Search and Categories

Here’s The Scoop … Merry Christmas & Happy New Year … To All … My New Year’s Resolution … It’s Time To Say Goodbye…

December 19, 2010 by Barbara

GOODBYE ….

Dear Readers … this writer wishes you all a very Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year in 2011… The end of January 2011 will mark 3 years for my BCbythesea.com website … and I can truly say it’s been quite a ride  … Full of ups and downs… and everything in-between …and I mean everything!…

Through it all I always had high hopes for the future of this town … in order to get it back on track after the 2008 municipal election ….I was never shy about posting or speaking my opinions … no matter how much hot water it would get me in or how many “slaps” I would receive from foes and friends alike …..

I made it my business to supply you all with as much archived background material and public records requests as I could obtain in order to support my opinions and to allow readers to come to their own conclusions on whether they agreed with me or not…. now armed with that information that so many were not privy to prior to those postings ….

The turning point of course came last March with the 65% landslide win to overthrow the CIC majority I helped put in place in 2008 …That “slate” of three comprised of candidates Mayor Roseann Minnet/Scot Sasser and Chris Vincent who stepped up on that dais after such a strong win knew they had much to get done…. And while I am still pretty harsh more often than not in my after meeting postings… they have proven to me and the 65% who gave them their seats up there …it was the correct decision we all made in the voting booth…

This writer wrote about their many successes as they approached 100 days in office as well as posting what we should be thankful for on Thanksgiving 2010…(prev. posts)… Editor Mark Brown did much the same while including more successes that took place after Thanksgiving in his new editorial in this month’s ByTheSeaFuture … (see link below)…

Anyone who looks at the Town’s website can find more information available to them than I ever thought I would ever see thanks to PIO Steve D’Oliveira and  New Town Manager Connie Hoffmann…Much more is to come ….including e-alerts ….as the site expands and improves further with new technology put in place… http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/ ….Our government channel on Comcast… channel 78 now has different music playing in the background.. as well as the welcome addition of community niceties placed front and center such as the Christmas-By-The-Sea 2010 photos being shown ….The Chamber of Commerce has upgraded their site as well and that too has provided those of you online with more information on happenings in town as well as facts and figures on the Welcome Center and how we’re doing as a tourist destination … http://www.lbts.com/chamber.html …The Pompano Pelican has expanded its coverage online … http://pompanopelican.webs.com/ … as well as its copies available in LBTS in the condos and in certain store and Town buildings… and of course hard at work … still … is our only local newspaper…. the National Award Winning ByTheSeaFuture thanks to Publisher Michael Arker…Managing Editor James Fletcher and especially Editor and writer Mark Brown who together provide both a hard copy and online monthly report of all that is happening in and around town and beyond … http://www.bytheseafuture.org/ …The residents…businesses…tourists and this writer are more than covered …like we never were before …thanks to these “vehicles”  in place providing us all with an abundance of transparent and timely information …

I made my 2011 New Year’s Resolution ….

I truly believe thanks to all of them this is the right time for me to say goodbye as the “Chief Blogger” posting all  the “scoops” around town … Each month since the election last March has been a tug -of-war for me deciding if and when I should make an exit… It became a balancing act that got a more than a little out of balance due to being so far away from home as each month added up to nine months thus far… Even harder now that Lilly is eight months old (Dec. 18th) and suddenly mobile …She started crawling 1 week ago … making Nana’s double duty … triple duty as a result of her constant wandering in wonderment …something she has always possessed and can now finally act upon 24/7 ! … Also throw into the mix  two other factors I did not foresee last winter as I prepared to come to Chicago … First, that Lilly’s mom would be traveling more than I anticipated due to her evolutionary discovery .. (prev. posts)…which meant more research was required of her …as well as more invites to speak at conferences in the states  and overseas as a result of her paper being published extending my stay here for another 18 months or so… and I am still suffering from the effects of my flawed injection of the flu shot I received over 2 months ago which flares up dramatically after typing for long periods on posts.. leaving little doubt that the best way to stop the constant pain is to stop the constant posting…

In 2006 I began participating in LBTS Town politics after my children were grown and I had the time to get heavily involved … especially after what I witnessed going on at that time …and continuing on in 2007….2008…2009 and 2010 ….While I will no longer be posting. ..and I may not be standing at the Jarvis Hall podium making my public comments..I will still participate as a resident and a taxpayer by continuing to watch all the meetings and special community seminars dealing with the next “chapter” of the Town’s Master Plan…I will avidly read the local newspaper …and all other news covering our town…as well as reading the extensive backup materials supplied by the Town online… and I will contact my Commissioners with any concerns …ideas .. or relevant information I can share with them ….. because just like all of you… LBTS is my still my home and there is no place else like it!…

Again, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and of course ….a big thank you ….to all my “Avid Readers”….

No more to come…

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop … The December Issue Of ByTheSeaFuture Is Now Available Throughout Town & Online …

December 17, 2010 by Barbara

LINK TO BTSF ONLINE … http://www.bytheseafuture.org/

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop … The December 15, 2010 Lauderdale-By-The-Sea Planning & Zoning Board Meeting … The Bull Flew … For A While …

December 16, 2010 by Barbara

WILL THIS BULL GO FAR? …

Dear Readers .. The evening was divided into two separate meetings … The regular P & Z monthly meeting to address the parking “suspension program” and the change in code …(see prev. Rdtable agenda /Town website P & Z backup for a look at it) …and the workshop to address other areas of parking and signage… The board lent itself to these two separate meetings in two entirely different modes of operation and rationality …in this writer’s opinion… The only constant…was Vice-Chair Yann Brandt who stepped into the role of Chair for both due to Chair Buz Oldaker’s excused absence and showed how a meeting should be run by a Chair…The Mayor and other Board/ Committee Chairs may want to review the archived video…(link below)…for a look at how it’s done… Kudos to Yann on a job well done!…

The Staff provided synopsis for the meeting…

Unfortunately, the meeting this evening began as expected by this writer when addressing the parking exemption issue that became the parking suspension program thanks to staff taking it in a direction contrary to what was directed at the Nov. Comm. Rdtable as well as the lack of two “business” oriented Commission members going for a full exemption rather than a suspension…again due to an active administrative drive to do so…We are well aware of the many phone calls and meetings from the Administration and TAtty. to push for the latter leading up to meetings by both the Comm. and the P & Z… Three members of the board acted as if the actions made by the Commission between their last P & Z workshop ..(prev. post) …and this meeting did not happen and proceeded to repeat their stances of ” a plan”…inequity to businesses for restaurant/restaurant-type businesses to have no parking requirement…  Dir. Bowman once more proved to me he is still not the right person to be the head of a department when he could not answer questions which took place at those meetings he either attended or watched … Yann tried from the outset of this meeting to remind the board of the fact that the Comm. had two roundtable meetings and a Comm. mtg. and they were charged by the Comm. to discuss what was before them as a result..He suggested they go around the table and do so…(This is also the direction given by staff in the synopsis above) …. Eric Yankwitt asked about how a report would be done..how it would be measured and had concerns over the season/off- peak times not being separated stating that the data “grouped” in this manner making washing away the distinct differences …He wanted that addressed… Ben Freeny repeated much of what he said in Nov. and spoke of the lack of substantive supporting data he wanted before going along with this… He said the parking facilities belong to the taxpayers and they will bear the “brunt” of this…He acknowledged the discussions made by the Comm. but said he felt they made their decisions without enough information and are “shooting from the hip”… He was concerned how this was going to impact the taxpayers… He said he could not recommend the suspension program followed up by saying it was a “moot point” anyway after the Comm. went ahead on it in the interim… Yann Brandt stated he appreciated his opinion but this was what the Comm. gave to them and they needed to get back to recommending it or not…Ben acknowledged that but went on to ask Jeff Bowman if he received any “substantive information” to look at …Jeff replied the Comm. had spoken about the number of empty storefronts  and that why..HUH?… Peanuts Wick began in his usual bombastic style asking when it became our job to fill 11 locations …He asked Jeff about any other municipalities without parking requirements…Jeff answered he did not know…(at the RDtable meeting the evening before it was discussed and West Palm Beach was brought up) …Peanuts went on to say this really bothered him as he went off on 101 Ocean not paying for parking anymore from what he understood took place at the previous evening’s roundtable …He pointedly asked Jeff about that after going off as well on the Chamber of Commerce working with business elsewhere in his experience vs. in our town…stating it was unfair to the citizens …He asked about other restaurants who pay such as Blue Moon and Benihanna.. Jeff replied he was not prepared to answer Peanuts only prepared to answer the code changes they had before them…technical questions… Yann tried unsuccessfully to inform Peanuts according to staff the only impacted business would be 101 Ocean after staff said they are the only business paying the Town for parking (multiple times the staff asserted this as fact)… He also tried unsuccessfully to state it was no parking req. from a date certain going forth… The Atty. said she did not recommend “attempting” to make something retroactive..Peanuts on a tear said to the Atty. doesn’t this give an undue advantage to new restaurants?..The Atty. responded it’s a different situation …Peanuts wasn’t having any sure that there were more restaurants in the same position as 101 Ocean…Jeff Bowman did not speak up to correct him or retract the staff’s previous assertions… Yann spoke up stating his role this evening as Chair and the need to address the structural aspects and to stay on course with what they were asked by the Comm. to do …Peanuts sniped and made a point of order saying he still had the floor …He said he would go for debate after the questioning and comments were done… Yann asked about the removal of the beer gardens and Jeff said they were never part of the code and therefore removed ..housekeeping …Yann then asked for any debate as well as any additions / subtractions of the red portions… Peanuts quickly suggested they don’t go to zero parking requirements and strike J altogether..He was not prepared to put this through …or he suggested a no confidence vote…He veered off to talk about each board member being appointed by a different Comm. and disagreeing with the Comm. who appoints them…He spoke of Comm. Clottey who appointed him and how she told him they needed people who disagreed on the boards… Eric stated in light of Peanuts said he again wanted to know of any correlation with the Master Plan and likened what they were doing to Obama’s extending the the tax cuts for 2 years ..that we’ll fight about it for 2 years ..It’s “premature” he said to entice restaurateurs …revitalize restaurants…If it’s just a “moratorium” for a 2 yr . period “I wouldn’t invest.”.. (BC-Case in point made the evening before by the “minority on the Comm.”)… Ben said he has an “issue” with J. and  would people would be “grandfathered” in…He said they would be ..He concurred that most of the changes they were being asked to make were housekeeping and for consistency …He said J. (suspension program) was something new and he supported striking J. and sending the rest to the Comm… Yann replied that he could see where this was going ….(no support from P & Z for parking suspension program) … He would like to see if go through …He addressed the application that was included when it became a 3 year program and asked for it to be an addendum possibly attached to getting the business tax license requirement…The Atty. said it could be given with them but she did not recommend them as one application… Yann stated he disagreed with the application as a whole…He spoke of the 3 year period and that he was still for a full exemption with no end time…due to the fact that no government is permanent ..He spoke of the amount of time the administration spent fighting that exemption and that raised the ire of Asst. TM Bud Bentley who was introduced by Colleen (Devel. Dept. ) as Ben Bentley…Bud said he took “umbridge” with the comments he was hearing of the administration’s role in this process …Bud reiterated his and staff’s actions after the Nov. Comm. Rdtable and that they took the direction to be a “stimulus” program to fill storefronts until we have a “parking problem” … a “temporary program”… The Comm. did not focus on when it would end and the staff chose to “concentrate” on that for “business property rights”…HUH?… He said they only took direction from the Comm. and had no problem if they wanted to call it an “exemption” program vs. a “suspension” program…HUH?…Yann replied he did not mean to “editorialize” ..but at the first roundtable it was “clear”it was an “exemption” and it came back as a “suspension” program…He also told Bud “not to worry” he had “support” for the “suspension program”… (BC- unfortunately)….Peanuts said they should pass this forward with an amendment …He made a motion to pass it approved…Ben made the 2nd… to strike J. and make it equitable for the entire town…Peanuts stated strike J. and the Comm. can take their recommendation or “tell us to stick it.”..(BC- the Commission should tell them to stick it!) ….Ben said he agreed with that..The Asst. TM said the motion was to strike J. (suspension program)… Peanuts re-stated it as a confirmation… The Atty. cautioned them the way they were proposing it there would be no parking standard for restaurants… and told them to leave the black portion to accomplish what they wanted ..the status quo …Peanuts withdrew his motion…Ben withdrew the 2nd.. The TAtty. walked Peanuts through what he wanted to do…Yann reiterated it removed the strike-thrus/deletions from J. ….Peanuts made the amendments…it passed 3-1 Yann voted no..The rest of the item also had a 3-1 vote with Yann voting no…

The board ended with comments before going to a 10 minute break to deal with the remaining parking items and signage..As expected Peanuts did some  PR and threw out thanks to those who attended his Marie White Christmas event held the previous Sat. ..Eric followed suit and addressed the viewers he hoped were watching while acknowledging he wished they came to the hall…Ben also wished all a happy holiday and reiterated his standpoint on the topic just voted on…He did a Roseann by saying he was for growth and business and stated during the campaign the Commissioners talked of a plan and not piecemealing and he saw this as leading us down the wrong path..Yann thanked the staff for all the work they supplied to aid in the decision making process..He also spoke to those watching and stated this was an advisory board and that in this capacity they were presented with items “one-by-one” thus they are piecemealed He stated they are not part of the MPSC ..and again said he was disappointed where the parking has gone ..He acknowledged that’s governing..and said all those who have been fighting for such a change in a parking requirements should have been here …He said “politics is not a spectator sport” ..He spoke of the Comm. being “flexible” and acknowledged also the change that happened between meetings as such… He spoke of his father (Uli Brandt) and ow he encountered negative remarks and accusations after pushing forward change for hotels being only to benefit himself… (Yann has been accused of the same despite the fact there is no truth to the rumors of Mugs coming to LBTS)… He wished all season’s greetings and asked for a motion to adjourn…

BC-This portion of the meeting closed with no public comment made due to no one being in the hall to comment…Were they all at the Village Grille Holiday party instead? …I must make the point that this issue is still not over as the individual building/business/restaurant owners could take it upon themselves to come and identify themselves as speakers have done in the past when coming to the podium and prefacing that their comments are their’s alone and not associated with a particular board or committee they may serve on in order speak up at 1st/2nd reading (Jan . 11/25th) and change the lackluster 3 yr.suspension program agreed to at the Dec. 7 & 14th decision made by the Comm.to a full elimination of the parking requirements by offering up their substantive long- held point view and business expertise …If the Chamber believes it must remain non-political it does not pass go on this issue …in this writer’s opinion…This is business related issue…A former member of the Chamber board told me long ago he thought the Chamber should have a seat on any Business Development Committee put in place… This sure seems like a precursor to such a committee….The Chamber and businesses should have shown a continued presence at all of these meetings after they came to the Nov. P & Z meeting as well as making the same effort to promote the exemption as the Administration did to take it down a full notch to become a 2 yr. parking suspension program that ultimately became 3 yrs. with a compromise offered up by VM Dodd on Dec. 7th……Each one should come to make the same statements made by VM Dodd/Comm. Sasser/ Yann Brandt /this writer and even P & Z member Eric Yankwitt at this meeting …a moratorium will not produce the same result… 527 parking spaces can indeed be filled by having a destination known for high quality restaurants…It’s the equivalent to West palm Beach having a parking garage in place prior to lifting their parking requirement as put forth by Mayor Minnet at the Rdtble…in this writer’s opinion…The taxpayers will be served by such a change …not burdened… The idea perpetuated that the taxpayers will lose revenue if this exemption is enacted is a truly mind boggling…. A turn-around of this ordinance is definitely something that can and should happen….letting this slip away or pass in its current form would really be a shame …

They took a break to set-up for the workshop to follow….

…………………..

SOMETIMES THE BULL CAN BE EASILY LIFTED ….

After a break the board came back to the table to have their second workshop dealing with other parking items as well the signage code that was tabled at November’s workshop in order to have enough time to fully discuss it …

The Staff provided synopsis for the workshop….

