescue. We get them adopted. I rescued. In fact, I trapped three on Labor Day, three kittens, four months old, that needed to be brought in or they were going to get killed on the street. So this is a continual thing that we have been doing and are continuing to do. So I don't really see why we should pay $35,000 a year for this service when you really don't need it. There's no dogs running around, and there's very few cats left on this island because Ian killed the majority. I lost 10 of mine from my rescue, along with my husband and my whole lower level of my house, which I'm still traumatized by. So anyhow, this is something that we are taking care of, and I think $35,000 for this a year is ridiculous. I mean, it's a lot of money.

Okay, thank you.

I think just for some clarification, our packet says it's $7,087 annually.

I don't know where the $35,000 fee is.

Okay, unless I'm missing something in my packet. I just wanted to make sure. It would be 35 over the five years. Yeah, over the five years. That's okay. But it's not annually, just to clear the record. Yes. Discussion? I guess I would... how would the service that they're providing be different than what would be provided by the Lee County Sheriff's Office? And I'm guessing we'd have to have some sort of contractual agreement, Nancy, between someone that was offering to do it for free versus... a piggyback or whatever we're doing here.

I don't know if, if she's operating it as an individual, if the structure of her operation is a nonprofit, but yes, we would have to have some kind of, um, agreement and, um, with the Lee County and, and I'm not advocating, but I mean, they do have a process in place, um, to handle any type of complaints. But, you know, I'm sure that she has similar if the phone number and how that process would work.

We are a licensed 501c3 organization. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Well, I certainly appreciate your offer to do it for free. We're kind of at a spot now where we need to do this today, but maybe in the future when these contracts come up, you can competitively bid, I guess it would be, or offer your services in lieu of this contract with Lee County Sheriff's or Lee County Animal Domestic Services in the future.

I think we could potentially have some follow-on discussions with... her organization after this, I think we need to continue in this mode at least for now until I can verify. I think there are some other things we would need to verify if they have certified animal control officers since we would be doing it as a municipal government. uh and the contract aspects like Nancy spoke of so potentially we could I recommend approval now with the you know if you want with the condition that I will continue discussions with her 501c3 and see if there is a possibility of a future agreement between the town and organizations

then I will make a motion to approve resolution 26-179 for a five-year interlocal agreement with Lee County for stray animal control services with the caveat that the town staff will work with the 501 for future potential opportunities to not have to do it this way. There's a motion by Mayor Allers.

I'll second for discussion.

Second. Vice mayor Safford discussion.

Well, should we do a five-year agreement or just do a year agreement and then revisit it?

I don't have the ILA in front of me right now to know. Connor, can you come up and speak to what the conditions are? I know it's a five-year.

Yeah, the agreement's a five-year deal. I can reach out to Lee County to see if they would be interested in entertaining a one-year deal. I just don't know what they're going to say.

Well, especially when it says subsequent annual fees will vary year to year.

Yeah, so the fees are based off how many calls they take out here. So the $7,000. So it could go down then? It could go down. That was for the work, technically, they did last year. And that's how they come up with that number.

All right.

Thank you. You're welcome. Since the contract is set for October 1st, can we push this to potentially our next meeting, which is the 25th? Will that give us enough time?

It would give us enough time. There would be a lapse in service.

So the clerk has pointed out, and she is correct, there is a paragraph in the agreement that says either party may terminate this agreement by providing 60 days written notice to the other party of their intention to terminate by providing such notice to the address set forth below. So there is a termination for convenience clause in the contract. Good job.

I missed that. I missed that part. Yes. Okay. Does that alleviate anybody's concerns as far as the five-year contract?

Yes, it does. Thank you.

Any other discussion? All right. I'm an aye. Vice Mayor Safford? Aye. Councilor Link? Aye. Councilor King?

Aye.

That motion carries four to zero with Councilor McLean an excused absence. That takes us to our next item, which is item C. This is resolution 26-200, RFQ-26-03-AD for the North Island Water Tower Agreement approval. This is a resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving an agreement between the Town and Tetra Tech Inc. under RFQ-26-03-AD for the Fort Myers Beach Engineering and Architectural Services North Island Water Tower in a not-to-exceed amount of $1,864,657, authorizing the execution of the agreement by the mayor and providing for severability and providing for an effective date.

Will?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As Jason makes his way up to speak to this, he and Connor have been working really hard with our Lee County. counterparts to restore and modernize the North Island potable water storage and pump station infrastructure that was damaged in Hurricane Ian. So they're here to talk through some of the details of those conversations and negotiations and how we got to where we're at today.

Yeah, good afternoon. Jason Freeman for the record. So this is our last CDBGDR project that we're working on getting the design for. At a previous town council meeting, we did receive authorization for the town manager to conduct negotiations for the design and engineering of our last CDBGR project, which is a North Island Water Tower project. And now we have the draft agreement before you all today for conducting that design and engineering, which would then go before. It's already been approved by our Lee County grant partners, as well as our legal team. So I believe Tetra Tech has already signed that agreement as well. So if this is approved, then we can get started and issue a notice to proceed within the next couple weeks and get that project started. This is just for the design portion, and then we would go out for an invitation to bid similar to our other CDBGDR infrastructure projects to get that completed as well.