The second part of the evening provided a sharp contrast to the first… as Yann  Brandt finally managed to keep everyone on the task before them…They swiftly dealt with item 1 and the remaining parking changes …including off street and shared parking …Yann did inquire about the pier parking lot and the required spaces vs. used spaces and asked for it to be looked into…For  a moment it seemed Jeff Bowman was not getting what Yann was asking for and that Yann had no support in the request until Peanuts Wick surprisingly got it and he too was interested in the answers being provided … Yann also addressed the Hotel/ motel issue of the ration requirements currently in place touching on Comm. Clottey’s desire for some relief for their parking requirements.. (she addressed this at the Nov. roundtable when the parking exemption was brought up) … Time-shares will be included in the research provided from staff  for the next meeting ….There was consensus and no objections on the above and they moved on to the signage … The staff provided the matrix Yann had asked for at the Nov. meeting …a list of signs …the sign types along with what is allowed by zoning district as well as any restrictions….Yann put forward that they have discussion on what is prohibited vs. permitted and restrictions on the permitted signage…He asked if there were any prohibited signs listed that should be permitted… Peanuts wanted to know why pole signs were allowed and then not allowed …Yann responded there was  1999 ord. to allow them and it was changed in 2001..to become non-conforming ….He asked Jeff Bowman if those years were correct and Jeff responded they seemed so.. Ben asked about looking at the Master Plan from 2005 and then see what the changes will be from the MPSC … Eric asked as well why the change from permitted to prohibited as well as commenting it was another item that will live or die again asking why they had no background supplied on this…Yann responded it was most likely politics in play for the change ..Eric said he needed a “basis of understanding”…The Atty. said it was most likely aesthetic issues along with the non-conforming designation …Yann said the MPSC is important but they are not on the same page as the P & Z with this code at this point i n time ..He spoke of the board deciding which ones (signs) they want to see at this point …Peanuts brought up sandwich signs being prohibitive and that he wanted them to be allowed especially for those businesses that are far from the street on Comm. Blvd… He went on to talk about the setbacks and how they hinder these businesses …Yann asked pertinent questions of Peanuts such as the hours of uses …the location ….and how many based on what….They concurred and in the end they decided they would be permitted but temporary and brought inside at the end of the business day.. per business door front… The consensus was also for staff to take care of the particulars concerning Right of Way issues…Yann stated permitted signs would be pole and sandwich signs …He asked about pylon signs..Peanuts passed and Eric asked what balloon and bench signs were…Jeff said he could read the definitions from the code and did so… Balloon signs were inflatable and bench signs were on benches … BC- no kidding!… Peanuts wanted to know why we did not allow for bench signs citing that it could generate revenue …He added it should not include benches on the beach…. Yann asked the Atty. about the Broward County Transit benches and who owned them ..The Atty. said she did not have enough information Yann said benches would be moved to permitted… BC- At the pre-bid meeting a few years back former Asst. TM Olinzock stated he turned down free bus shelters offered to the Town due to advertising that would be allowed…At that time it was news to me as well as several sitting Comms. as it was never brought in front of the Comm. to discuss…Yann said they had four items to discuss… Eric asked about the string lights around windows ..They were talking about holiday lights not being allowed all year long… Ben said this was mostly housekeeping and conforming with the law..It would be helpful to separate them which would lead to less discussion… They finished up by deciding pole signs would be allowed for the RM 25/RM50  hotels/motels but not condos…Peanuts responded to Eric who asked why he wanted the distinction the signs were to draw business… Ben concurred…The staff had no comment when asked for any by Yann and there was consensus … Pylon signs produced agreement to not allow them from Yann, Peanuts and Eric…Ben disagreed stating they were more costly and he liked to have a variety of signs..He was the only yes vote so Pylon signs would be on the prohibited list… Sandwich signs had consensus as stated above to be permitted and classified as temporary signage in the B1 and B1A districts …for as long as they want them…Yann then turned to the public comment made by Kilwin’s owner concerning the code not allowing for more than 3 colors for a sign.. Jeff stated it did not include white as a background color… After discussion on changing it Eric spoke up about going for a variance if a changed from the code was desired….Jeff responded the cost for a variance was $900 for just the application fee…Eric was not sympathetic to that cost and stated a business owner takes his risks when he takes his his risks …Ben agreed ..Yann pushed it further and said the background color was subjective…why not allow that white was not considered a color no matter where it was located on the sign…and he would like to see that stricken ..Be added they could remedy it by saying whatever background color used was not counted in the number allowed …Yann said why not just allow four colors…Unfortunately the meeting was stopped by a sign that appeared stating this event ended…It was back on shortly thereafter .. but this writer did not watch the rest ….I was informed that number of colors allowed for signs was left as-is along with the bench signs not being allowed and a change was made for menu signs which were increased in size from 4ft. to 6 ft…

The meeting is archived …and took 2 hrs 15min. according to the Town website…which again showed how well it was chaired by Vice Chair Yann Brandt …

http://lbts.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2

more to come…

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop … What A Great Follow-Up To Last Night … “CASE IN POINT” ….

December 15, 2010 by Barbara

Dear Readers ….As Comm. Sasser said over & over at the 12/14/10 Comm. Rdtable last night…

Enjoy….Thanks, Mr Ryerson!…(link to his Ft. Laud site below) ..

http://abetterftlauderdale.com/?p=1645

more to come…

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop … The Lauderdale-By-The-Sea December 14, 2010 Commission Roundtable … Recycled Garbage …

December 14, 2010 by Barbara

DEJA VU…

Dear Readers … this writer will need some time to really wrap my brain around what I witnessed tonight… up is down and down is up …and old ways of governing and administrating have come back into play…special meetings for contract extensions set down last minute before the Commission … Shades of business as usual done in the past.. Look, I Like this Town Manager and Asst. TM ….but as I have stated over and over again when Esther Colon was at the helm…I don’t care who the TM is …the rules and expectations are still the same…Imagine if they had done the special meeting items?…No question it would have been addressed….Comm. Sasser made it clear he did not like it…leaving VM Dodd to not have to make the statement he so often made to the former TM to the new one…. The Notice of Intent was a joke as Comm. Vincent more and more convinces me he is channeling his predecessor with his jibberish front and center …The Mayor had one toe in and one toe out on it… stating she was on “Humpty Dumpty Wall”…and Commissioner Clottey still likes to tell tall tales of the masses contacting her on their concerns…. when she cited a 3-4 month time frame to ease into a change such as this…She really went down the rabbit hole when she said special meetings like the one they had tonight would be available …Comm. Sasser called her on that one …citing less transparency… VM Dodd reiterated the “homegrown” requirement once again brought up by the TAtty. and stated a one month time frame between 1st & 2nd reading s as well as the internet backup info would give ample time and information to the public…He began this evening as he ended it …in the minority …(deja vu) …As previously posted the NOI is only required to be posted in Town Hall in a “conspicuous” place and in the development office..How about asking staff to produce how many times anybody from the public used the NOI public hearing to make a statement or comment in the past few years?… Unbelievable…Then came the “show of hands” the Vice Mayor wanted to go back to his original desire for a full elimination to the parking requirements for restaurant and restaurant-type businesses… It appeared the show of hands would have been 3-2 on Dec. 7th…But tonight Comm. Vincent provided the change in the majority when after extensive back and forth he joined the Mayor and Comm. Clottey in the suspension program… Clottey was her usual clueless self in wanting landlords to lower their rents…Does she really believe in these hard time landlords have not already done so?… Comm. Vincent was spouting bits and pieces he was told from various sides who had his ear or so it appeared…and getting them messed up in the process… He thought a 3 year suspension program would make it a “fire sale” for businesses to come to town verses an open ended time providing no hurry…He actually said If I’m not making any sense I’ll repeat it”..Channeling Silverstone perhaps…The Mayor asked the TAtty. to speak of West Palm after stating she asked Trevarthen about another community who has no parking restrictions…The TAtty. spoke of West palm..she did not say anything adverse…The Mayor interjected that she was told West Palm already  has a  plan and a parking garage in place…Comm. Vincent  obviously emboldened tonight spoke again about the application mechanism in place for a parking suspension program and the paperwork …He was way off base on the “deed or note” and what would be passed on to a new owner in 10-15 years …He actually made Comm. Sasser’s point of why it should not be a suspension program with all the forms..which Comm. Sasser stated..The TM spoke about the need under a full exemption for some sort of mechanism in place …some paperwork in place to put a limit on development …She also answered Comm. Sasser’s desire to not charge 101 Ocean going forth for its 10 parking spaces from the Town…stating that would be retroactive negating their parking requirements putting the parking responsibility on the Town alone… The TAtty. stated retroactive meant a pre-existing use …or never mind you don’t need to meet the requirement anymore … She said you want to state it clearly…regardless of how it is marketed…After that thee was more back and forth on the impact as they approach the end of the 3 years and development time…The TAtty. stated there was language at the end concerning that…and we “need bureaucracy to give business what they want.”…HUH?… “At the end of 3 years everyone’s up in arms”… this is the advantage of having it in place …She said at the Commission’s direction (Dec. 7th) notice will be given 6 months before the 3 years to extend it or not… Comm. Vincent said “what if we extend it for a few individuals”…citing they might say the building dept. was holding them up.. The TAtty. responded quickly to Vincent “I don’t recommend that.”…again saying there needed to be a “clear line.”… Asst. TM Bentley added that if a business submits before the end it will be processed according to existing requirements…and that the Town has no time frame for site plans at the present time.. The TM said it could last 5-6 years for some applicants… Comm. Sasser said he understood …He gets it…He said Comm. Vincent’s statements made his point of why an exemption was clearer and easier… Vincent obviously taken aback said no you have to have to do something …have a mechanism …Hmmm… Comm. Clottey was about to speak but the Vice Mayor asked hear from the Mayor …Mayor Minnet said she was “enjoying this”…and then went on to repeat what she had stated on the dais on Dec. 7th..She’s pro business but not convinced elimination will produce much..She asked who will pay for future parking spaces…She said it would be the taxpayers… She reiterated her “on the backs of future Commissions” stance and also about quick fixes vs years out… She used the NOI as a case in point…HUH?… Clottey asked the TAtty. about suspension vs. exemption ..The TAtty. said exemption is “attractive” as an atty. suspension program with scope clearly stated is defensible…Comm. Vincent said “I just speak and everything is so clear”..HUH?… Exemption gives a “false sense of value”…with suspension “value remains…exempt parking not disclosed …exempt is for life…there’s a time element…HUH?…The TAtty. again quickly responded to Vincent to state … as a person who responds she would never give credence to that..She was “hesitant to say these are valid”…and it “doesn’t have to be a valid claim”…There could still be a fight…Comm. Sasser said we could get sued either way..The Vice Mayor said before they put this to bed… to Comm. Clottey the Comm. has no influence over landlords … That a change would bring revenue for the Town…He spoke of the elimination remaining until such time we have a parking problem…which he hoped would come …It was semantics really and the only argument he was hearing tonight is the possibility of being sued…Comm. Vincent spoke of the pay stations and the need for a study of revenue coming from them…VM Dodd spoke of towns lagging 10 years behind and the need for bolder steps forward…He stated the charging for parking spaces for 101 Ocean while receiving revenue for those “mythical spaces” was like double dipping …again saying he had not heard “one concrete reason” for not eliminating the requirement…He said there would be no burden for Commissions going forward… He spoke of the forms etc…as a hindrance in the process… Comm. Vincent said “we can’t worry about 3 years from now”…HUH?… The VM countered about the grandfathering and Vincent snapped back “We fully understand Vice Mayor”… The TAtty. said they were not and they had to be a restaurant touching on the addition to that restaurant would be subject to to rules…The VM said it could be 12 months until the 1st restaurant starts up…Bud Bentley gave an example that day one someone could come and declare additional service space ..The VM asked how many months it took for a restaurant to open ..alluding to the Taco restaurant which we hear has been going through an extended 7month process….The TM said Bud was talking about a changed use scenario…The VM clearly miffed said that was not the question…The Mayor seeing where this was headed asked the VM if he wanted a “show of hands” still…The VM never one to back down said absolutely…In the end it was Comm. Sasser and Vice Mayor Dodd who raised their hands!…The Mayor said afterward to VM Doddd and Comm. Sasser “it doesn’t mean things can’t change”…Comm. Sasser lobbed back to her…” You don’t have to give us any solice!”…

BC- What a loss….for the marketing that could have happened…”Business loves bureaucracy”…said the TAtty… Seems Comm. Vincent does too!… How can those against this really believe that no savvy businessman or woman would see what was going to happen and not jump ahead …buy some property and be prepared to build a parking garage in anticipation of a boom that might result from the elimination?… Why would businesses not jump together to provide parking if it is advantageous to their continued success?… And finally…the status quo.for the downtown…..How’s that working so far…and ..Comm. Clottey…does that mean step 2…Hotel parking requirements are off the table as well?… Where was Paul Novak and the Chamber of Commerce?… This was Paul’s “baby” at the MPSC last year… And last but not least ….to Comm. Vincent ..How you gonna explain your actions tonight when you’re hobnobbing with your fellow Republicans…GULP!…

The Mayor was confused in thinking they did not need to make a ord. 1st reading after the lack of hands shown…Comm. Sasser responded “yes, we do.”…The TAtty. said the suspension program is on the P & Z agenda for tomorrow night …(prev. post)… The TM spoke about the previous discussion of a 1 month time frame between 1st/2nd readings… But… in the end it will be 1st reading in a special mtg before the Jan. 11th Roundtable with 2nd reading on Jan. 25th…. Next was the repeal of the 1994 resolution for the retired health insurance option…The TM said she needed the okay to repeal it …Comm. Sasser had a question of the TAtty. concerning the state statute and the after his question and the paying in required of 100% the TM said maybe they should rewrite it rather than repeal it…Comm. Vincent asked them “to educate me on this”..HUH?… The TM said we don’t define retiree and the state statute gives us the option to contribute or not…The TAtty said she and the TM “would out our heads together” and come back to the Comm… The NLC Drug Program was addressed next and the TM relayed what was in the backup of it being little involvement from the Town to be participate in it…Comm. Vincent once again showing he had not read his backup asked the cost to the Town ..The TM said no expense for Town except some staff time…The Mayor asked about the local media clause and how that affected our getting the word out …The TM said she look into it due to wanting to put it on the access channel and Town Topics…The VM asked about participants data being shared or sold…Vincent said that would be covered under Hipaa…HUH?…The VM quickly said the prescriptions are under Hipaa…that was not the data to which he was referring…Comm. Sasser concurred with the VM’s concerns …and asked about the contract agreements and any liability to the Town …He said it would be 20% savings beyond the insurance coverage…Comm. Clottey countered him to say it was only medication not covered by insurance and that she brought this to Esther when she was the representative for the Town at the league…The TM said she would bring this back to the next roundtable…Red Light camera was item f. and the TM said it had been discussed before so she would bring up consultant Kathy Margoles and Chief Llerena to answer questions…Chief Llerena began by stating the Sheriff’s office would not take a stance on this..He spoke of what was in the backup…that in 12 months there was not a single red light related accident …They did a covert operation to see the red light infractions …over 4 hours there were 40 from those who were going straight on Commercial..not right hand turns as have become a problem for towns …He said he thought the number met the threshold ..He also spoke of the dis-allowance for handwritten tickets if the red light camera program was enacted…as well as the cost associated with changing to compatible ticketing for BSO…The TM stated that and action on using non-sworn personnel for ticketing would call for a change to the BSO contract…Kathy Margoles picked up on that as well as the costs about $48,000 per camera per year and the recent cases that made it to the Clerk of the Courts just this week …37 cases… Comm. Clottey could not believe there had been no red light accidents and said this was to be implemented for safety reasons…The Mayor and Comm. Sasser chimed in it was for revenue… The VM took issue  with that citing safety elsewhere and asked about dummy signs instead…He asked the Chief’s choice in getting the cameras or not and the Chief said again the Sheriff’s office would offer no input…Comm. Vincent batting 1000 tonight (sarcasm invoked) said that intersection was slow moving traffic…HUH?..The VM said to Vincent he must have been there during the election to see the near misses …(Yep, standing next to VM Dodd & this writer…commenting on them!)…The Mayor spoke of being on the Broward task force and asking about the synchronized red lights…The technicians came and looked and said we meet the acceptable guidelines at the intersection… She will continue on with it though…Comm. Sasser spoke of reading today about Houston and it costing them millions… stating it’s more revenue than safety… put a deputy there it’s cheaper for safety… The Mayor happy as could be lobbed onto his comment she wanted that for the parking problem as stated last week… Comm. Clottey said she “sees the fear in people’s eyes to cross A1A”… Comm. Vincent gave a slap to the BSO and said he didn’t see it as safety …He wanted to know why BSO was using radar on the short strip of Comm. Blvd. going over the bridge for revenue generation rather than dealing with that intersection…WOW!…The VM said more red light cameras throughout Broward will result in less running of the lights due to uncertainty of who has them and who does not… and it would actually cost us…The Mayor concurred …Comm. Clottey wanted to know what most major accidents were from in town and asked the Chief to tell those at home…He said rear end ..low speed ..failure to yield… The Mayor asked the consultant how may before the magistrate were thrown out..The consultant reiterated it just started this week so there was no data… The TM said the sentiment was to not go forward…It seemed to be a 4-1 vote in the Mayor’s view with VM Dodd in favor..He stated he too was not for it at the cost it would be to the Town… It was not over yet Comm. Vincent had one more Silverstone type comment …when addressing the left turn problem on Comm. and A!A he said “most of these people crossing are licensed drivers”…YIKES!…