Jason, just to me, $1.9 million seems like an awful lot of money for design. What exactly are they going to be designing? Is it the water tower itself? Is it the building? Is it the whole property? I mean, that seems like a lot of money to do design on a very small property.

Sure. I'll defer to Connor here for the negotiation summary. Yeah.

Connor and I like contracts . So, I mean, it originally started at like 2.4, and we worked really hard to get them down. There are concerns obviously of cost and timeline. So that contract's actually broken out into two phases where only phase one for 1.1 is the design of the water tower and the pumps in the pump house. And then phase two for the 700 and some change would be a redo, a rebuild of the pump house. When we wrote the grant, that was our plan to redo it. Since then, we feel as the pump house is STRUCTURALLY INTEGRABLE, SO WE DON'T REALLY WANT TO KNOCK IT DOWN AND REBUILD IT IF WE DON'T NEED TO.

OKAY. SO DOES THAT CHANGE THE COST OF THE DESIGN?

YEAH, SO THE 1.8 IS THE TWO PHASES PUT TOGETHER. PHASE TWO IS ONLY DONE IF AUTHORIZED BY THE TOWN BASED ON TIMELINE AND FUNDS. PHASE ONE IS THAT 1.2.

AND IT IS NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT.

CORRECT, YES.

Any questions for staff, John?

Nothing.

Scott?

No, I'm good.

Thanks, Jason.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Discussion or a motion for RF resolution 26-200. I'll make a motion to approve resolution 26-200 RFQ-26-0D-AD for the North Island Water Tower Agreement approval.

I'll second that, Mayor.

got a motion by Mayor Alar seconded by Councillor Link. Any further discussion? I'm an aye. Councillor Link?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Safford? Aye. And Councillor King? Aye. That motion carries four to zero with Councillor McLean on excused absence. Brings us to item D, which is Resolution 26-201, Florida Power and Light, Second Amendment. This is a resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving Amendment No. 2 to the agreement between the Town of Fort Myers Beach and FPL Energy Services, Inc. for the Island-Wide Street Lighting Project, revising the lighting scope of equipment to reflect adjusted quantities, providing for revised design drawing re-designed Allocating $150,000 from the maintenance service term amount to fund the replacement of stolen wire with no admission of fault or liability by either party and with all claims, defenses, rights, and remedies reserved, providing for no increase to the not to exceed implementation price of $7,766,387, authorizing the mayor to execute the amendment providing for severability and providing for an effective date. Wilk?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, as people know, we've been involved in a long-standing island-wide street lighting project to address the lighting across the island. You know, we entered into this agreement with FPL back in November of 2023. And the parties executed Amendment 1 in April 20, 2026. Amendment 2, which is why we're here today, will accomplish two things. First, it revises the lighting scope of the equipment to reflect the adjusted quantities actually used as compared to the permitted quantities. This allows FPL Energy Services and its subcontractor to provide the town upon completion with the actual count of the poles and fixtures used along with the detailed map and exact locations of where they were installed. Second, wire previously installed at the site, which was stolen and must be replaced to complete the project. FPL Energy Services will facilitate the replacement, including the purchase, installation and installation of an estimated 54,000 linear feet of wire at a cost not to exceed $150,000. The investigation into these thefts remains ongoing, and as updates come in, we're both getting those updates from LCSO, but at this time, it's unresolved. Negotiations went long on this, back and forth, but we finally came to an agreement where I think we can get started on the project again. IN ANTICIPATION OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION, I ALREADY HAD PUBLIC WORKS, GREG, HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH OUR FPL POINTS OF CONTACT, SO THEY'D BE READY TO START WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS IF WE GET THROUGH THIS TODAY. NANCY, IF YOU WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT?

Well, one of the questions I had through this process, and Garrett Olson in our firm, he helped negotiate this out with Florida Power and Light, was the $150,000 amount. And when I first read it, my thought process was, oh, my gosh, now the town is expending $150,000. And my understanding now, however, after subsequent conversations, is that The original contract set aside some money for maintenance, so that money hasn't actually been spent, so it's really more of a transfer of money that had already been set aside. At some point, there will be additional costs for maintenance, but those additional costs would have been present anyway if money hadn't been put aside during the initial contract. Um, so that, that is my understanding of that because the $150,000 is, is a significant amount. Um, however, um, I know will has been working with his staff and, um, in the event that, um, there could be possibly some type of, um, coverage through our insurance policy, depending on what the status of, of the theft ends up being.

Correct. Thank you, Nancy, for that. That would depend on the outcome of the investigation. One thing I'd like to add, too, is I did have follow-on discussions with FPL, the project manager and stuff, and going forward they will be storing this equipment, especially the copper wire, at an off-site secure location. They won't store it in the manner that they did that led to this, so.

Well, if you don't mind, I'm going to start on this one because this gets my blood boiling. As you could possibly, you know, I've been dealing with this lighting for more years than I care to admit, and I've been on a lot of the correspondence with our attorney, their attorney, FPL, and I've asked repeated questions on our weekly calls about how this continues to be the town of Fort Myers Beach's problem. As a former contractor, I can tell you, when you go to a person's house, you're building a deck, you drop the wood off at their house, and that wood gets stolen, you haven't completed the job. You haven't secured your product. You haven't done your job. They didn't do their job. We repeatedly asked them to secure this wire that was being stolen from live poles. They just kept saying, we're working on it, we're working on it, we're working on it. They did not secure their product. And now we have to take $150,000 out of future maintenance costs to cover this may get it back depending on an investigation. To me, this falls on FPL. This job was supposed to be done a year ago, if not longer. I don't even remember when the original... We kept saying, we're going to be done in May. We're going to be done in June. Now the wire is being stolen. Now we need to replace the wire again. Now they're stealing wire from live poles. It just keeps going on and on. And I, if this is the best that our town attorney and town manager think that we can get, and we can hope we get the 150,000, but I can tell you, I'm not happy about it. I think FPL is shaking the town down and for $150,000 of wire, they didn't secure. And now we have dark lights on a sterile Boulevard seven years after we started this conversation. It gets hard telling our legislative partners who gave us this $7.7 million to make this a turtle-friendly compliant island, why do we still not have streetlights on the Stereo Boulevard and the side streets? And it has nothing to do with the town. Nothing.

Part of the negotiation on the Second Amendment included the reservation of any type of admission of fault or liability in order for us to say, to have that in there, they wanted a reciprocal. So the fight that you've identified will occur in the future. but this particular amendment would allow for the project to proceed and to actually get the lights lit.

I mean, personally, I would like to see something in this contract, and I did not see it, and maybe if I missed it, Nancy, you can let me. If for some reason the town does not get the $150,000 back because an investigation and our insurance doesn't cover it, I think FPL should be on the hook for it. They have not completed a job. Have they received their final payment from the town for a completed job?

Not that I'm aware of, but yes, we would make those arguments as soon as we find out more information from the investigation.

I would think that the contractor or FPL would have insurance to cover this. And you're right, Mayor, we haven't accepted a job completed, so it shouldn't be on us.

This is not saying it's on us. It's not saying it's on them.

It is on us when we're taking $150,000 from future maintenance, and the maintenance is just going to go up down the road because the costs are going to increase in, what is it, a 10-year agreement? Down that road, it's going to cost a heck of a lot more for maintenance.

I don't see it. a completion date, a hard completion date, what they're going to attack next. Is this on your weekly calls?

I can tell you on the weekly calls, it's awesome.

I want to give somebody $150,000 that it shouldn't be given. I want to know when this project is going to be done. It's like building my house. When are you going to finish this project? And what lights are you going to light up first?

Well, there's nothing in here that shows what lights have been affected by this. There's different sections that are on, now they're off. There's been nothing from FPL laying out. This is saying if you agree to it, we'll continue to move forward with the progress, but we're not going to give you any information until you agree to give us another $150,000.

So I don't have the answers to the good questions that are being asked. That would be the project manager or the contract administrator. We were simply brought in to try to facilitate keeping the project moving forward, but the ins and outs of the costs and what has been done, what is left to do, I don't have that information. It's not really a legal matter. It's more of a... project administrator, contract manager issue.

You know, I would think that any good contractor out there for an amount of this would finish a project and work out the details in the end. And yet they're saying we're going to halt all work until you agree to give us $150,000. If that's not a shakedown, I don't know what is. I don't feel comfortable in doing it. I mean, FPL should do what they agreed to do. They're well past their completion date of the original contract. They're in breach of contract. They haven't finished their job, and it's not our fault. We didn't secure the polls. We've told them many times on countless calls, what are you going to do to secure your polls? You're telling me there's no way a billion-dollar company can't figure out how to secure its polls and its wire, and the town and the taxpayer should have to pay for it? They're going to do it now. If you give them another $150,000, they'll do it now. We'll figure out a way to do it.

I have a question that maybe you all know, and it's me coming late to the party here. But how were we told that so much wire, 54,000 linear feet, was stolen? When was that flag raised? I mean, was there a gigantic reel of cable out there that wasn't there one day? Was it in a warehouse that wasn't one day? Was it installed in the wrong place or then they went to use it and it wasn't there? How do we even know fundamentally something was stolen?

From FPL's reporting to Lee County Sheriffs and then notifying us, they're reporting it was stolen over a period of weeks from different locations. I don't know the precise locations either. From above ground? No, pulled out of the ground.

Pulled out of the ground?

Pulled out of the ground. And they reported in one case that they actually even used high voltage cutters, you know, because the wires were hot.

So they could see evidence of it?

all reported to LCSO. That's what I know that was reported to LCSO.