BC- Finally some good news for this writer who has been opposed from the get-go…The Sentinel online tonight posted a story that agreed with the costs…http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-red-light-fights-20101210,0,3889729.story

Comm. Clottey added an item to the agenda to bring back the public bathrooms…She actually used residents and BTSFuture editor Mark Brown (who brought this up when it was on the table way back when)…as a reference for going out to rent modular bathrooms and putting them in the Town owned property by Oriana to see if they are successful… Comm. Vincent spoke spearheading the bathrooms and of the costs involved $150,000 and said they were sidelined due to keeping the millage down and the TM said the money was already in the CIP and it was sidelined due to wanting it in the master plan due to location…Clottey wanted this done ahead of the plan…as a “convenience”…VM Dodd said that was an interesting use of words for this topic ..and it was much like the failed doggy beach..NIMBY… (not in my back yard)… The Mayor asked about the water hook up and Clottey said there was water and the cost would be minimal…rented on a short term basis… Comm. Sasser said this was a major distraction and spoke of the time spent with staff to prioritize projects…The Mayor concurred and said they could not keep bringing things back up… Clottey said there were people that don’t want bathrooms and they should find out location and any problems before …She saw she had no agreement she said and dropped it… Her next added item was just as insipid …She felkt the need to talk about her visit to Pompano Beach and the cost associated with irrigation meters$25o1 and Pompano Beach’s non-recommendation for them…She spoke of what was published a month back of the cost not being recouped for a very long time…

BC- Comm. Clottey could go to Pompano Beach…and this could be added to the agenda …but not the SRCondos and the sewer situation… Jeez!…

The Vice Mayor added onto the agenda the Henley on the Thames visit he wanted participation in either in May or July and asked for input and interest in it…The Mayor questioned the Town’s participation in the Sister Cities program… The VM obviously taken aback let it go… BC- this was brought up at a prior meeting with the Mayor giving the VM her support..and it was Comm. Clottey who stated it was not a Town program…Hmmm……

The Mayor added on the Broward League of Cities leadership programs …I believe she brought this up at a previous meeting …She spoke of the “building blocks” …”building tools” meetings beginning Jan. 27th with excellent programs such as the one on that date about social media with Twitter and texting.. as well as he “social networking that follows it… Comm. Clottey questioned the cost to participate…The Mayor said it was $35…TAtty. Trevarthen said that was if you stayed for dinner… With that they adjourned…

BC-Time for certain Commissioners to revisit their campaign promises….as well as their reasons for choosing the new administration ….

This meeting will be archived on video  on the Town’s website… http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/

Tomorrow night is P & Z where they will be addressing parking & signage … Dare I hope for a better outcome?….

more to come…

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop … Those “Wheels” On The New Wheelabrator Deal Are Getting Flatter ….

December 14, 2010 by Barbara

A GOOD DEAL ONLY IN THE EYE OF THE DEAL- HOLDER? ….

Dear Readers… A follow-up below to the ongoing saga of another long-term agreement that a few want to make for the masses…Only this time the breaks are on throughout the municipalities in what can only be elected officials and administrations operating under the “fool me once” premise …Our LBTS Comm./Town Manager/Asst. TM joined in last week when this was before the Comm. to make a speedy decision before the Dec. 31st deadline at their monthly Comm. meeting… They took a collective pass…(prev. post) …

“Commissioner’s Ignore Weston Mayor’s Attempts To Defend His No-Bid Waste Deal

BY BUDDY NEVINS

Weston Mayor Eric Hersh made a last-minute plea to approve the county’s $1 billion, no-bid deal for waste disposal that he negotiated.

Hersh warned commissioners that the contract had to be signed before the end of December, or it would be renegotiated. Commissioners are not scheduled to meet again in December.

Acting after Browardbeat.com published a call from Sunrise Mayor Mike Ryan to reject the current deal, Hersh predicted that any new negotiations would result in county taxpayers paying more for waste disposal.

The no-bid deal was hammered together by the little-known county Resource Recovery Board with Hersh handling the negotiations.

Hersh and County Commission Ilene Lieberman argue that the negotiations did not result in a no-bid deal because they took “requests for indication of interest” from 25 firms. Browardbeat.com and Browardbulldog.org both reported that this process did not include taking firm bids to compare with renewing the current contract.

After seeing the “indications of interest”, the county board decided on its own to sign a new contract with Waste Management rather than take bids.

Hersh told commissioners that the no-bid contract renegotiated with Waste Management would save taxpayers $400-500 million. He did not mention that the contract is filled with potential increases in costs and that it could last 20 years, when the current waste disposal technologies will probably be outdated.

Everybody agrees that the current contract to dispose waste at two county-funded plants – one in Davie and another off Florida’s Turnpike in North Broward – was a bad agreement. Cities are paying approximately double to burn waste at the county plants compared to the cost of hauling it to a landfill.

The current contract expires in 2013.

Commissioners heard Hersh’s short comments and moved the debate to January.

It appears now that every city will have to reconsider where their waste haulers will dispose of trash after 2013.

Mayor Richard Kaplan of Lauderhill wrote a comment on Browardbeat.com earlier Tuesday that their city received its cheapest bid for hauling which didn’t use the county’s facilities, which seems to contradict Hersh’s statement to commissioners.”

http://www.browardbeat.com/browardbeat-com-post-on-no-bid-waste-contract-to-be-discussed-by-commissioners/

More to come…

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop .. The December 14, 2010 Commission Roundtable Agenda … Not Much On The Table To Dish …

December 13, 2010 by Barbara

LOOKS LIKE SANTA’S LIST IS PRETTY EMPTY AS WELL …

Dear Readers …the reference above is as previously posted…this writer’s disappointment that the sewers and SRCondos was not on this agenda as originally directed… The agenda seen below is small and the subject and what happened … and what happens now is anything but and should be addressed with some consensus from the Comm. before the change in rates and billing take hold in February…in this writer’s opinion…Again, the format put forth by Atty. Richard Weiss when recommending this Adventura model called for the roundtables to be the long intense meetings of discussion so that the Reg. Comm. Mtgs. were concise and action oriented….

…………………

TOWN OF LAUDERDALE-BY-THE-SEA

TOWN COMMISSION
ROUNDTABLE MEETING

TUESDAY, DEC. 14, 2010 – 7PM

JARVIS HALL

AGENDA BACKUP DOCUMENTS

1. CALL TO ORDER, MAYOR ROSEANN MINNET

2. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

a. Eliminate Notice of Intent Requirement (Vice Mayor Stuart Dodd).

BC-I have a problem with there being no backup supplied for this item…While I believe it should be eliminated the staff should have provided a backup with the original ordinance..why it was put forth along with any changes made as it appears happened in 2007 and 2009 ….I look to see what I could find and found the following from Town Website Muni-codes … the NOI was put in place in 2000 and updated as follows…(Ord. No. 451, § 2, 11-28-00; Ord. No. 2007-06, § 2, 4-10-07; Ord. No. 2007-14, § 2(Exh. A), 9-25-07; Ord. No. 2009-20, § 2, 5-26-09) …The TAtty. stated at the Dec. 7, 2010 Comm. Mtg. that it is a “homegrown” ordinance she has not see in other municipalities… A look at the muni-codes also showed how inferior that NOI is …as seen in the following  …

“(f) Posting of notice.

(1)

The notice of intent shall be posted in the development department, and in a conspicuous location in Town Hall.”

BC-To post only in the development department and a conspicuous location in Town Hall is a joke…We know this was why we had no job applicants for department head positions due to this type of “conspicuous” posting in Town Hall as well as knowing from the dismal response to the skewed Colon/Olinzock survey they took from Wilton Manors and sent out last year in order to aid their “supporters” campaigning for the Comm. last year that few make their way inside either locations …Readers should also be aware that at the Dec. 7, 2010 NOI Resolution for public hearing to allow for public comment..there was none ….further adding to the reason direction should be given to staff to shelve NOI once and for all…

……………….

“Sec. 30-531. – Issuance of notice of intent; effect on proposed development.

(a) Statement of intent.

(1)

The Town from time to time will propose changes to the Land Development Code of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea.

(2)

The purpose of this section is to provide an administrative procedure for the public and the development community to be notified of certain changes in the land development regulations defined herein which may impact proposed plans for development within the Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea as early in the Code revision process as possible to best ensure that affected parties do not unnecessarily expend time, money and resources on proposed development projects which will be subject to such amendments to land development regulations.

(3)

It is further the purpose of this section to ensure that upon the issuance of the notice of intent, as hereinafter provided, no proposed land development project affected by a pending regulatory change shall be approved by any Town Officer, Official, Commission, Board, Agency or Body, whether elected or appointed, unless said proposed land development project conforms with the pending regulatory change and/or the proposed land development project approval is conditioned on such conformance pursuant to the pending regulatory change as currently drafted or as finally approved, whichever is appropriate.

(b) Regulations subject to notice of intent.

(1)

Pending regulations subject to the notice of intent procedure, as provided within this section, shall include development regulations as defined by F.S. § 163.3213, as amended from time to time, and comprehensive plan amendments which are a condition precedent to land development regulatory changes.

(2)

Land development regulations which provide only for regulations of residential accessory uses shall not be subject to this section.

(c) Definitions. As used in this section:

Affected parties includes persons owning property or persons owning or operating a business within the boundaries of the Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea whose development application or application for a permit or license is pending.

Development activity means application for a master plan, site plan, rezoning, building permit, variance, or business tax receipt.

(d) Notice of intent authorization/effective date/ratification by Town Commission.

(1)

At the time the Town Commission authorizes, by resolution, the investigation, study, development, drafting or consideration of a change to any land development regulation that requires issuance of a notice of intent, a notice of intent of the pending regulatory change shall be issued. The effective date of the notice of intent shall be deemed to be the date of said authorization by the Town Commission.

(2)

At the next Commission meeting following the notice of intent, members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the Town Commission in a public hearing format relative to a filed notice of intent. After the public hearing the Town Commission by majority vote shall either approve or disapprove the further processing of the proposed regulation which is the subject matter of the notice of intent.

(e) Statement of purpose. The notice of intent shall include:

(1)

A statement of purpose;

(2)

A brief description of the pending regulatory change which shall include as much specificity as possible; recognizing however, that changes may occur as the pending regulation proceeds through the drafting, review, public meeting and public hearing process. The description shall include a statement of the possible effect that the pending regulation may have on development. In addition, the description shall provide an indication of the provisions of the existing code that may require modification;

(3)

A statement of the projected time frame for the adoption of the pending regulation;

(4)

A statement of the point in the development approval process at which the pending regulation would apply.

(f) Posting of notice.

(1)

The notice of intent shall be posted in the development department, and in a conspicuous location in Town Hall.

(2)

From and after the notice of intent, applicants for appropriate licenses, permits, and other applicable development applications, including but not limited to plats, site plans, rezonings, variances, business tax receipts, and building permits, shall be provided written notice of the pending land development regulatory changes which may potentially affect the applicant. Applicants shall be provided written notice by certified or regular mail and through the availability of notices in the development department, and by posting of the notice of intent. To the extent that affected parties have comments, they shall be afforded the opportunity to file written opinion or objections with the Development Director.

(3)

Neither the failure of the Town to provide written notice nor the failure of an applicant for development to observe the posted notice nor the failure of the Town to provide posted notice shall invalidate the applicability of this article to said applicant for development approval.

(g) Implementation time frame.

(1)

A pending regulatory change that is subject to the notice of intent procedure shall be considered by the Town Commission at a public hearing within a time period prescribed by the Town at the time of the filing of the notice of intent.

(2)

If additional time is required for study and deliberation due to the scope of the proposed regulatory changes or arising from procedural issues, upon a majority vote of the Town Commission, the time prescribed by the Town in the notice of intent may be extended for an additional period of time approved by the Town Commission upon expiration of the initial period of time stated in the notice of intent.

(3)

If no final action has been taken by the Town Commission within the time limits set forth herein, the notice of intent will expire.

(h) Effect on pending or proposed development permits.

(1)

A notice of intent shall have no effect on any application for development activity (a master plan, site plan, rezoning, variance, building permit, or business tax receipt) pending for approval on December 12, 2000 or approved on or before December 12, 2000.

(2)

Except as provided in [subsection] (1) above, no application for development activity (a master plan, site plan, rezoning, variance, building permit, or business tax receipt) shall be accepted for processing by the Town following the issuance of a notice of intent unless said application conforms with the pending regulatory change and/or the application is conditioned on such conformance pursuant to the pending regulatory change as currently drafted or as finally approved, whichever is appropriate.

(i) Evidence of general compliance. Evidence of general compliance with the procedures of this section of the Code shall be sufficient to sustain the regulation upon adoption.

(j) Copies to Planning and Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board shall be provided with a copy of all notices of intent upon issuance.

(Ord. No. 451, § 2, 11-28-00; Ord. No. 2007-06, § 2, 4-10-07; Ord. No. 2007-14, § 2(Exh. A), 9-25-07; Ord. No. 2009-20, § 2, 5-26-09)”

………………….

b. Special Meeting January 11, 2010 re: parking Suspension and Other
Revisions (Vice Mayor Stuart Dodd).

BC- The Asst. TM began his presentation at the Dec.7, 2010 Comm. Mtg. by offering the Comm. a special meeting for 1st reading on the parking suspension ordinance (hopefully to become the parking exemption ord….see next item)…The Mayor as well as the TM/ Asst. TM  & TAtty. did not address the special meeting after the item and VM Dodd wants to see that the special meeting is directed to take place to move the item along sooner rather than later with the change of Comm. Mtgs. being the 4th Tues. of the month after the new year begins…

c. Parking Ordinance Draft (Vice Mayor Stuart Dodd).

BC-As previously posted VM Dodd after reviewing the meeting last week and seeing the “minutia” that accompanies a “parking suspension program” wants a show of hands from the Comm. at this table to see if there is a majority to eliminate the parking for restaurant type businesses rather than the staff proposed parking suspension program of 3 years… Below is the backup for the suspension program for the Dec. 15, 2010 P & Z meeting if not overturned  …. What this writer does not like in the code changes is the application required on pg. 3 as well as the change of exemption status if the customer service area is increased after the suspension program is over…If the restaurant can rework its customer service area within the existing sq. footage…why add the parking requirement…I thought that was wrong when Mulligans remodeled and became 101 Ocean… Hopefully a show of at least 3 hands for elimination will take this off the table for the following evening …and the restaurants and building owners we want to come to town… I also think Comm. Vincent or another Comm. should redirect the staff on 101 Ocean…to offer them a full parking exemption as well going forward …

………………

d. Repeal of 1994 Resolution 1222 Retired Employee Health Insurance Option
(Town Manager Connie Hoffmann).

Backup-SUBJECT TITLE REPEAL OF 1994 RESOLUTION #1222 RETIRED EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE
OPTION
EXPLANATION: A Resolution adopted in 1994 provides that retired Town employees may continue medical benefits
under the Florida Municipal Health Trust Fund Insurance Plan at no cost to the Town. It is recommended that the Resolution
be repealed for several reasons.
First, Florida Statutes already requires the Town to offer an even more comprehensive insurance option to retirees and their
eligible dependents Section 112.0101 of the Florida Statutes provides that retirees and their eligible dependents may
continue on the Town’s health insurance life insurance accident hospitalization annuity or all of any kinds of such
insurance plans and specifies that for health and hospitalization plans the premium cost shall be no more than the premium
cost applicable to active employees.
Second, retiree is defined under the State Statute but is not defined in the 1994 Town resolution.
When this item was scheduled for adoption earlier this year it was deferred and before placing it back on a regular agenda for adoption I wanted to make sure that the Commission does wish to proceed with repealing the Town resolution and
relying on the state statute instead.

BC- A no-brainer …repeal it…

e. NLC Prescription Drug Program (Town Manager Connie Hoffmann).

Backup- SUBJECT TITLE: National League of Cities NLC Prescription Drug Program
EXPLANATION: The NLC has partnered with CVS Caremark to offer member cities an opportunity to
participate in a prescription drug discount card program at no cost to the municipality. This program
would provide the materials necessary to allow residents a 20% discount on all prescription medicine
not covered by insurance at participating pharmacies. This program has been successfully implemented
in numerous cities and the cities contacted Hallandale Beach and Wilton Manors report there is
minimal staff time required for initial set up and limited time thereafter.
Participating cities must:
Promote the program to the local media with mutually approved communications Pre launch
press release, launch press release and PSAs. (The League provides the communications copy.)
Promote the program through various city venues or communications to the residents using the
standard communication vehicles the city currently uses. All communications must be reviewed
and approved by NLC and CVS Caremark unless the city is using supplied communications
Provide city wide ID card distribution points to distribute the template ID card that will be
printed with the relevant city’s seal. Stands will be provided to display the cards.
Provide a link to the co-branded web site www.caremark.com/nlc from the city web site as this
site contains the program information and useful tools for city residents including online
enrollment with the ability to print an ID card and use it immediately.
Identify a person on the city staff to serve as the principal program contact with NLC and CVS
Caremark.
RECOMMENDATION: Although this is not one of our priority projects, this program appears
simple to implement. If the Commission feels there is a need for this type of program for Town
residents staff can move forward to implement it.
BC- Another no-brainer to enact…

f. Red Light Camera (Town Manager Connie Hoffmann).

Backup-SUBJECT: TITLE RED LIGHT CAMERAS
EXPLANATION: Early last summer the Town Commission indicated they wished to consider installing a red light camera
system at the Commercial/A1A  intersection and asked for BSO’s input. I assigned consultant Kathie Margoles to do research
on red light camera programs especially in light of the new legislation adopted by the State affecting these programs. The
new statute that was signed into law by the Governor in June initiated state regulation of these programs forced changes in
the way these programs are structured with the red light camera vendors and shifted a considerable amount of revenue
generated from infractions identified by red light cameras away from the municipalities and vendors to the State. The result
of the legislation is that cities now have to incur significant costs to operate red light camera programs (approximately
$50,000 per camera per year.)
The consultant report has been ready for some time but Roundtable agendas have been so full that I kept deferring
scheduling this matter for discussion. Although the Commission did not include the red light camera program as a priority for
the current year since the research had already been done it is being placed on the December Roundtable agenda for
discussion and your further direction.
RECOMMENDATION: If the Commission wishes to pursue the red light camera program it is recommended that
one of the red light vendors be asked to undertake a traffic analysis to determine whether a camera system is
warranted and how many cameras would need to be installed.

BC. The book “Seventy-Three Years By The Sea” by Candice Richard on pg. 75 contains the story of the Commercial Blvd. Bridge opening …  “The bridge was the biggest thing to ever come into town. Not even Gil Colnot could have fully realized the magnitude of changes that followed those proudly marching kids and convertibles full of businessmen. Every nuance of life would be affected unalterably. it is not an understatement to say that Lauderdale-By-The-Sea can be divided into two eras, Pre-Bridge and After Bridge” …And you all thought annexation of the north side of town was the biggest thing!… It goes on …”Commercial had always been dead on both sides of the Intracoastal-who would go back there? Then boom!-traffic everywhere. I didn’t like it at all”…Quoted from Ray Anglin …It continues…”Not many did. The number of visitors to town quadrupled, as did the water bill for beach showers. No longer Mr. Nice Guys, the police put a speed trap on A1A, the money collected earmarked for expanding the department. In 1969 Lauderdale-By-The Sea made Johnny Carson’s monologue when the “Tonight Show” host was ticketed for driving over 25 mph in front of Town Hall. In February of 1970 the Department of Transportation recorded 22,000 cars passing through Lauderdale-By-The-Sea in 24 hours.”… Note to the Commission/Administration…forget the red light cameras….. let’s hope Jay Leno does not come our way…for his 2nd monologue on LBTS…Readers will remember his use of the ByTheSeaFuture Article …(prev. post…see below excerpt)…

“BY THE SEA FUTURE….”TOWN’S COLON RECEIVES AN AWARD”…Feb. 20,2009

Shown online on “Headlines”…after the monologue at 17:33 …with Jay commenting and showing the picture of Town Manager Colon and Mayor Minnet along with the presenter of the award…

After showing it Jay quips..”Town’s Colon Wins an Award…Now where would you put that?”and then he tossed it off the desk! ……. Kudos to the gentleman that sent it in!….”

Again, go for the elimination of parking requirements …and let’s hope we have 22,000 cars passing through LBTS in 2011!…

3. OTHER TOWN BUSINESS:

BC- This should have been when the sewers and SRCondos were discussed …

4. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting will be on Comcast Ch. 78/ live streamed on Town Website then archived video/backup /minutes ... http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/

more to come….

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop … The Lauderdale-By-The-Sea December 7, 2010 Regular Commission Meeting Roundup … Round & Round They Go? …

December 12, 2010 by Barbara

CORRALLED … AND RUNNING IN CIRCLES? ….

Dear Readers … Here’s the roundup of what happened at the Dec. 7, 2010 Monthly Regular Commission Meeting … At the start of the meeting  Mayor Minnet moved up the Wheelabrator item 14b. under old business to place it after the presentation …(prev. post) … That was the only change to the agenda under additions, deletions, deferrals of agenda items …

The Commission proceeded to the presentation/item 14b. and on to public comments….surprisingly there were none…(prev.- Wheelabrator post)  which bodes well for this new Comm./Admin. especially with the topics on this agenda being addressed …sewer rate increases for the south end of town ..Notice of Intent on parking/signage for public hearing as well as parking requirements for restaurant type businesses along with 1st/2nd reading ordinances…

This month there was no Public Safety reports and with the switch coming in Jan. of the Comm. Mtg-Rdtable  the Public Safety report for Nov. will be in Jan. combined perhaps with Dec.when the Comm. meets on the 4th Tues. of the month…PIO Steve D’Oliveira stood in for Muni Services Dir. Don Prince to address the National Flood Ins. Program Community Rating System …He reported there was a 5 yr. audit in 2009 and LBTS’ rating went from an 8 to a 7 ..This year we saved an additional $13,000 to make a combined savings of $45,000 after that audit… The next Town Topics will include this savings… The Mayor asked Chief Llerena up to the podium and he once again reminded all it was time to sign up for the BSO Cybervisor program if they had not done so… He stated it could be found on the Sheriff Lamberti’s  site or a call to LBTS BSO would provide anyone needing help assistance on how to sign-up online…link to Sheriff’ Lamberti’s site … http://sheriff.org/ … It can also linked from Town website under public safety as well as contact # for LBTS -BSO  … http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/ … This writer signed up long ago when it was first offered and the updates are well worth it to sign-up for…There were 4 sets on minutes to approve and no changes or questions from the dais..The Mayor asked for a motion to approve them all together it was made by VM Dodd /2nd Comm. Vincent ..passed 5-0 …

The Consent Agenda initially had no takers when the Mayor asked if any of the items needed to be pulled for discussion…Comm. Sasser then stated he did want to pull item F. which was the purchase of the digital multi-space parking pay stations and then the Mayor stated she wanted to pull item E. The A1A Landscape Proj. extension… The rest were passed 5-0 after a motion was made by the Vice Mayor/2nd Comm. Clottey… Those were a. Approval of the Fl. Dept. of Law Enforcement Justice Assistance Grant for 2010/11…b.Approval of the 2010/11 Community Devel. Block Grant…c. Approval of the Spec. Event application for Aruba’s Memorial Day Beach Bash…d. Spec. Event application for the Ft. Laud. A1A Marathon Feb 20, 2011…g. Hardship permits for Basin Dr. LLC & Sea Spray Inn…BC- of note I would hope the minutes could now include what is passed without discussion as well as those with for the those archive inclined researchers to easily find in the future..The status quo does not allow for this on items passed without discussion…The Mayor wanted item e. pulled to see if the Town should have its own non-discrimination policy vs. the one included in the FDOT ..There was a knowing response received from the Town Manager which seemed to mean these two had discussed it prior to this meeting at their regular pre-meeting review..The TM said she would like to expand on the policy and bring it back ..Comm. Clottey wanted to know why they did not just wait for the policy since this was not happening asap…Asst. TM Bentley responded they needed to vote on the rest due to “running late” of this …Comm. Clottey rescinded and the Vice Mayor made a motion to approve the item with the Town’s own non-discrimination policy…Clottey made the 2nd..Bud Bentley asked that it all be passed including the non-discrimination and that that portion could be submitted after the fact…The TM countered they had time to do it  stating we have months …Bentley countered we have time but not months ..The TM replied she would rather have out own… The motion passed 5-0 …

BC- The TM and the Mayor never expanded on why this was necessary …what the TM wants to expand on that made this something that rose to the top of the “to do” list for staff…

Consent item f. was the parking multi-space pay stations which will be around town…Asst. TM Bentley was still at the podium on this item ..He spoke of the meters being at A1A & El Mar as well the 1st block of Comm. Blvd. east …The removal of the single meters will increase the sidewalks Bud added ..He did not state what the cost would be to remove the old single meters and the repair to the area surrounding them…This was a question this writer received from a Reader… Bentley went on to add this would fall under a 2008 bid from Lee County we will be able to piggyback off of …The company is a private one and Bentley stated an additional 5% savings could be added for placing the order before Dec. 31st ..for a sum of $2,900…”a significant savings” he said… He followed up on that by stating the Town could still research at alternatives… He also spoke on the credit card option being secured separately which could bring a better rate …One big reason Comm. Sasser wanted this item pulled (Comm. Sasser made it clear his bank was not involved in this item providing him no conflict of interest) …Bentley stated that 40-50% of users use their credit card when the option is available…He added they typically produce more revenue as well as it has been found more time will be bought with a card than with cash..

BC- one Reader added that another benefit for these types of pay stations is right now if a parker finds a space with time they pay for additional time or do not need to pay…With the new ticket required per car a new parker does not obtain leftover time and needs to purchase all the time they need thus more revenue for the Town…

Mr. Bentley stated the pay stations will all be networked together so a parker can add to their time from a station placed elsewhere in town ..One of these new pay stations was to be ordered last week or this week starting for El Prado lot…

BC-The same reader that asked about the meter removal cost also asked about the maintenance due to damage from the salt air producing corrosion as we have seen at the existing pay stations in El Prado over the last 2 years…

Comm. Sasser stated this was “near and dear to my heart” adding his no-conflict statement…VM Dodd congratulated the staff saying this was “first class” ..the units would be “solar powered” offering “flexibility”… “convenience” and an “all around benefit”… “a win-win” … Comm. Vincent asked about the pricing for real time monitoring and asked about no revenue sharing for the Town…Bud replied there was not revenue sharing and there was a 1 year maintenance …Comm. Clottey thanked Comm. Sasser for his expertise in the additional $2,900 savings ..Comm. Sasser made the motion with the contingency /2nd from VM Dodd …passed 5-0 …

The next item was Ordinances 1st Reading …Up first Ord. 2010-20 the sewer rate increase… It was read by the TAtty. and the TM stated we have been over this adding there were some slides as well as the two goals the staff heard from the Comm. when this was last discussed including eliminating the operating cost…to build up the reserve that’s been eaten away…and the simplest way she sees doing that is to adopt Pompano Beach’s rate structure …She showed the slides …(see archived video on Town website … http://lbts.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2 …item 10.1.) … The slides showed the present rates for single homes as well as multi- based on meter size…It addressed the price change as well as the removal of an allowed “base” of 200 gal. credit ..The cost will grow larger for the larger condos …Also addressed was the state of the LBTS owned sewers and what will arise from an engineered study whether it is removal and/or replacement of the over 40 yr. old infrastructure and when they need to begin the project…whether it happens in “2 years to 10 years”… She added Don Prince informed her the entire town had been televised over the last year to assist the project (prev. posts) … Consultant Kathleen Margolies came to the podium to state the increase will produce a revenue increase this fiscal year of $16,700 and for the next full fiscal year it will be “a little over $100,000″ … Astonishingly when this was open for the public to comment..there were no comments made!.. The Mayor asked if there was any discussion on this from the Comm. …before anyone spoke she added she “feels it’s been discussed”..”The current rate structure’s not doing it”…She added there needed to be advertising to the condos and the community and we needed to “move forward”.. Comm. Sasser said he had a quick question and he asked about there being nothing included about the surplus in year 2 to take care of the system… The TM answered yes that money would go into the $1.5 million making it $1.6 million and would still be inadequate for the replacement needed in the south…but it will help with anything that happens beforehand…any serious break… The TM said postcards will be sent out to all LBTS customers …

BC- Should SRCondos be getting that postcard? …After all they it appears they are not really customers of LBTS…( prev. posts ..see below comments)…

The VM made the motion to pass Ord. 2010-20/2nd Comm. Vincent and it passed 5-0..

BC- I am sad to say the Roundtable meeting this coming Tues (Dec. 14th) will not include the discussion concerning SRCondos and what took place behind the scenes by a few former Administrators and it is believed at least one former dais member and SRCondos then and now… There is to be no discussion on the “fallout” from this “ruse” enacted behind closed doors in Town Hall for over a decade and how remedy the actions taken going forth.. It is this writer’s opinion there is much to discuss and get to the bottom of… Not only who made these decisions and if there is any recourse for the Town and the taxpayers but who should SRCondo pay when this change in sewer rates takes place. SRClub was not privy to any “subsidy” coming their way…They did as they were advised in 1998 after annexation fro the Town …They paid a bill that arrived from the Town of LBTS…They did as they were advised along with all the south LBTS sewer customers later on when billing was turned over to Ft. Lauderdale and paid the bill as it was received… never thinking something underhanded was going on … Now that the “cat is out of the bag” this writer sees it as no different than when the “cat was out of the bag” in 2007 and we found out Palm Club was a private property thus producing a change in the plan to install sewers for septic on that site… Knowing the sewers that service SRCondos belong to Pompano Beach…knowing the former Administration/TAtty. did not do as they were directed and go to Pompano Beach to include SRCondos in the LBTS Master Sewer Agreement…knowing the same few did not come back to that sitting Comm. and ask direction to proceed with a declaratory judgment …knowing an alternative to subsidize was made running counter to the direction given at that 1998 special meeting …and knowing that now after the 2001 annexation of the north end of town it seems unlikely Pompano Beach would go along with inclusion of SRCondos in the LBTS Master Sewer Agreement …something that seemed unlikely from the get-go …in this writer’s opinion…Knowing the sewers servicing the condos from A1A belong to Pompano Beach not LBTS … and it is they who maintain them …..it only makes sense that LBTS should no longer be the 3rd party in the billing of the 4 condos and Pompano Beach should charge them as they do all their customers serviced from Pompano Beach sewers from Pine Ave. north… As far as restitution…Good luck!…It is also this writer’s opinion SRCondos will have no problem if asked for it…in going to court and producing what was received from LBTS over the years to show they were in the dark…(as I am led to believe by those involved in the annexation for SRClub)… As far as the replacement of the sewers in the south…it’s a separate issue… This issue will open up an old wound once more…and require this new Administration too look at it with a new set of eyes to see if we were purposely misinformed by the former TM (who had to be aware of the subsidy ruse all along in her capacity as Finance Director/Town Manager) in 2008 concerning the septic to sewer monies received from the north’s annexation to offset those costs vs. the south’s taxpayer paying for them to be replaced… Those facts will need to be forthcoming before the Comm. can decide whether replacement of sewers in the south is an assessment made for the whole town or the south end alone… I believe the Roundtable meetings are when the discussion on such topics is to take place..These are to be the long meetings vs. concise Comm. Mtgs….This should have been on this RTable this time especially after looking at ht e agenda which is short….