And it is a matter that's under investigation at this point. And it's still under investigation. And I know that Will, with his staff, they have reached out to our carrier, FMIT, and FMIT has asked the same type of questions that you all are asking. Um, but this proposal, this proposed second amendment is before you to try as a option to try to get the project completed, uh, recognizing that there will be additional, um, debate and, uh, resolution of it. Uh, once the investigation is completed, if you would like to provide other directive, we, we can take it. I can, uh, deliver the message to FPNL or will can. If that is your desire.

Do your original job. That's my desire.

I think it's important to understand that we hear from the residents. We understand why are these lights still dark? Why are we going to get these energized? But at some point... I mean, the light's better now than it was in the past, but it's still not done. And again, we don't have anything from FPL saying which lights were stolen, why is this corridor out and that corridor is not out. And when I get asked in public, why is this section out and that section's not out, All I can say is I don't know, because they haven't provided us any information as to why these lights aren't working. Is it because they just didn't hook them up right? Is it because wire was stolen? I mean, they're operating on a contract of almost $7.8 million, not just the town of Fort Myers Beach taxpayer money, but the state of Florida taxpayer money. This was a grant that was funded through the state of Florida through appropriation requests. So this isn't just the town of Fort Myers Beach tax dollars that are sitting out there on a contract. I could tell you the wire being discussed with Andy before Will was even here. So that tells you how long this has been going on, and they still, over that period of time, haven't secured their product.

And how would we know it wouldn't happen again?

Exactly. So who's to say six months from now when the lights still aren't done because now they're going to have to order the wire, they're going to do all this? I don't see any reason in approving this until they come back and they provide us the information. Something in this contract, Nancy, in my opinion, has to say that you have, because there's nothing here. There could be another amendment saying we need another $150,000 because another section of wire disappears. I didn't see anything in the contract that would say we're going to secure this wire so it doesn't happen again. I don't feel comfortable approving this, even though it's going to put us in the darkness for a little bit longer in certain spots. But, I mean, it's been seven years. Well, it's another few months or another year if you're FPL or two years or whatever it ends up being. But that's just my two cents.

Mayor, I also think if you don't have a map of what areas you're talking about, we don't know that we aren't replacing something that may be stolen again, and we don't know is that the first claim or the second claim. It could just get muddier. I understand the need to move forward, but if we don't know exactly what areas we're talking about, it almost makes it more difficult should it be stolen again.

And they have to agree.

If we don't have it secured in some way. I mean, are we the only island? Are they seeing, do you know, Nancy, if FPNL is talking, or from any of our... No, I apologize.

I have not been involved in the actual contract administration of this. I don't know the actual status of how many polls have been turned on and how many have not. I'm not sure that Will knows as well, but we could come back to you with that information. My fear would be we spend the money again and then we're stuck in a legal battle with insurance.

How did they give us 54,000 linear feet of wire? How did they calculate that? They must know where the wire came from or where it was stolen, but they don't want to provide us that information. I would assume we've asked for it. I would hope we've at least asked for that information. Because how did you come up with 54,000 linear feet if you don't know?

If you don't know. That's exactly it. And I also saw something when I was reading. It looked like the original was 130 feet, but now it's 390 feet. There's just a lot of missing pieces. I'm not sure.

Scott, it looks like you were ready to say something. So that flock camera didn't catch him?

Or people's ring cameras, yeah. Maybe.

I would, Nancy. We could bring it back to you. I appreciate what you're doing here. But again, I use the analogy of building a house. My contractor says, hey, I need some more money. And he shakes me down. I'm like, well, when are you going to? What have you done? What do you need to do to finish? And when are you going to be finished? And there's nothing in here that tells me one of those three things. What they've done, what they're going to do, and when they're going to do it.

So you'd like a status of the project?

I'd like. We're owed a status.

Agreed. I don't have that information. Okay. That's fine.

I would like to have something in there that has a tangible date that we can go back on. They haven't made a milestone yet in the completion of this lighting project. It's still ongoing. and every time i get a call from senator martin or representative batana why don't you have lights on stair boulevard like it's our fault and in telling them you know sorry thanks for the 7.8 million dollars state of florida but fpl won't finish because they evidently don't have 150 000 to replace their stolen wire that they seem to be the only ones that knows where it exists and i i got literally asked three times last week

From neighbors. My street, street over, other street.

People get frustrated. I agree with all of you and everything you're saying. My goal in bringing this forward was to get the project started again. It's not that I disagree with anything that you're all saying. If we're okay with a little bit longer of a delay, I absolutely agree. Let's have FPL come in and give us a briefing on the current status and their projected timeline. Can they be at the next NMP meeting or the next council meeting? I can't commit for them right now, Councilor Stafford. I'd have to reach out to them tomorrow.

I'm actually going to push even harder, Will. I completely understand why you and the rest of the staff want to bring this forward and get it started again, but they haven't given us a reason why they haven't continued. Finish your job, and then we'll work out the $150,000 later.

They stopped, and they wouldn't start again until we paid for the wire, and that's when I said, no, we're not going to do that. We need to... come to some kind of an agreement to get you started working again, because we're not going to take liability for that wire. The town has no. I agree with you. It wasn't our fault, but they stopped. They weren't going to continue. We had to.

Well, then we need to do what we need to do to put pressure on them to continue and finish what they've already agreed upon. You wanted an amendment to a non-finished project. for no other reason than there's mysterious wire disappeared that there's no investigation that's been completed. To me, there's no reason they shouldn't be moving forward and finishing this project. If they're simply not moving on $150,000, shame on them. Shame on them. And they should answer to the taxpayers of the state of Florida and to the legislature as to why they aren't upholding their end of their contract.

I may add one other thing, too. And, Will, you may know this already, but in our grant world, maintenance and product are two different things. And so we would want to make sure if we move maintenance money into product money that we don't end up having to pay, you know, it may be funds that change eligibility requirements. I'm not sure. I just think we need a little more information. Maybe have them in here.

And is there any concern with this appropriation request? I mean, I know the money is, I think, pretty much, if I remember correctly, has already been sent out to the town. I don't believe that we're waiting on future reimbursements or future payments. I believe this came to the town as one lump sum grant to pay for this, and then the town would disperse it based on milestones that were made.

I don't have confidence.

That's my recollection. I mean, don't hold me to it, but that's my belief, that it's not a reimbursable grant, that it was given to a town specific for this project grant. And it doesn't go because it was originally going to go through the county because it's a county road. And then they made an amendment to the appropriation to allow it to come straight directly to the town without it being a pass-through through the county. I seem to believe that was how it happened. But, I mean, I don't know what we can do here if we just table this until we can have some more discussions with them. But I'm not... I'm not okay with it.

I think that is an option that you have. I think we've heard some clear direction on the information that you're requesting. And I haven't been involved in the contract administration side of it. We were only pulled in to try to negotiate something that would hopefully turn the lights on. But all the comments that have been made are very valid. And we will reach back out to their legal team to let them know that we need to massage and amend the SECOND AMENDMENT PROPOSAL, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE CONTINGENT ON MORE INFORMATION AS FAR AS WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE CONTRACT, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHICH STAFF MEMBER'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS. I DON'T HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN ANY OF THAT.

YEAH, I HAVEN'T BEEN ON EVERY SINGLE WEEKLY CALL, BUT I'VE BEEN ON ENOUGH OF THEM OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS TO KNOW HOW THIS WHOLE PROJECT HAS BEEN A DEBACLE, QUITE HONESTLY. THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO SAY IT. It was, you know, granted there was other storms that came along that held things up and then having to find a place to store wire and all of that kind of thing. But, I mean, they were using some of the town hall property to store some wire on three different locations on the island. And so, I mean, there's a lot that goes into this. But to me, at the end of the day, you've got a contract. You haven't fulfilled your contract, and now you're saying I'm not going to move forward because I don't even know what the percentage is. You're the math guy. Scott, what's the percentage of $150,000 of $7.8 million? I can't believe that you're holding up a project for that. It's not much. I would make a motion to table resolution 26-201 until our attorney and town staff can have a conversation with FPL to get this project moving.

Mayor, would you add to your motion the permission from the rest of the council members for you to participate with us in any type of conversation with them? If you feel it will be beneficial, I'll add that to my motion. I do, because you have the historical background as to what transpired since 2023, and I think that would be very helpful.

But then I will amend my motion to include the request.

To ask for, you know, permission for you to participate with us. Okay.

All right. There's a motion by Mayor Allers. I'll second. Seconded by Vice Mayor Safford. Discussion? I'm an aye. Aye. Councilor Link?

Aye. Councilor King? Aye.

That motion carries unanimously 4-0 with Councilor McLean on excused absence. That brings us to item E, which is resolution 26-204, increasing purchasing capabilities for the meters and supplies from Ferguson Enterprises. This is a resolution of the town council, the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, retroactively approving a $20,000 increase to the not to exceed NTE amount in the fiscal year 2026 for a total approved expenditure of $100,000 in fiscal year 2026. for needed purchases to operate the town's Neptune metering system from Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., who is the sole source supplier of Neptune metering systems and related installation materials, approving a not-to-exceed NTE amount for similar purchases in fiscal year 2027, authorizing the town manager and finance department to approve sole purchases in accordance with the town purchasing ordinance and providing for an effective date. Will? Thank you.

thank you sir as mark ashton as he makes his way up to the uh to the podium there in accordance with the town's purchasing ordinance Ordinance 26-06, when total purchases from a sole supplier or any vendor exceed $75,000 within a fiscal year, council approval is required to continue purchasing from that vendor. Staff is requesting an increase not to exceed amount of $20,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year 2026 and $100,000 for fiscal year 2027. The increase of the $120,000 will be applied from the water fund account. Mark is here. Any further questions?

Councillor King, questions for Mark? Can you give me the Reader's Digest version of what's this all about?