Comm. Sasser requested a short break…

Ordinances 2nd Reading… Up to pass first was Ord. 2010-18 “accessory Buildings” … (prev. posts) …It should have been a no discussion passed 2nd Ord. at best..It was not… The TAtty. read it…Vice Mayor Dodd had an amendment to add for a fine after he spoke prior to the meeting the the TAtty. … VM Dodd stated he was seeking to add the fine …The Mayor thanked him and added she had major concerns about this ordinance (prev. posts)…She is against sheds in yards …There were once again no public comments when it was opened up to the public to weigh in… Comm. Sasser asked how it would be handled  with code enforcement …once the storm hits…what was the reality of such a fine being enforced…Development Dir. Bowman stated once the warning was issued those with non-permitted sheds subject to penalties..although they (code) would give them lead time…Comm. Sasser wanted it clearly stated 48 hrs. after they are susceptible to fines… Comm. Vincent said he sat with “Jeff” (Dir. Bowman) and that he had trouble passing this …He said it was “government breathing down our necks” ..It was moving too fast “…He also had a problem with the heights (one story of half the height of a 2 story building) …He wanted to look at it a little more …It’s 2nd reading …and “one story is too high”..He did not understand being fined for a “Rubbermaid”…He also spoke of the fines fro coconuts and lawn furniture …He said he was not going to vote for this…

BC- While I agree with Comm. Vincent on the fines and the lawn furniture etc… He showed a real lack of governing on this one!… This arose from his help with the accessory building for 101 Ocean …This was brought many times to the Commission before 2nd reading…It went to P & Z and was well discussed with additions and changes made …and accepted by the Comm. including Comm. Vincent who I believe was present at those P & Z meetings when they addressed the subject… Hardly done too fast…To ask for more time  and not vote for it with some changes made cost the Town in staff/ TAtty./ P & Z board/Comm. time and cost for the required published notice for the ad in the Sentinel prior to 2nd reading… This was the same type of behavior witnessed from the prev. majority on the dais when it came to 2nd reading ordinances going south…. Also Comm. Vincent who stated he sat in the audience the 2 yrs prior to his election should be aware that then-Comm. Dodd put forth and succeeded with a majority vote to eliminate the coconut ordinance a few years back in 2008 … OOPS!…

The Mayor said once again she was not for it and found it interesting these points were being made now…Comm. Sasser asked to make a friendly amendment …Comm. Vincent went off on the Hurricane Center and the cone and to go by their guidelines…The Mayor stated the Vice Mayor made the motion with a second by Comm. Sasser with the changes of the fine to be imposed…The TAtty. stated the friendly amendment shall be within certain hours …12 hrs…Comm. Vincent said to govern the removal of the sheds would need to include the patio furniture etc… The Mayor clearly miffed by the 11th hr. change of support she was hearing snapped at Comm. Clottey saying she was interrupting her…Comm. Clottey then allowed to speak asked what the definition was of a shed…Dir. Bowman said it was a shed or storage building that does not require a building permit… Comm. Sasser said he did not like having government say who could have a shed…The vote was taken and it failed 2-3 (Vincent/Clottey/ Minnet voted no)…

BC- What happens now…Will code enforcement go out to inform residents their storage sheds will need to come down?… Why was there no direction to address an ordinance without the fine?… The prevailing side should bring this back…no fines allow the single family residences their storage sorely needed with full garages being the norm…No basements mean storage alternatives are a given…

Ord. 2010-19 was 2nd Reading for the Choice Environmental toters etc…(prev. posts)…Comm. Sasser re-capped the ordinance …Again no public comment …The Mayor thanked Comm. Sasser and staff… The VM had a question of who contacts whom for a change to take place… The Atty. for Choice Grant Smith answered they had no way of knowing who would need to be contacted…Asst. TM Bentley said as he had at a prev. mtg. Choice will be changing their billing and a property already at the 50% agreed toters allowed would not need to do anything…while a property wanting to drop down to that 50% level or any number in-between the 50% to 100% would need to contact Choice for the rate change…The TM said this too would be on the Town’s access channel …Comcast Ch.78/Town Topics as well as on Town website…Comm. Sasser made the motion/VM Dodd 2nd it ..passed 5-0…

The addition of item 11 Resolution 2010-39 Notice Of Intent (NOI) was added on Mon. Dec. 6th after it was affirmed it was MIA from the agenda (prev. post)… The TAtty. read the resolution…after she stated it was not on that evening’s agenda …She added it required the adoption first by the Comm. and then this public hearing for the public as preconditions for changing the parking and the signs… ….There was no public comment … NOI and doing away with it will be addressed at the Tue. 12/14 Roundtable…The VM wants to toss it…The Mayor wants to keep it…This evening’s lack of public input makes it clear that the VM is “spot on” …and Comm. Sasser is as well when he asked the TAtty. if this slowed down the process and she concurred as well as stating this was LBTS “home grown” code requirement and she has not seen it anywhere else in other municipalities… OOPS!… No motion was needed as it was adopted on Nov. 9th by this Comm. in a 5-0 vote with no discussion…OOPS!…

Commissioner Comments …

Comm. Clottey spoke of the boxes in Town Hall the fire station and around town for dropping off toys..She thanked Town Staff naming Doug Haag for getting the businesses to pick up the tab for the Pelican Hopper on New Year’s Eve.. Wished all a joyous holiday and encouraged them to go to the event Christmas By The Sea and dress warmly..

BC- Did Clottey misspeak? Why would the Finance Dir. be thew one to contact the businesses?….Was there anything sent to the Comm. on the route etc…an extra person on the Hopper and any other direction given on this topic?…

Comm. Sasser said he would be brief and wanted to take a moment to thank Choice for their role in the negotiations ..He said they were a “good partner”…He too wanted all to not forget the Christmas By The Sea event the next evening in town…He ended by saying he needed to fulfill an obligation he head…which was to say hi to his family…His mom and dad  as well as other family members..

BC- This led to a Walton type dais moment when the Mayor jested they should all say hello to the Sassers or mom and dad…and they did!…

Comm. Vincent said he wanted to address the sewer rate increases proposed and went on to talk about the rate increases being ignored for the past 9 years…He spoke of the parking calming …and also spoke of the holiday toy drives …as well as giving a plug to ByTheSeaFuture …

Vice Mayor Dodd stated there was nothing new to report from his seat on the Hillsboro Inlet and also gave a plug to the Christmas By The Sea event and tree lighting…

Mayo Minnet wished all a happy and healthy new year ..She spoke of it being a “whirlwind” year thanking staff who is now showing respect and stability not seen before…She thanked the Comm. for what they are moving forward on doing in 2011…She spoke of attending a Florida league of cities event that dealt with our elected officials and asked the staff to put together a Town Hall meeting inviting those elected officials representing us to come and meet with the residents and businesses in town…She also spoke of the C.O.P .(Citizen on patrol) program in town and stated it is an integral part of the town…She said they put in over 1500 hrs of service and new members are wanted …

Old Business item 14a. was the Parking Requirement Modifications …(scroll down to see prev. posts right after the meeting)…While it ended up with as a 3 yr parking suspension program …VM Dodd has brought it back on the Dec. 14, 2010 Roundtable to have a show of hands to change it back to his original longtime desire of being an elimination-exemption for restaurant type businesses with no time frame to end it… making it simple …

BC-This writer will post on this in the next post along with the code for a parking suspension program that includes applications and more hoops for businesses to jump through courtesy of government…UGH!…

14b. The El Dorado condominium must have contacted Comm. Vincent to put this on… The Commission received a “heads up” on the issue from the Asst. TM prior to this meeting and the item being put on that they might be contacted…Comm. Vincent stated prior to annexation the concrete wall the condo wanted to build would have been allowed… Dir. Bowman said this item was to be on the P & Z agenda Dec. 15th…Comm. Vincent asked about having other options to stucco and Jeff spoke of what was allowed…VM Dodd asked if this was allowed would residential homes then be allowed 6 ft. high concrete walls around their properties…Bowman said they would …Comm. Vincent asked questions about non-concrete wall and the air circulation requirements… Jeff responded to that as well…The Mayor said the consensus from the Comm. was to send this to P & Z…

BC- Dir. Bowman stated it was on the P & Z agenda already… The previous Comm. took away the air 3/4 air flow for fencing last year… A simple remedy of course is for the condo to go through the variance process …If not …in this writer’s opinion…..then two separate code requirements should be in place…If the condo wall will not impact the neighboring property on the east side of A1A/El Mar Drive then allow for it…but do not allow for it west of A1A/El Mar and for residential west of A1a/El Mar as well…

The Town Manager said she had nothing that needed to be talked about due to the late hour…

BC- It was not yet 10 pm….

Comm. Sasser asked about the Coral Reef project which was in the backup for her report as being stalled still… The TAtty. stated there had been a “series of changes” …”language changes”… and she “feels they’re close”… As of Nov. 16th the “ball has been in their court” …They had a “little feedback today”.. The Town Manager quickly interjected to state that feedback came from “a 3rd party ” was “nothing direct” …She also stated since “they were not going to be able to deploy anytime soon due to weather” they were “not in a hurry” …

BC- What other vendor to the Town would be able to get away with this?…

Comm. Sasser asked also on the BSO investigation of the event inventory … (prev. post)… The TM said she has received no BSO information has been received…

BC- How so?… This too has taken way too long to come back for a decisive Comm. decision on the consequences…in this writer’s opinion…

The TAtty. also said she had nothing to report this evening…

The Mayor asked for a motion to adjourn..They adjourned at 10:01 pm..

The archived video is on the Town website as well as the full backup…links are  above…

more to come…

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop … A “Wheel” Of A Deal? … LBTS Town Manager & Commission Looking For Alternatives Along With Others …

December 10, 2010 by Barbara

WHEELABRATOR  … DEAL OR NO DEAL? ….

Dear Readers … at the Dec. 7, 2010 Commission meeting we were pitched with a presentation from Waste Management and an attorney for the Broward Recovery Board to give us their sales pitch on why we want to jump on board by year’s end to join in on the new Interlocal Agreement for cities to retain the service but change the players at the table thus taking the county out and putting the cities in the driver’s seat of future decisions with equal representation which is run by nine at the present time …. The new board will meet twice a year and make determinations for every issue $100,00 and over in the 10 year commitment being sought ….He delved into the recycling issue speaking of a 75% credit by 2012 unlikely to be found elsewhere…He spoke of the “put or pay” under the present agreement that requires the need to make up for shortfalls …He added we would receive a signing bonus of $72,857.97 for signing up by Dec. 31st…. He said there was a question in the backup for this meeting about not joining the district  and either waiting to see if a better price was coming  …He stated the cost offered to us was $47.75 per ton plus a service fee that would not be in excess of $12… He spoke of Hallandale looking for alternatives three months ago and stating that was $62…He ended by saying prices will not be lower elsewhere…(The Town Manager later commented the cost of both the fee and the service charge were comparable to Hallandale…and she was correct when you added the tonnage to the service charge)… Tony from Waste Management gave a similar speech to one I recall when we were looking at other companies telling us all we have “dealing with a system that works”…We “never had a problem” ..and “Landfills are passe’”..He spoke of “environmental sustainability”..That his is a “proven system”..There would be “no blip” …If it’s not broken etc…and it’s worth to “us” and Broward county…

Most observers such as this writer would think the attorney really did a good job …so well that without the details to counter it seemed to be a no brainer ..full of positive changes for our town and the consumers …That is until the Mayor asked for questions from the Commission…

Comm. Sasser began…He said he understood that the savings are contingent upon a certain number of participants and the percentage of tonnage and the attorney responded he understood correctly…He asked why the tipping fee was up this year and the attorney spoke of the original Interlocal Agreement in the 1980s and it being new technology they were not sure of….the tipping fees were raised in accordance with the present agreement and he added the cost were there to pay off the revenue bonds .. Tony from Waste Management added that it would take five hundred million dollars to replace this type of facility today…Commissioner Sasser followed up with asking about the price being guaranteed  …and the attorney told him the in and outs of it not being more than a 5% increase …that will have “brakes” attached and if it goes over what is agreed upon we can get out of the agreement …again stating every municipality will have a vote…Comm. Sasser asked if each vote counts the same and the attorney stated they do and they don’t due to the majority of the tonnage based on those at the meetings and participating…Big and small will be “protected” by meeting at those meetings going forth with a new agreement…

Comm. Clottey passed after stating Comm.Sasser had asked her questions…

Comm. Vincent (in what would be the first of many times throughout this evening while looking at his computer screen) threw out numbers about the percentages and asked if it could not go higher than 5% in one year why were they talking about going up 10% ..The attorney explained the district was responsible if unforeseen charges were added due to environmental requirements based on the cost of living then it be more than 10% if it goes up over 40% over the life of the commitment we can leave Wheelabrator…Comm. Vincent wanted to know if the attorney or Waste Management were aware of anything coming through…The attorney answered he was not aware of anything “coming down the pike”… Comm. Vincent pushed on by asking for “lead time” for such charges in making us aware …Tony from Waste Management responded he could not answer that …it is an unknown…Comm. Vincent went on to ask about the tipping fee of $62 currently…The attorney corrected him by stating currently the fee is $99 and will go up each year until 2013 unless the amendments are mandated for it to go down… Comm. Vincent asked if it would be equitable across the board and Tony replied there would be a 40% reduction August of next year…The attorney added we would have control of any hidden expenses due to having a vote …Comm. Vincent spoke of the present ILA and disposal of hazardous waste at no additional cost and if we will have other options and costs…The attorney repeated his Hallandale scenario of 3 months ago not getting a better deal…

Vice Mayor Dodd said he was a “bit puzzled” over the statements he was being presented with of the “good intentions of the ILA”..He spoke of the municipalities paying $100 rather than $47 and the fact that Wheelabrator is enjoying excess revenues of 59.4%…He asked why they did not reduce it..The attorney quickly responded he could not speak to the returns to private company (Waste Management) and added the higher rate is due to the present agreement for the construction of the new facilities in the 80s…He added that in the last 3-4 years prior to 2008 the district was getting revenue and turning it back to “certain towns”…hence the “put or pay” he spoken  of earlier …He spoke of the bonds and the obligation…Those bonds he said were paid off two separate times…He spoke further of the “put or pay” and how a worsened economy led to the districts paying to counter for the loss of tonnage..The new agreement he said does away with that…He went back yet again to bring up Hallandale stating the “proof is in the pudding” and they have a better rate than LBTS can get for trucking it out to central Florida to go in a landfill…

Town Manager Hoffmann chime in to state she “shared in others’ frustrations…She added that those who stayed out of the ILA over the last 25 years saved “tens of millions “  …She shared the Vice Mayor’s view…

The Mayor said they should move with the recommendation of staff to go further with their research… Comm. Sasser made the motion to accept the staff’s  recommendation and VM Dodd made the 2nd …It passed 5-0 …

The next item on the agenda was public comments and there were no public comments this evening…

BC- Interesting there were no public comments this evening when this was addressed as well as sewer rates ordinance 1st reading …no comments at that either and there were no public comments made concerning parking exemption/suspension or notice of intent resolution for parking & signage…making the NOI something that should be removed as it is only a slowing of government as witnessed once again tonight and acknowledged by the TAtty on the dais in response to a question on that  being the effect from Comm. Sasser …Doing away with the NOI is on the Dec. 14th Roundtable  put on by VM Dodd….

Comm. Clottey asked that the staff recommendation be read …and it was…The recommendation is to look further at alternatives to Wheelabrator and forgo the Dec. 31st bonus of $72,000+ …

BC-We were not alone in forgoing the bonus …and not alone in our concerns over this new deal brought to us by the Broward County Commission …. The articles below from Dec.6th  and 8th showsthe “no- bid deal” made by the Broward County Commission in place before the recent elections and how after the election and on the same day we had this presentation they too “balked” along with other municipalities …..

Full text with link to articles online below….

“December 6, 2010 at 5:09 am by Dan Christensen

$1.5 billion no-bid garbage deal roils Broward cities; county votes on disposal restructuring

By Dan Christensen, BrowardBulldog.org

Oakland Park Vice Mayor Suzanne Boisvenue

A little-noticed power play that could substantially affect how much most Broward residents pay to dispose of their garbage through the next decade is set for a preliminary vote Tuesday at the Broward County Commission.

Wheelabrator, the private company that owns and operates the county’s two waste-to-energy plants, is pushing for early approval of a lucrative new agreement that would allow it to handle trash for 26 Broward cities for at least 10 years. The current agreement expires in 2013.

But the enormity of the $1.5-billion deal, and the fact that it was not competitively bid despite the high cost of trash disposal, has led some savings-minded cities to consider pulling out of the 26-city municipal coalition formed in 1986 to deal with Broward’s solid waste problem. If enough cities balk, the deal could collapse or perhaps lead to further price concessions from Wheelabrator.

What happens will be determined by a series of votes by the county and municipal members of the Broward Solid Waste Disposal District on whether to approve a new inter-local agreement (ILA). Wheelabrator’s parent, Waste Management, is dangling the incentive of a scaled “signing bonus” to cash-strapped cities who sign up before Dec. 31.

At the county, the vote won’t merely be on whether to give conditional approve the new ILA on behalf of the unincorporated areas. At the same time, county records show that commissioners will decide whether to transform the now county-dependent disposal district into an independent body with the ability to issue bonds and levy a special assessment.

Miramar and Oakland Park are two cities that think they can get significantly better deals elsewhere. And at least one other, Lauderhill, wants to think about it, too.

Miramar’s city commission voted 3-2 last week to pass up its opportunity for a $725,000 “signing bonus” by deferring approval and instructing staff to seek competitive bids from other companies that have expressed interest in the work.

“This is a very rare opportunity for us to test the free market for solid waste disposal service that could return greater benefits to the city,” said Miramar public works director Thomas Good.

Oakland Park, where public works officials have said the city can save upward of a half-a-million dollars a year if they go out to bid, appears poised to take a similar route.

At Wednesday’s Oakland Park commission meeting, City Manager John Stunson questioned the legality of the bonus payments, which vary based on how many tons of garbage cities generate. And a majority of his commissioners balked openly at approving the ILA and re-upping with Wheelabrator, which has long held a monopoly.

“I’m outraged that 20 years have gone by without a bid, and they want to do it again for another 10 years? And another 10 years after that? You tell me how that’s in the best interest of the residents of Broward County,” said Vice Mayor Suzanne Boisvenue after the meeting.

The city commission votes Dec. 15 on whether to accept or reject the new ILA and a potential $420,000 signing bonus.

On Thursday, Lauderhill commissioners agreed to hold a workshop on Dec. 13 to study the matter.

“I like to explore all options,” said Vice Mayor Howard Berger. “What Miramar has done sounds reasonable.”

To become effective, the proposed ILA must meet two thresholds. The cities that approve it must represent at least 51 percent of the population of all the cities in the current ILA, and at least 80 percent of the waste delivered to the waste-to-energy plants in 2009.

The chief administrator of the Resource Recovery Board, the governing body of the Broward Solid Waste Disposal District, said balking cities have been misled by their public works staffs into thinking they can get a better deal elsewhere.

“The staff presentation in Miramar was very flawed,” said RRB executive director Ron Greenstein, also a former state legislator. “We are far cheaper than anyone else because of our economies of scale.”

Through last week, 13 cities including Hollywood, Plantation and Coral Springs had approved the new ILA and qualified for bonuses. Fort Lauderdale and Lauderdale Lakes vote Tuesday. Deerfield Beach votes next week, according to Greenstein.

At least some of the undecided may be affected by what happens Tuesday at county hall. An initial vote to approve the ILA would demonstrate county support for the non-competitive deal the RRB negotiated with Wheelabrator and confidence in its ability to act independently. It would also net a $165,000 signing bonus for the county.

Such institutional change would mark the second defection this year of a large, big money agency from under the direct control of county government. The disgruntled Metropolitan Planning Organization, Broward’s federally-funded transportation planning group, became independent in August.

Influential members of the county’s Resource Recovery Board – including Weston Mayor Eric Hersh and Broward Commissioner Ilene Lieberman – have pushed quietly for district autonomy for months. Lieberman also serves as RRB chair. The nine-member RBB, which includes eight municipal elected officials, is the governing body that controls the district’s waste flow and sets its disposal fees.

The switch to independence is included in the ILA proposal the county commission considers Tuesday.

“The key implication of this change in status would be that the budget of the district would no longer be approved by the county commission,” says a county staff analysis of the issue. “The district does have the ability to levy a special assessment…but is generally funded by the tipping fees paid by waste haulers.”

County staff recommends passage, conditioned upon certain assurances from the district regarding about potential future liabilities and approval by enough cities to meet the required threshold.

Still, there is little or no discussion in the 12-page staff analysis as to why such a change is needed or the possible pros and cons.

Oakland Park’s Boisvenue, who is also a member of the RRB, opposes independent status.

“I think it needs oversight from the county. When you talk about this kind of money, you’ve got to wonder why this is necessary and who’s going to benefit,” she said.”
http://www.browardbulldog.org/2010/05/1-5-billion-no-bid-trash-deal-under-fire-by-cities/

………..

Dec. 8, 2010

“By Dan Christensen, BrowardBulldog.org

John Rodstrom

Unhappy that a sweeping ten-year, $1.5 billion trash deal was negotiated without competitive bidding, Broward commissioners on Tuesday refused to approve the pact until they can justify how much residents and businesses will be charged.

The 5-4 vote also asked county staff to get Waste Management to pony up more money in the deal for the county.

“They have to give us some cover on why this is a better deal and why we should not go out for bid,” said Vice Mayor John Rodstrom.

The vote was a significant blow to Waste Management’s hopes of securing early approval of a lucrative new inter-local agreement (ILA) that envisions handling trash for 26 Broward cities for 10 years, with an option for 10 more years after that. It also revealed a lack of support for a proposal to restructure Broward’s Solid Waste Disposal District as an independent district with the power to issue bonds and levy a special assessment.

Wheelabrator, the Waste Management subsidiary that operates the county’s two waste-to-energy plants, has offered “signing bonuses” worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to cash-starved cities that sign off on the deal by Dec. 31. The current ILA expires in 2013. Five cities, including Pembroke Pines and Hallandale Beach, do not participate.

Through last week, 13 cities had approved the new agreement. But municipal jitters about the no-bid deal have caused several cities to consider bolting the district, a regional coalition formed in 1986 to deal with Broward’s trash disposal problem.

Miramar voted last week to pass up its $725,000 bonus and seek competitive bids from other trash haulers that might save it a lot more. Commissioners in Oakland Park, told by staff that they can save more than $500,000 by going out to bid, have indicated they may do the same. Lauderhill wants further study.

To be approved, the ILA must represent at least 51 percent of the population of all the cities in the current agreement and at least 80 percent of the waste delivered to the waste-to-energy plants in 2009.

But in another problematic development, it was announced at the meeting that the county’s biggest waste producer – Fort Lauderdale – decided Tuesday night to defer its vote on whether to approve the deal until Dec. 21.

The county vote may embolden other municipal opponents of the Wheelabrator deal. But it could have been worse for Wheelabrator.

At one point, commissioners voted to scrap the negotiated agreement with Wheelabrator altogether. They pulled back at the urging of Ron Greenstein, executive director of the county’s Resource Recovery Board.

A majority of the commission was clearly focused on finding a better deal for Broward residents. But Commissioner Kristen Jacobs was a lone voice in pointing out that such a path is not environmentally friendly.

Among other things, she said that a rejection of the new ILA would mean the county would have to truck its solid waste to upstate landfills. And that would undermine Broward’s vaunted recycling system, she said.”

http://www.browardbulldog.org/2010/12/broward-county-balks-at-extending-waste-managements-1-5-billion-no-bid-trash-contract/

more to come….

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop … Does Santa Have A Parking Requirement At The North Pole? ….

December 9, 2010 by Barbara

HOW MANY REINDEER PER 1000 SQ. FEET? ….

Dear Readers … Vice Mayor Dodd went back and looked at what transpired during the direction given concerning item 14 a. Parking Requirement Modifications and his motion for a 3 year “compromise” for a parking suspension program …He wants to make sure the support is there for a full elimination as he contends is the way to go and does not want a repeat of what occurred earlier in the evening’s meeting when at the 11th hour this Commission did what they swore they would not …act like the previous Commission and throw out an ordinance up for 2nd reading…and cost the Town in staff/board (P+Z)/ Commission time as well as the cost incurred for the process…That item was Ord.2010-18 Amending Sec. 30-313(31) “Accessory Buildings And Structures”…It went down in a 2-3 vote with Vincent/Clottey/Minnet voting no… VM Dodd asked for an amendment to fine anyone who leaves the non-permitted  structure up during a hurricane warning to avoid damage it might cause.. I agreed with Comm. Vincent that it should not be added and thought he did a good job of comparing it to patio furniture etc… Where he went wrong was his height reconsideration …no wanting it equal to a one story house …As one reader stated smaller is a dog house not a storage shed…. This height was passed after discussion by the P & Z a few months back and in the 1st reading ordinance… It was surprising the TAtty. went along with VM Dodd’s request as she is on record when the same question of any recourse for destruction resulting to a neighbor from such a structure was asked by Mayor Minnet who used Comm. Clottey’s previous tale of her own property damage after a storm from a neighbors debris.. The TAtty. was pretty clear that the Town would not want to get in the middle of a dispute and she should have stuck to that advise when faced with this amendment …in this writer’s opinion.. After all the Mayor was correct on when Code would be going out to check …Comm. Sasser also made it clear he thought this was not his cup of tea… In the end in again what appeared to be deja vu to the previous Comm./Administration this P + Z passed ordinance went down… What should have happened is the amendment should have been voted down and the ordinance as prepared should have then been voted on.. That option should have been offered up to the Comm. by the TAtty/ TM and/or the Mayor…But Mayor Minnet is on record she did not want the ordinance in the first place and does not want sheds in residential yards…Mayor Minnet is the only member of the dais who does not live in a house with a yard …If she was she too would know sheds of this type are needed …So much for the “we need to follow the advice of our boards” defense!… What happens now for those with these sheds in their yards?… Will they be sought out as those with sheds and boats were by the Colon led Code Enforcement a few years back?… GULP!…

Vice Mayor Dodd’s Request for the Round Table …

SUBJECT TITLE: Parking Ordinance Draft
EXPLANATION: I would like a “show of Hands” whether the vote on Dec 7th truly reflects the majority wish for a
“Temporary suspension program for three years with a review ” or whether a “Parking elimination until such time program”
is what the commission really wants. I do not want to waste staff time on providing an ordinance for first reading only to
find it gets substantially changed before second reading. I do not want a repeat of the “Shed” ordinance since we as a
commission need to reach agreement by the time staff draft an Ordinance for first reading .
RECOMMENDATION: After very careful consideration I personally see no overriding legal reason why the
commission shouldn’t adopt a “Parking elimination until staff brings back a report that here is a problem” as it
conveys a totally different connotation of where we as a commission stand and our policy towards new restaurant
businesses that want to invest in our town.

BC- Let’s see those hands Commissioners…then let the PR begin…No Parking Requirements for Restaurants (types) in Lauderdale-By-The-Sea!…

On this same topic a Google produced the following from November 2001 …

“The Future of Parking in
Broward County
A guide for the development of a County Parking Policy
A report to the Transportation Planning and Air Quality
Divisions of the Broward County Department of Planning and
Environmental Protection
November 2001
The Center for Creating the Future, Inc.”

BC- If you don’t read it all…below are a few excerpts that  are my favorites…/ We can succeed with full parking exemption for restaurants to allow for businesses to come in and set up shop …which will ultimately lead to the topic of incentives offered to them from the Town and discussed ad nauseum by the past 3 Master Plan Steering Committee’s (comprised of both factions )…in order to spruce up these these businesses and buildings …. inside and out!…A jumpstart!….

“The Center emphasizes that parking solutions require less capital and shorter lead times than
other traffic-related actions and can be adopted as needed.”

“We live today with the restrictions and rules
decided at least 10 years ago. Each local government has standards that impose requirements
for parking, ranging from upper-end suburban cities where every car is required to be in a
garage, to Fort Lauderdale, where there is no requirement for parking in the downtown. If asked,
most residents of Fort Lauderdale would probably be surprised that their city does not require
parking for new buildings downtown, but this is not as dramatic as it sounds. A developer
wouldn’t be able to get financing or tenants if there were no parking. The market, not the city,
sets the amount of parking needed. The recommendations in this report can be put in place at the
discretion of policymakers to diminish the negative impacts of additional parking that will be
added in the coming years.”

“Since this is a parking study, we assume that, as the County’s population increases, the demand
for parking will increase. This is not strictly linear, i.e. one person does not equal one car equals
X residential and job-related parking spaces. It requires, at the very least, age and income
analysis as well as marketing trends analysis. For example — just two of the many possible
examples — will the trend of more people eating more meals outside the home continue or
decline as we age? The Center forecasts dramatic 10-to-20-year increases in the longevity of the
US population over the next 30 to 50 years, so will we drive more (more free time) or less
(reduced skills)? Probably both: with more people over the age of 75, virtually all will want to
remain mobile. Some of us will require more shuttles and others will continue to drive (using
anti-aging nutrients to retain our faculties).
There are several trends that could lead to reduced demand for parking spaces: more reliance on
public transportation, more telecommuting, and more internet and telephone shopping. As the
analysis and the recommendations will demonstrate, PARKING SOLUTIONS ARE MUCH
LESS CAPITAL INTENSE AND HAVE MUCH SHORTER IMPLEMENTATION TIMES
THAN RELATED TRAFFIC-ISSUE SOLUTIONS. Necessary changes can be made
incrementally with much less risk of time and capital. (THIS IS A KEY POINT OF THIS
STUDY. Key points will be highlighted and numbered. This is Key Point 1.)”

“We have followed many paths in our research, our analysis, and our presentation. The Center
considers it essential that such studies be accessible to the informed general public as well as
technicians and experienced policy makers. A thick stack of paper simply will not be read. Our
report is meant to be seen and the mounds of data available will be accessible but not included.
The information presented will be what is necessary to begin developing a plan for the future.
That plan can begin to be implemented at once, in six months, or two years. As the specific
recommendations will make clear, some should begin sooner rather than later, that is, to
CREATE THE FUTURE OF PARKING NOW RATHER THAN WAITING FOR IT. (Key
Point 2.)”

“Market clearing
Finally, there is the effect of people’s daily choices: If it gets too bad, they just won’t do it. If the
experience of parking is too stressful, expensive or difficult, people won’t park there and they
will go somewhere else. (Key Point 5.) It is easy to misunderstand this phenomenon, known to
economists as market clearing. It is part process, part explanation, part solution. Some simple
examples: we will not reach actual gridlock; people will go elsewhere. We will not run out of
oil: we will switch to substitutes or change our behavior.
We often hear people say that some location in Broward County has reached its traffic or parking
limit. Perhaps. For example, traffic in Miami is worse, yet tolerated. There are parking
facilities in Miami which have eight or more levels of parking, all full. There is obviously some
attraction in Miami, either jobs, business opportunities, entertainment, or whatever, that
continues to pull different people, at different times, into Miami in spite of the congestion. Also,
it is clear, at least anecdotally, that there are people who don’t go to Miami because of the
congestion who would go, or perhaps so at off peak times, if there was less congestion. Each location, of course, will have a different degree of “magnetism.”

“The Center recommends creation of a Parking Information Network which would provide local
officials, developers and individuals with more information and more accessible information
about parking options.
A comment about the role of public policy in the evolution of parking: “Public policy today
determines the environment of 2010 and beyond.” We live today with the restrictions and rules
decided at least 10 years ago. Each local government has standards that impose requirements
for parking, ranging from upper-end suburban cities where every car is required to be in a
garage, to Fort Lauderdale, where there is no requirement for parking in the downtown. If asked,
most residents of Fort Lauderdale would probably be surprised that their city does not require
parking for new buildings downtown, but this is not as dramatic as it sounds. A developer
wouldn’t be able to get financing or tenants if there were no parking. The market, not the city,
sets the amount of parking needed. The recommendations in this report can be put in place at the
discretion of policymakers to diminish the negative impacts of additional parking that will be
added in the coming years.”

…………………

Extensive Excerpts ………

“Executive Summary
Introduction
Broward County’s Division of Transportation Planning asked the Center for Creating the Future,
Inc., to look at the future of parking issues in Broward County, including a study of current
parking conditions in Broward County, the impact of these conditions on drivers and the
environment, options for responses to anticipated parking conditions, and recommendations.
The Center has presented this report in an innovative fashion, maintaining its work on an ongoing
basis on its web site, www.creatingthefuture.org, and publishing it on a compact disk as
well as in print format. The print format has been designed to approximate a web site in its
appearance, with many pictures.
Parking presents more issues than just “Do we have enough places to park?” In addition to the
objective reality of sufficient spaces, perceptions of sufficiency, ease of access and
environmental impact must also be considered. Further, while we have focused on parking,
parking issues are inextricably linked with traffic issues and, to that extent, we have addressed
that link. Simply put, if parking is plentiful, more people will drive; if parking is difficult, fewer
people will drive (or they will go elsewhere). Put another way, the better the parking, the more
likely traffic will increase: if you build more parking facilities, just as if you build more roads,
they will come. Restricting parking, coupled with providing options to driving (e.g., remote
parking and shuttles or more and better public transportation) will reduce demand for parking.

Presently, there is not an objective shortage of parking in Broward County except for certain
peak times at popular commercial locations and in the area surrounding the Broward County
Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale.
There is, however, a perception of a parking shortage, resulting from the rapid development of
certain areas, and a lack of adequate information about parking locations. Also, drivers,
accustomed to surface parking, are reluctant to use parking ramps, especially the higher floors of
those ramps. Stress on many drivers results from these conditions.
This report also emphasizes the environmental damage resulting from too many cars driving
around, looking for the perfect parking space. Methods for reducing this environmental damage
are presented. The study concludes that demand for parking is most likely to increase as the
population increases. It presents a wide variety of options in response to those increased
demands ranging from providing better information about parking options, to diversion of
drivers to public transportation or remove parking and shuttles into impacted areas.
Providing more parking downtown will increase traffic and congestion, but that gives all the
more reason for public policy makers to maximize the use of existing spaces rather than just
allowing more spaces to be built.
The Center recommends creation of a Parking Information Network which would provide local
officials, developers and individuals with more information and more accessible information
about parking options.
A comment about the role of public policy in the evolution of parking: “Public policy today
determines the environment of 2010 and beyond.” We live today with the restrictions and rules
decided at least 10 years ago. Each local government has standards that impose requirements
for parking, ranging from upper-end suburban cities where every car is required to be in a
garage, to Fort Lauderdale, where there is no requirement for parking in the downtown. If asked,
most residents of Fort Lauderdale would probably be surprised that their city does not require
parking for new buildings downtown, but this is not as dramatic as it sounds. A developer
wouldn’t be able to get financing or tenants if there were no parking. The market, not the city,
sets the amount of parking needed. The recommendations in this report can be put in place at the
discretion of policymakers to diminish the negative impacts of additional parking that will be
added in the coming years.