Here we go. Mark Ashton, Utilities. Basically, we purchase meters and supplies throughout the year. Ferguson is the sole supplier of the Neptune meters that we use. And we've gone over the $75,000 that Will is allowed to sign off on. So in order to keep purchasing from Ferguson, we have to get special permission to go over the $75,000 because of the sole source supply. it's it's not one single person purchase it's an accumulation of purchases throughout the year these are the newer Yeah, these are the new AMI meters and like to hold the antennas on the big meters. They came out with a new clip that we need to buy. And so Scott's building a house and he has a five-eighths meter. He wants a one-inch meter. Well, we only contracted to put in the five-eighths meter, so we have to supply and put in a new one-inch meter. So we have to buy meters throughout the year and then curb stops to replace the old ones and things like that.

And I bet you can tell me when he's going to finish the job.

What's that, Scott?

I bet you can tell me when you're going to finish the job once you buy those clips, right?

Yes.

So if he wants a bigger meter, shouldn't that be on him to pay for that then? Oh, yeah, definitely.

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, it all does. But we have to purchase the meters ahead of time so that we can go out and put the meter in right away.

You're shaking me down again, John. Thank you, Mark.

Your usual good job. I appreciate it. I don't know about that. Mark, why is your shirt so clean? What's that? Why is your shirt so clean?

Wait, wait.

Okay, all right.

Is that better?

There you go. Thanks for all you do.

All right.

Thanks, Mark.

Any other questions?

I do have a question. It seemed to see in the packet that these have already been purchased. Is that correct? I'm sorry, Rebecca? Is this a retroactive purchase?

Yeah, retroactive, yes. Okay. Yeah, so we actually have a couple of purchases that we made and the invoices are waiting to be paid until we got the approval. We haven't received the equipment, but we have purchase orders that have been signed that now we need the approval to go ahead and purchase them. Does that make sense? I'm not making sense.

I just want to make sure, because you can't get an invoice until something is shipped, correct?

Yeah, no, we don't have an invoice. We have a purchase requisition. They gave us a quote. I couldn't think of the word. Okay, okay. They gave us a quote. We got a quote for these meters, and now we have it. The PO is ready to be signed and ready to go and purchase. Okay. So that's where I think.

I must have misread in the. No, I think that's where the.

It looked like it was retroactive. That's where the retroactive comes in. Okay.

Thank you. And I think the retroactive was to go back to the last requisition that had been issued because of the pricing that was on it. Yes. That was the intent.

That was the intent. Yes. I'm sorry, Nancy. I got confused. Perfect. Thank you, Mark.

Thank you. Thanks, Mark.

Okay. Anything else? Nope. I'm out.

All right. There's no other discussion. Is there a motion for Resolution 26-204?

I'll move that.

Got a motion from Councillor Link. Second. Second by Councillor King. Any further discussion? Councillor Link? Aye. Councillor King? Aye. Vice Mayor Safford? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. Brings us to our last administrative agenda item, which is Resolution, well, it's just 26-205. I'm assuming that means Resolution 26-205?

You are correct.

Okay. Resolution 26-205, Flock Group Termination of Convenience. This is a resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving the termination for convenience of the government agency agreement between the Town of Fort Myers Beach and Flock Group, Inc., dated May 3, 2022, pursuant to Section 6.2 of agreement and authorizing the Town Manager to execute and deliver the notice of termination for convenience and to take all actions necessary to effectuate the termination

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This actually is something that I started asking questions about not long after I first got here, is to see the agreement for the flock cameras. And as I learned more about that agreement to then ask for how do we, what's our agreement with the end user of this agreement, this being LCSO. Not that I had any doubt or any lack of trust in LCSO, but just. I wanted to see that agreement and it turns out we don't have one. So our agreement is only with Flock for six cameras. We have two on either bridge and two in Times Square area for the installation and maintenance of those cameras. And the agreement was with the town manager And the town manager was identified as the user in that agreement. No further users identified in that. So I then started having concerns with we don't have any, the town could be liable. if anything were to go wrong by a user or something else like that, but we don't have any agreements in place to protect the town from such liability or to indemnify us or however, we would decide to do that in the contract or the interlocal agreement, which we don't have. So therefore, I I'm not against LPRs in principle. Obviously, I think LCSO is doing a great job, and I did sit down with the LCSO commander, talked through their authorized use policy that they hold their deputies and intelligence folks to. I think it's a very thorough policy, very thorough agreement. Right now, I think I don't want to continue with this agreement with Flock. We're paying them about $15,000 a year, so I don't want to continue to pay. We're not the ones actually using these cameras, and we don't have the protections in place for the town. I'm not saying that in the future, if we get such an agreement in place with LCSO, I might not come back to you with a better agreement, with an interlocal agreement or something like that. But right now, this would give me the authority to go ahead and terminate the contract because, and I needed to bring that kind of a resolution to you because the original agreement was done through a resolution allowing the town manager to enter into that agreement. So I need a similar one to break the agreement.

And I just wanted, Will, could you add, I mean, it was a question that I had and that I think you responded that the town has no, does not have any of the data that was collected by, we have none of that in our possession. Is that accurate?