Conclusion
The Center emphasizes that parking solutions require less capital and shorter lead times than
other traffic-related actions and can be adopted as needed. However, since we can anticipate
these future needs, we have the opportunity to act before they become critical and can become
even better able to anticipate the future by developing better information.

1. Overview of present issues
Conventionally, a parking study involves taking a discrete area, analyzing the zoning uses and
densities and multiplying by a formula or formulas to arrive at an estimated need for parking.
An example is the Beach Study completed in 2000 for the City of Fort Lauderdale by Walker
Parking Consultants, which used a growth rate of 2.88% to predict an estimated shortfall of 758
parking spaces during the busiest season by 2005 (growing to a deficit of 2,209 spaces by
2020).
This study will go well beyond that. This study will address parking issues throughout Broward
County and, while urban areas with intense commercial uses will receive the most attention,
suburban commercial areas and certain residential parking issues will be addressed.

While the basic issue is, is there enough parking and, if not, what can be done about it, we will
also address the negative environmental impacts of parking: emissions resulting from searching
for parking spaces inside and outside ramps and the loss of carbon dioxide-oxygen exchange as
more grass is paved over.
Since this is a parking study, we assume that, as the County’s population increases, the demand
for parking will increase. This is not strictly linear, i.e. one person does not equal one car equals
X residential and job-related parking spaces. It requires, at the very least, age and income
analysis as well as marketing trends analysis. For example — just two of the many possible
examples — will the trend of more people eating more meals outside the home continue or
decline as we age? The Center forecasts dramatic 10-to-20-year increases in the longevity of the
US population over the next 30 to 50 years, so will we drive more (more free time) or less
(reduced skills)? Probably both: with more people over the age of 75, virtually all will want to
remain mobile. Some of us will require more shuttles and others will continue to drive (using
anti-aging nutrients to retain our faculties).
There are several trends that could lead to reduced demand for parking spaces: more reliance on
public transportation, more telecommuting, and more internet and telephone shopping. As the
analysis and the recommendations will demonstrate, PARKING SOLUTIONS ARE MUCH
LESS CAPITAL INTENSE AND HAVE MUCH SHORTER IMPLEMENTATION TIMES
THAN RELATED TRAFFIC-ISSUE SOLUTIONS. Necessary changes can be made
incrementally with much less risk of time and capital. (THIS IS A KEY POINT OF THIS
STUDY. Key points will be highlighted and numbered. This is Key Point 1.)

Finally, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have raised another issue which was not
foreseen in the original scope of this study. Security should, however, be addressed as the extent
of the risk becomes clarified. A look back at the history of similar events shows that present
responses are almost certainly overly cautious, but nonetheless, the issue should be addressed at
a later time.
We have, to the extent possible, made an effort to limit this study to parking issues and not slide
into traffic issues. In fact, the separation is not a clear or simple one. At a very basic supplydemand
level, more and cheaper parking will attract more cars, creating more traffic.
Conversely, limited, expensive parking will discourage drivers and limit traffic.
Many analyses of traffic problems look to parking restrictions as a traffic control mechanism.
(See Alan Durning’s article.) In downtown San Francisco, creation of new parking spaces is
strictly limited in an effort to deflect people to public transportation.
Further, poor parking information can cause drivers to spend time and road space looking for
parking spaces, thus increasing traffic volume. Occasionally, cars back up entering crowded
parking facilities, either at ramps or surface lots, can actually block road traffic.

This report will not expand into traffic issues, but the reader should keep in mind that improving
parking conditions will improve traffic conditions.
2. Methods
We have followed many paths in our research, our analysis, and our presentation. The Center
considers it essential that such studies be accessible to the informed general public as well as
technicians and experienced policy makers. A thick stack of paper simply will not be read. Our
report is meant to be seen and the mounds of data available will be accessible but not included.
The information presented will be what is necessary to begin developing a plan for the future.
That plan can begin to be implemented at once, in six months, or two years. As the specific
recommendations will make clear, some should begin sooner rather than later, that is, to
CREATE THE FUTURE OF PARKING NOW RATHER THAN WAITING FOR IT. (Key
Point 2.)
Each reader should be able to reach his or her own conclusions from the presentation as to the
timing of the recommendations.

Present Parking Conditions in Broward County
We will address four elements regarding present parking conditions in Broward County:
a) Availability: Is there enough parking?
b) Access: How easy is it to park?
c) Perceptions: Why is parking stressful?
d) Environmental impacts of parking
a) Is there enough parking in Broward County?
There are some calculations about adequacy of parking in Broward County, but certainly nothing
approaching completeness. Since it would be a number which changed daily, as new spaces are
developed and old spaces put to other uses, without constant updating, even a 99% accurate
number (unlikely) would quickly become out of date.
(A rough estimate of parking available in 17 garages for Downtown Fort Lauderdale is 10,688
spaces. Details of this estimate are given on the Future of Parking web site at
www.geocities.com/futureofparking/pin.html.) In addition, the inventory would need to be
matched with demand requirements, an even more elusive target (see page 19 for a case study of
two office buildings, where the ratio of employees to parking spaces approaches 1.25-to-1, one
of the highest ratios in Broward County). To some degree, demand and utilization are a function
of availability. The easier it is to park, the less likely we are to consider alternatives such as
walking, public transportation or staying put.

Extensive observations and interviews, while necessarily anecdotal, have provided evidence
which indicates there is no actual shortage of parking spaces in Broward County. (The
perception of shortages will be addressed below.) This can be checked by observation and
experience. For example, viewing the area thought to be in the most critical condition,
downtown Fort Lauderdale, from the top floor of any tall building will reveal, at any given time,
significant numbers of empty spaces. Similarly, on a tour of downtown, one will only
occasionally encounter a “Lot Full” sign.
There are exceptions. In bad weather, indoor parking can reach capacity as more people wish to
park indoors and those already in, choose to stay in. The area around the Broward County
Courthouse also experiences overloads in the morning hours as lawyers, litigants and jurors all
attempt to find nearby spaces at the same time. Recent security measures have exacerbated this
situation. Prior to that, the switch to selecting jurors from the list of licensed drivers rather than
from the list of registered voters increased the size of the jury pools necessary to fill juries. More
pre-screening (already suggested to County parking officials by The Center) may improve this
situation.
People’s expectations that a parking space should be in the very closest proximity to their
destination, adds to the Courthouse problem and the concomitant morning congestion.
There is considerable expansion of parking facilities on the north side of the New River, at the
Bank of America building, the first Union Building and One River Plaza. Another peak load
circumstance in the downtown is the Florida Atlantic University/Broward Community College
Higher Education Complex at Las Olas and Southeast Third Avenue. That problem is
compounded by student and faculty expectations that parking should not only be contiguous to
the buildings but free as well. Utilization of the top floor of the City Park garage by FAU and
BCC has improved this situation considerably.

Peak-Hour Shortages
Elsewhere in Broward County, parking shortages are almost entirely peak-hour problems,
usually resulting from demand that exceeds the conventional parking formulas. One or more
exceptionally popular restaurants or bars can throw off the conventional calculations for a
shopping center by a wide margin. Market clearing and the usual ebb and flow of consumer
choices will usually handle these situations: that is, either because of the parking difficulties or
just the fickleness of popular taste, the “crisis” will pass. Some cities, such as Weston, have
responded by changing their formulas. (A complete set of parking ordinances for Broward
County and its municipalities can be accessed by sending an e-mail message to Rosalia Bunge
(rbunge@co.broward.fl.us) at Broward County’s Department of Planning and Environmental
Protection.)
Private-sector strategies can include providing valet parking at peak times, which increases both
customer satisfaction and parking capacity and raising prices. (A fuller discussion of pricing
strategies will be found below). Fort Lauderdale Beach, for example has less intense parking

problems than a few years ago, when it seemed that “everyone” had to go to Beach Place.
Other commercial situations, such as warehouses and office parks, seem to be satisfactorily
served by present formulas. The City of Weston has added an innovative approach to these uses
by tailoring the parking requirements of new office park developments to the actual intended
use. For example, a trans-shipping facility with a small number of employees and no visiting
customers will be required to make fewer spaces than an electronics assembly facility or
telemarketing operation.
Opportunities to park in residential developments also seem to be adequate at this time, with a
few serious exceptions. When the resident mix of a multi- unit complex changes, severe
problems can result. Most of the condominiums built in the 1970s in Broward County were
designed for retirees who rarely had more than one vehicle. Those unit owners are now being
replaced by much younger couples, in most of which both partners work. Further, as housing
costs rise, apartments which were previously rented to one person and one car are now being
occupied by two working roommates. Given the economic status of these projects, most
physical solutions are not financially feasible, for example, tearing down some buildings to
create parking space or acquiring adjacent properties for more parking. The cost squeeze in
these situations can be severe and while it is not a public obligation, local governments need to
be aware and prepared to assist with zoning changes and in other ways.
There are a few other special peak-hour situations such as churches and various special events
where alternatives to supplying more parking, discussed below, should be considered.
To sum up, there is no overall parking shortage, much less a parking crisis, in Broward County in
terms of availability of parking spaces. That, however, is not the whole story. Access to parking
is an important component of any parking analysis. How can we make parking easier for
people?

b) Access: How easy it is to park?
Improving access to parking, making it easier to park, increases the perception of availability of
parking and reduces the stress of parking. (Key Point 3.)
Presently, people feel there are fewer parking spaces than there actua lly are because they are not
aware of them or feel they are difficult to find or park in.
The problem surfaces in different ways for different people. Tourists may be completely
unaware of parking locations, occasional visitors unaware of all the possibilities and frequent
parkers unaware of alternatives to their accustomed parking spot. Once at the parking garage or
area, signage or lighting may be inadequate, making the parking experience an unpleasant one.
Special events, which change traffic patterns, such as a Las Olas Art Fair or the Air and Sea
Show, compound access to parking dramatically , but they also give us examples of how to deal

with even everyday parking problems.
First, information for the public, from both governmental and private sources, should be plentiful
and understandable. As a driver approaches his or her destination, information should be
continuously available. Even within a parking structure, signage is important, both its visual
clarity and its understandability. As people know more and their experiences get better, the time
necessary to park will decrease, as will stress. Those responsible should thoroughly test their
signs for these factors.
Signs are proliferating throughout our environment. As we increase information about parking
access, it must be done in an esthetically pleasing fashion. It should also be predictable, that is,
in the same locations as testing shows most enhances readability. Absorbing the information
should distract drivers as little as possible, while being effective.
In Europe, much effort goes into making parking “invisible”, concealing parking facilities to the
greatest degree possible. Where it is essential to preserve the historical and esthetic appeal of an
area, this is appropriate. Too often, however, these suggestions come from people who are
merely hostile to automobiles. Most Americans do not share these feelings.

The Aesthetics of Parking
Parking facilities should be as attractive as any other part of our visual environment but they
needn’t be invisible. U.S. drivers like to see where their car is and is going to be. (Key Point 4.)
That factor should not be ignored by planners and urban designers.
c) Perceptions: Why is parking stressful?
The 1990 Census put Fort Lauderdale’s population at 149,377 and in 2000 the city stood at
152,397. The County’s population is over ten times that, 1,623,018 (2000). In 1970, it was only
620,100, just before the take-off. Further, while Fort Lauderdale has long been the County seat,
its downtown and beach did not begin to take off until the mid-1990s. Similarly, suburban
communities have only recently jumped not only in residential population (Weston, Sunrise,
Plantation, Coral Springs), but in commercial development. As a result, all but the most recent
arrivals remember when they could park “anywhere” with no hassle and virtually no charge.
They have forgotten that there was little or nothing to do when they got there. The infrastructure
of downtown Fort Lauderdale, the government office buildings such as the Federal Courthouse,
the State of Florida Office Building, were built in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s but the private
sector response did not kick in until the early ‘90s, fueled to a significant degree by the multiple
offshoots of the entrepreneurial energy of Wayne Huizenga and his associates. All of a sudden,
after 20 years of effort downtown was an “overnight success.” Street parking or the first floor or
two of a parking garage was not enough to park everyone, so a garage building boom in Fort
Lauderdale has given the city more than ten garages with more than 4 levels.

What are acceptable parking conditions?
A parking space on the fourth floor of a parking garage underneath or adjacent to one’s office
building for a monthly fee of $70 (a bargain in New York and an ecstatic circumstance even in
Miami) is considered an insuperable burden in Broward County. On Fort Lauderdale beach,
after the (forced) departure of Spring Break in 1985 and 1986, there was an idyllic period
beginning in the early 1990s when redevelopment was as yet undiscovered. One had the feeling
of having the beach to oneself. When the rest of South Florida and the world discovered our
paradise, things changed. The “crisis” came with the opening of Beach Place, a multi-story
complex of shops and restaurants attached to a time-share hotel. “Everyone” not only had to go
there, they had to park there, not a block away. Now that the initial excitement has calmed down
and people have gotten more savvy, traffic and parking have subsided to the level of “merely
very crowded” during the peak of the tourist season.
Similarly, as suburban communities like Weston and Coral Springs grew, commercial
development moving to the rhythms of natural economic patterns did not always keep up. That,
plus the occasional hyperpopularity of a particular bar, restaurant or shop, would lead to a
parking “crisis.” Eventually, the market place and individuals responded to these conditions:
more parking is created, more restaurants are opened in other areas, and people change their
behavior, either consciously or unconsciously. If a parking or traffic “crisis” continues at a
particular location, it means people want to go there and will pay the price in time and stress.
Local governments can only do so much about these perceptions, but there are several relatively
easy steps which can be taken in the near term to ameliorate these problems. They will be set
forth in our recommendations. It is difficult to quantify the stress levels caused by parking
problems, but they do have social and individual health consequences and should not be brushed
off.

d) Environmental impacts of parking
Most people do not consider parking as an environmental issue, but in fact it is.
In congested downtown areas, it is easiest to see: cars driving around looking for a place to park
add to the amount of air pollution. Within parking structures, where exhausts are trapped, is a
further intensification of the problem. Exhaust fans or open structures reduce the levels inside
the structures by spreading pollutants to the outside, but this only adds to ambient pollution
levels. Air quality regulators are aware of this and limit the amount of exhaust pollution allowed
within designated areas and increased development can be halted if levels are exceeded (see the
web page about the Parking Facility License).
Air Quality
Broward County is presently regarded as having adequate air quality (after having been under
EPA restrictions that required vehicle emissions to be checked annually). Our air quality is

constantly being monitored and we must be continuously aware of the impact of automobile
generated pollution on our air quality and quality of life.
The issue is not limited to densely deve loped urban areas. Large suburban parking lots can also
be large generators of auto exhaust as people search for parking spaces. Furthermore, the
instinctive response to a shortage of parking, even if only at a few peak periods, is to require
paving over more land for more parking. This not only fails to reduce pollution, it reduces air
quality by eliminating vegetation which cleans our air and exchanges carbon dioxide for
oxygen. Also, while we now require storm water runoff to be contained on site at parking lots, if
the water does not filter back into the aquifer, it will either require expensive treatment or dump
pollutants into our waterways.