That is accurate. Thank you, Nancy. That is accurate. Actually, Flock LLC is the one who has all the data for these cameras. Even LCSO doesn't retain any of the data. They just view it. And again, there's no agreement between the town and LCSO about who would be authorized to view.

I think you also indicated to me that this was really just of the equipment, the cameras themselves.

Correct. So I have a question. Is my understanding that two of the cameras don't work? Do we – we're still paying for two cameras that didn't work?

I don't have any knowledge that two of the cameras don't work. LCSO has not informed me that any of them are not working. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Misinformation.

Well, I appreciate your – what you just said there, the information, because it gave me a lot more understanding of, because I was trying to refresh my memory. I think I was probably the only one still on council when these were approved, and I remember the discussion being about how they would benefit LCSO for all the reasons that we know why these cameras do it. I mean, I was personally involved in them working one, so I completely understand their need, but obviously there's a lot of discussion about who holds that data and how is that, and I don't remember the conversations, and I try to go back and watch it. I don't remember any discussions about who would control the data, how would it be accessed, just that it would be the town's responsibility to basically maintain them. So at the time, I completely understand why we approved it, but you've raised very valid points as to why this needs to be relooked at and renegotiated, and I think you're seeing it not just here, but across the country that people are are starting to question, as they well should, what's happening in some of this information. But I will tell you, they definitely work. They definitely do help solve crimes. And I am also a fan of the technology. But there needs to be better understanding of who has control of the data and what exactly you can and can't do with that data. So I will be in support of this. Any other discussion?

I've got a couple things. Yes, sir. Thank you for your explanation because that clears up a lot for me as well. In your discussions with Lake County Sheriff's Office, did any of the subject of these cameras helping with any incidents on the island? Do we have any data on that?

They did not give me any specific examples of cases or anything like that. They general information that they use it to help in tracking of suspicious vehicles, suspicious personnel, but usually it's what they call they put that information on a list immediately and officers are looking for that. They didn't give me any specific examples. They did express the utility and the benefit of having this technology in their daily law enforcement activities and, if necessary, through the legal process in investigations. And I can speak to that personally in my law enforcement background. These come in very useful in specific instances. And I appreciated that the deputy, the commander was explaining that to me. And then that's when we got into the discussion about their policies regarding these, which they were very transparent with. I hope that helps.

Yeah, it does. Thank you. Councilor King, I can also help with that if you don't mind. Not knowing specifics, like Will has said, over the last couple of years I've had conversations with LCSO and their deputies about how these have worked, where they've been able to, looking for a suspect for whatever reason that has come onto the island, and they know that they haven't left the island because it didn't show up on the other bridge, and they've been able to track them down. solve not necessarily solve a crime but help at least get the people that they were looking for in custody to be able to work towards solving the crime so although I don't have any specifics I've heard multiple stories of how these cameras have helped them pinpoint people that they were looking for and I'll add sorry they did add I won't speak they didn't give me the exact specifics but I will add and they said I could share that

They understand why we'd be making this decision. They have other means of accomplishing the same thing in place right now. So these six cameras will not stop them from being able to protect us and protect the island. Yeah, I wasn't trying to suggest that.

I just wondered if there was any hard data on this. Because this is an emotional issue. And most of it is played out on social media. And everybody on social media is an expert on everything, but they don't know anything. They're usually wrong about their rights, and the Supreme Court has noted that a person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfare has no reasonable expectations of privacy in their movements from one place to another. So that really bothers me. I just didn't want us caving, looking like we're caving to that kind of social media pressure. You make some valid points. I appreciate that. There is a, what, a $3,000 cost to us to terminate the agreement?

Yes, there is.

But we end up saving, how long is it?

$15,000 a year. And the agreement was? How many more years are on it?

Yeah.

There was a renewal signed by town manager Hyatt.

And that may have a 60-day window as well that may void the need to pay $3,000?

It doesn't have the cancellation specifics are in there. If we cancel it by our decision for convenience, it's the $500 per camera. And it's just they remove it. They take it away. They no longer do it. Well, yeah, that's what we're doing.

Well, in lieu of ongoing budget issues, I'm willing to forego this to save the taxpayers some money. Any other discussion, Scott?

No, I'm good. Councilor Link?

No, I support Will as well. I think we need to get controls over the data and who has access. So I agree with you, Will.

All right. Is there a motion for Resolution 26-205 for the flock camera termination for convenience? So moved.

I'll second.

Motion by Councilor King, seconded by Councilor Link. Any further discussion? Councilor King? Aye. Councilor Link?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Stafford? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. That motion carries unanimously. brings us to our final public comment. No one's here, so there's no comment.

Town Manager Items. Thank you, sir. I'll try to go through some of these quickly. I don't really have an update on the Fort Myers Beach Elementary School ILA discussions or negotiations. I did receive an email from, well, I guess I have a bit of an update, did receive an email late last week from the school district's attorney that they're still going through our red lines and recommended changes and they should be getting back to me soon. I will reach out again tomorrow for an update on that and try to get a sense of urgency out of them to get that back to us. We have Tracy, an update on the applications for the committees.

absolutely thank you so the ad hoc committee charter school deadline is tomorrow september 10th we've had at least two people apply for every position as their first choice with the exception of facilities and human resources so the town managers has reached out to a few individuals who've expressed an interest in those specific committees so hopefully They're listening, and they'll move forward by tomorrow, September 10th, the application deadline. The goal is to then bring you the names for the committees for your appointment at the next council meeting, September 23rd.

Thank you, Tracy. We'll have the first budget hearing tonight at 5.01. 9-11 events Friday morning. Myself, along with, I'm sure, several other members of the town staff and And council are pro are going to be joining the Fort Myers beach fire district with a nine 11 ceremony at fire station 33. We had an audit committee meeting scheduled for Monday. Um, we couldn't get a full, the full amount of audit committee meetings, uh, to attend in person. Uh, but, but the, the ones that did respond do want to meet and I want to meet with them as well. So we will be having a meeting. There won't be enough for a quorum. But I want to discuss some items with those members that will be in attendance. Carolyn will be calling into the meeting. And she'll be out of town on that day. And I know those members have some things they want to discuss with me. And I want to have a discussion with them. And Councillor Safford, if you're available. I'll be there. Good. Yeah, thank you very much, because we want to really set you know, kind of set things up for next fiscal year to make sure that we don't have repeat missed meetings like we did.

So will that just be a private meeting or will that be on the record?

I'll let Amy and Nancy talk.

It's a public meeting. However, they cannot take any action. They can discuss, but they can't take any action. So residents can watch if they would like to.

Absolutely. And there will still be public comment taken? Perfect.

Yes. Thank you very much for that clarification and question.

When you say action, no official vote, but can there be direction given, or will it be just discussion only?

Should only be discussion. Okay.

Okay, we have, like Michelle Cherney, when she came in, she mentioned that the BORCAB meeting next week, we will have the pool design team, they will be briefing virtually, but they will be briefing the pool design and taking questions from the BORCAB, and we're looking forward to that. We had a meeting with representatives of Diocese of Venice last week. They are moving forward with their plans for the property here just north of us. They're making adjustments to the plans, which they'll be working with our planning team going forward. But they're still very much the bishop, the new bishop, very much intends on building. And on the 28th, I believe it's the 28th, the anniversary coming up at the end of this month, They'll be having a mass on site for the public to attend, a memorial mass. And then I had a discussion yesterday with the diocese, and they are going to come down and meet with me on Monday to discuss possible locations for reoccurring masses here on the island as they're going through construction at a temporary location. So more to follow on that. And then this weekend, Roar Offshore. We're looking forward to that. Thanks for the support, and thanks to the staff for working with the team and making that happen. That's all I have. Nancy?

If I'm next on the agenda, yeah, I don't have anything. I mean, we're working hard. We're trying to, we've had a couple items. We're still trying to work on the two appeals that we have that are pending, the Key Estero appeal as well as the Lowell appeal, trying to push those through the court system. But unfortunately, it's just continuing to be delayed.

Okay. Okay. Councilmember Items and Reports. Councilor Link.

None.

Vice Mayor Safford.

Two quick things. I'll be attending the Governor's Conference representing Fort Myers. The Governor's Conference on Tourism Thursday and Friday. I'll be representing our beach and the TDC. So I'm looking forward to it. And then for you, Rebecca, and for Councilman McLean, the Florida League of Cities is having their the first elected municipal officials program next week, if you can.

MS. For number one.

MR. For number one. MS.

Yes. I've attended that. It's wonderful. MR. Oh, okay. MS. Yes.

MR. Okay. MS.

Absolutely wonderful. I'm scheduled to attend session number two, which is in October.

MR. Oh, great. Okay. I don't know if Councilmember McLean has attended, but I highly recommend it. It's really good. That's all I have.

Just try to be quick on an issue that's affected our town residents. I'm glad probably because of the public pressure they received that the Fort Myers Beach Mosquito Control District Board finally approved an agreement with Lee County about spraying. That just runs through the end of the month. Hopefully they'll continue because talking with Lee County that because we're in an El Nino year, they expect the season for mosquitoes to continue. So hopefully they will continue to work on that. I was disappointed that their treasurer took a cheap shot at the town. Not surprised, but disappointed. All you have to do is just do your job. And with that, I'm done.

All right. The only thing I have is if you didn't get a chance to watch the LPA meeting yesterday, it appears there's going to be some openings potentially for that board. That may change. That may change. Okay. And we'll update via the town social media as to what is available and when is the deadline for that.

Certainly, and I believe it is the 15th.

Based on what I heard, there will be at least one opening available. That may change. Speaking of pressure. There is an opening on the audit committee, however. There isn't. There you go.

There are, I believe, one or two openings on audit committee. Yes.

Yeah, go ahead. That's all I have other than the same thing with the raw off shore, looking forward to that. And, uh, and everybody that gets a chance to come down and see it, come check it out with that.