The Future of Parking in Broward County
(Most Likely Outcomes)
The easiest projection to make of any future trend is a straight line following existing data. In
the case of parking needs in Broward County, or almost anywhere, the easiest forecast would be
to take present spaces — exact number unknown — and multiply by the anticipated increase in the
population. It then becomes a simple matter to predict that Broward County will need to provide
“more” parking spaces, both public and private, tied to population forecasts. A more
conservative forecast would be “much more” parking, the outer limit would be “a whole lot
more.” This is not just an attempt at humor, it is a reductio ad absurdum of present parking
planning: build more of the same as demand requires.
Refining our forecasts
This model falls well short of what is possible. First, population numbers can be refined.
Driving, working, education, shopping, entertaining are some of the constituent elements of
parking demand that can be made much more precise by demographic analysis: age and income,
information which is easily accessible, can reduce or increase the forecast of anticipated drivers
and their likely destinations. Young children need to be driven to school, older children will in
many cases drive themselves. Age and income figures, properly analyzed, can give us
reasonably reliable figures on shopping, dining out, employment and so forth. Private sector
marketing analyses do this all the time. Knowing the answer to these questions can help us to
refine our forecasts, reducing the chance of over- or under-reaction. Fortunately, parking
changes require a relatively short-term turnaround, and corrections can be relatively easily made.
In addition to refining our forecasts, there are plausible alternatives that could lead to a need for
less parking than a simple or even complex demographic forecast would indicate.
Transportation planners for many years have been urging more reliance on public transportation
and this message is beginning to influence decision makers. Investment in Tri- Rail has been
increased. Expansion of Miami-Dade’s MetroRail into Broward County, the Community Bus

program in various municipalities, the Waterbus waterways transportation program and
expansion of conventional bus service, with more routes, longer hours of service and shorter
intervals between buses are all underway. Historically, these changes have lagged population
increases, but that is beginning to change, with public transportation ridership showing greater
increases, in some circumstances, than the population. While this is not the place to discus s the
cost-effectiveness of such programs, there is no doubt that greater availability, improved access,
better information, and momentum* will increase ridership and reduce demand for parking.
Impact of technology
Other trends, difficult to quantify, will also have some impact. More people are doing some or
all of their work at home. As the technologies which facilitate working at or near home become
better and more familiar, such as wireless Internet access, voice recognition for email and
teleconferencing, we can expect these trends to reduce traffic and parking demand.
Similarly, while the bursting of the dot-com bubble has put a hold on shop-at-home trends, there
is no doubt that these programs will resume and to a greatly expanded audience as convenience,
product quality and service improve. Publix, for example, is undertaking an Internet grocery
shopping service. While the timing of widespread acceptance of this service is uncertain, it is
not difficult to imagine a virtual shopping experience: going down aisles, looking at shelves,
making selections and then having them delivered to a specially designed food-port at one’s
home or apartment. We can see this future; it’s the timing that’s unclear. When it happens,
parking demand will be reduced. A further extension of this notion: as the quality of prepared
foods continues to increase as it has been, another reason to leave home or park at a store or
restaurant on the way home will be eliminated. This will not happen all of a sudden, but it is
happening now. Its impact is hard to measure, but this part of the future is beginning to happen
now.
Market clearing
Finally, there is the effect of people’s daily choices: If it gets too bad, they just won’t do it. If the
experience of parking is too stressful, expensive or difficult, people won’t park there and they
will go somewhere else. (Key Point 5.) It is easy to misunderstand this phenomenon, known to
economists as market clearing. It is part process, part explanation, part solution. Some simple
examples: we will not reach actual gridlock; people will go elsewhere. We will not run out of
oil: we will switch to substitutes or change our behavior.
We often hear people say that some location in Broward County has reached its traffic or parking
limit. Perhaps. For example, traffic in Miami is worse, yet tolerated. There are parking
facilities in Miami which have eight or more levels of parking, all full. There is obviously some
attraction in Miami, either jobs, business opportunities, entertainment, or whatever, that
continues to pull different people, at different times, into Miami in spite of the congestion. Also,
it is clear, at least anecdotally, that there are people who don’t go to Miami because of the
congestion who would go, or perhaps so at off peak times, if there was less congestion. Each

location, of course, will have a different degree of “magnetism.”
In any case, market-clearing will to some degree suppress demand if conditions are “below
acceptable” to certain individuals.
Alternatives (Possible Outcomes)
The relationship between Parking and Congestion is close: If drivers know that there is a
parking space waiting for them, they will try to drive to work. Congestion takes place because
drivers are arriving at or near the traditional beginning of the office work day (9 a.m.).
Flextime, an arrangement where arrival times are staggered, is used in other metropolitan areas
to reduce the peak congestion. A survey was conducted as part of this study to determine the
level of support for flexible arrival times. Past surveys have indicated that managers are less
enthusiastic than their employees are about later start times.
The survey included a question that specifically mentioned e-mail, which has become more
widespread. This survey is believed to be the first to ask about answering e-mail from a home
computer. The survey was sent to the Stiles Buildings 350 and 450 East Las Olas and 800
copies were distributed, thanks to assistance and coordination by Judy Carter, the building
manager.

The Question
Are you able to do some of your work at home, perhaps answering email before you commute to
work after the rush hour? The responses are probably more from people who are advocates of
flex-time work schedules. We expect that the results will fall to about 20 in 100 in support of
flex time.
The critical impediments mentioned in the report are
“My boss wants me in the office at 9 a.m.”
“The e-mail system does not allow me to view the email from home.”
Possible actions
An education campaign could be started, drawing on the experience of companies in Southern
California, where thousands of workers arrive earlier or later and avoid the rush hour.
Creating an email account on a web-based email system, such as Yahoo.com or hotmail.com,
allows the workers to check e-mail from home. Perhaps a worker who arrives early to work can
check the email for other workers and forward e- mail messages to the “later-arriving” workers to
work on before they come to the office.
Parking Information Sources Which Are Available Now
The following contact numbers will allow most organizers of events to quickly identify 90% of

the convenient garage space available for use by event attendees on weekends and evenings:
County Parking Garages (located west of Andrews Avenue and South of Broward Blvd.)
a) the Garage shared with Riverfront Mall
b) the Garage connected by a skywalk to the Government Center
The County Courthouse parking garage (1800 spaces)
Ed Davis, 954.357.6030, fax 954.357.5544
edavis@broward.org
115 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 504
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Ed Davis is the County’s Parking Manager — A position created when the country began to lease
its spaces through a professional parking management company.
Judy Carter, Stiles Building Property Manager, 954.525.9316, at judyc@stiles.com, covering the
properties at 350 East Las Olas Blvd. (725 parking spaces) and 450 East Las Olas Blvd. (577
parking spaces), totaling 1302 spaces
City of Fort Lauderdale, John Hoelzle, 954.828.3700, with 2,127 parking spaces in the City Park
Parking Garage (and 31 handicapped spaces). Spaces are available in the parking garage next to
the main library. In the month of August 2001, the city sold 2,531 permits for the 2,127 spaces
(obviously, not everyone with a permit uses the space every day).
Creating the Future of Parking in Broward County (Recommendations)
We do not have to sit and wait for the future to arrive. The basic principle of The Center for
Creating the Future, Inc., is tha t we can create our future by understanding what it holds in store
for us and by acting now to prepare for it.
Broward County can begin to create the future of parking in a variety of ways which we will
present as a menu of policy choices. Most of these choices can be immediately implemented,
others have a longer time frame for implementation, whether because the problem is not yet
severe enough or the technology, while foreseeable, is not yet available as a practical matter.
The first choice, which we strongly reject, is to do nothing.
Doing nothing is a choice just as much as adopting one or more policy choices (Key Point 6).
Doing nothing actually means choosing to have a wide variety of public and private decision
makers respond on an ad hoc basis to each need or “crisis” as it arises. If the response is
inadequate, people will adjust various ways and life will go on (see discussion above about
market clearing).
The difficulty with this choice is that it is unnecessarily inefficient. We say unnecessarily
because, as will be shown, parking can be improved without massive capital investment and
long-term projects. Parking is not so complex a matter that the “invisible hand” of the market
will produce a better result as would be the case where the scope of the problem exceeds the
grasp of public policy. While parking is not as simple a matter as it appears to most people at
first blush, neither does it require the resources needed to put people on the Moon (which, of
course, we did).

Better data
Better decisions, public or private, individual or institutional, require better data. As mentioned
at the beginning of this report, some parking data is available but changes occur so frequently
that any given snapshot is of limited value.
Specific data is important for two uses: planning and consumer information.
Public or private parking decision makers should be able to access not only current parking data
but to interact with that data with their own plans and marketing information so that we don’t go
from not enough parking in a given situation to too much because three developers built 900
spaces each when there was a demonstrated need for only 1500 spaces.
Further, an accurate Parking Data Bank would become the basis for providing parking
availability information to consumers. Initially, this could be done in the form of area parking
maps and a web site showing parking locations. This could over time develop into a very
sophisticated system – initially with an online or call- in parking availability service, later a radio
format with parking information and eventually an interactive Global Positioning system (GPS).
The Miami Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization is presently considering a full- time radiobased
traffic information system. If accurate parking data were available, it could easily be
added to this radio format.

Parking Information Network
To make such data useful, Broward County could create a Parking Information Network (PIN).
This Network would, at a minimum, provide parking data to municipal and private parking
developers. It could also provide parking availability information to consumers online and
through tourist oriented brochures and, as need/demand increased, go to more sophisticated
communication methods.
Local parking providers could also make this information available to tenants and customers. At
the local level, it is also essential to provide effective, attractive and consistent parking signage
for both drivers on the street and within parking structures and lots. Better information is an
important first step to reducing parking stress (to say parking rage would be a bit much) and to
reducing pollution emitted by parking space hunting. The importance of interior signs should
not be minimized. Many parking structures and even surface lots we studied do not clearly show
the driver where to go – or not go – and drivers can end up frustrated, wasting gas and generating
unnecessary pollution.
Improving communication

A Parking Information Network would serve two very important purposes: to facilitate the most
efficient use of existing parking resources, thereby reducing the need for excessive parking
structures or lots; it could then become the platform for new consumer information technology as
it is developed and needed.
The Downtown Fort Lauderdale Transportation Management Association (DFLTMA) is drafting
a proposal (as of November 2001) to develop an inventory of parking spaces. This would be the
first step for creating a Parking Information Network. The TMA is the ideal public-private
partnership to implement the full PIN as it develops. We consider the network to be the
foundation of creating the Future of Parking for Broward County.
Immediate Steps
In addition to the Parking Information Network, there are many specific steps that can be taken
by either municipal or private parking facilities to improve the amount and accessibility of
parking in Broward County.
With or without a Parking Information Network, municipalities and public and private parking
facilities should provide more and better parking information in the form of maps, advertising
and the internet. There are several dramatic examples of how careful coordination and better
information can significantly improve parking conditions even under very adverse
circumstances: the Fort Lauderdale Air and Sea Show, the Winterfest Boat Parade and the Las
Olas Art Fairs. The Air and Sea Show and the Boat Parade have demonstrated how offsite
parking can work, bringing hundreds of thousands of people to Fort Lauderdale beach from
remote parking sites, most on buses but some even on foot. The Air and Sea Show and Boat
Parade are, of course, once-a-year events and very strong attractions. Nonetheless, it shows what
can be done and what people will do given good planning and information.
A Case Study: Las Olas Art Fair
The most recent Las Olas Art Fair was studied closely as another example of what can be done
with intelligent effort. Like the Air and Sea Show, the circumstances are out of the ordinary: an
art fair on a street which is a main route to the beach, running through residential areas sensitive
to the impact of the traffic and parking generated by the Fair. In addition, some of the merchants
on the street are ambivalent about the impact of the crowds on their particular businesses. All
together, a difficult set of problems requiring good planning and great diplomacy. It was a very
instructive case study.
To lessen the impact on the residential streets, fair attendees were not allowed access to the area.
Instead, signs directed them to fair parking at the City Park Garage and free shuttle buses took
them to Las Olas. The program was generally successful.
Lessons learned from the Las Olas Art Fair:
Properly informed and motivated people will accept remote parking;
Bigger and better signs would have helped (see graphics);
Coordinate with other area parking facilities;
If we do it again, it will work even better.
(collected from responses by observers and participants in the new parking arrangements
associated with the Las Olas Art Fair.)

Remote Parking
Remote parking is one of the most frequently mentioned “solutions” to parking and congestion
problems. Attempts have been made in Broward County using the Tri- Rail parking lot at
Broward and I-95, and the City of Fort Lauderdale experimented using the Arts and Science
District Garage for employees. Presently, a TMAX community bus route from State Road 7 and
Oakland Park Boulevard to downtown Fort Lauderdale is operated by the Transportation
Management Association (TMA).
This program could be called a success with 8 round trips (4 in the morning, 4 in the afternoon)
with an average of 57 riders at rush hour each day. Until the crunch is severe, those solutions
will work best which require the least change of behavior by consumers. (Key Point 7.)
Staggered Work Hours
Another example of an idea which requires behavioral changes is staggered work hours. There is
no real reason in many work situations why people need to arrive and leave work between 8:00-
8:30 a.m. and 5:00-5:30 p.m. A survey we conducted for this study shows some individuals are
willing to do this (some may already be doing so without a program), but for many employers,
the response is simply “we’ve never done it that way.”
Live-work arrangements
Live-work arrangements are another way to stagger hours – one need not work every hour at
home – do your e- mail at home and then drive to work or to a meeting. Again, this is more a
congestion than parking matter, but as more people do some, if not all, work at home, the
demands at peak times will decline.
Price mechanisms
Price mechanisms can be an effective way to modify behavior. As we have shown in the marketclearing”
discussion, incentives and disincentives of various kinds can make people change their
behavior. Requiring all parking to be paid by the consumer – no “free” parking for public or
private employees — and raising the prices for parking would certainly reduce demand and both
traffic and parking congestion. What sounds good to the planner or economist may not sound so
good to the individual. Most Americans consider free parking from their employer virtually a
God-given right. Students at the downtown campus of Florida Atlantic University and Broward
Community College feel the same way. They are willing to have a portion of their student
activity fees used to pay for parking, but do not want to pay directly.
Like off- site parking, increasing the direct cost to the consumer can be effective where there is
sufficient motivation. People happily pay parking fees in New York in amounts that would not
be tolerated in Broward County. Even within the county, boosting fees in downtown Fort
Lauderdale could lead to chasing businesses to other locations in the County or in other counties,
which would not only impact downtown businesses but encourage and exacerbate sprawl.
Other techniques, some low-tech which can be implemented immediately, and others which are
higher-tech and higher cost, are available.
Valet Parking
Valet parking, while requiring higher personnel costs, can dramatically increase the capacity of
any parking facility and is easily done in surface lots. It also reduces parking time and stress for
the consumer. Most commonly found at restaurants as a consumer service, it can be much more
widely applied. There are a few office buildings presently using it due to severe shortage of
parking spaces. Valet parking does not work as well where everyone arrives or leaves at the
same time as do most employees, but it does work well for in-and-out and client parking needs.
Robotic Parking
At the high-tech end (see graphic), robotic parking can also increase capacity and reduce
consumer time and stress. A robotic facility uses a pallet storage system for each car, reducing
pollution at the parking site and increasing the capacity of any given land footprint. Presently,
one cannot build a robotic facility in Broward County since parking structure construction codes
require ramps. Fort Lauderdale is presently modifying its ordinances to allow robotic parking
facilities. Like valet parking, robotic parking is not effective where everyone arrives or leaves at
the same time. However, office building developers should be encouraged to put a percentage of
their parking into robotic parking for client parking.
Mixed Surface Lots
On surface lots where peak time demand is infrequent, for example churches, codes should
allow/require a portion of the peak load parking to be on a mixed surface of hard material and
grass. This accomplishes many positive environmental benefits. First, it is more attractive and,
in our climate, possible the entire year. It naturally absorbs and filters storm water and it absorbs
heat rather than holding it on the surface and reflecting it back into the air. The projected
volumes of use for commercial surface lots should be analyzed to allow/require these surfaces.
Cross-easements
Another device for increasing the productivity of existing parking is cross-easements for adjacent
uses where the times of use do not overlap. Some cities allow this now but much more could be
done. In most areas, office building parking, structure and surface, is empty, while nearby
restaurant and bar lots overflow. If the County establishes a Parking Information Network, these
overlapping uses could be negotiated and increased, to everyone’s benefit.
Fine-tuning parking requirements
The City of Weston has modified its codes to allow fine-tuning of parking requirements based on
the actual anticipated use of a commercial or industrial property, rather than using a one-size fitsall
formula based on the square footage of the building. With today’s technology a very large
warehouse transshipping facility can operate with very few employees and few customers

coming to the site requiring very little parking. An electronics assembly plant might require
more than the formula amount. Allowing the parking requirements to be adjusted to the actual
need benefits the property owner and the community by no t wasting space with unnecessary
asphalt.
Similarly, planning codes should recognize the differences created by demographics and
economics in residential parking requirements. Presently, parking codes require apartments or
condos to have X number of parking spaces per unit. Some might modify that based on the
number of bedrooms per unit. None of this acknowledges that many upscale units in Broward
County are second or third homes. Even if it is a primary residence for someone who has other
residences or who travels a great deal, they are not parking there every day, every week.
Generally, the larger and more expensive the unit, the more likely this is to be true. To cite a
dramatic but by no means unique example, a very prominent professional athlete (who is not
with a local team) owns a large unit in a prominent Fort Lauderdale beach condominium. He is
not there every day; he does not drive to work every morning. Parking and traffic regulations
should reflect these demographic variations.
Trips Rates
The “Trip Rates by Purpose” data sheet, dated July 7, 1998, is distributed by Broward County’s
Planning Department to assist developers and planners in predicting the number of trips that a
new development could place on the neighboring road system. Under the residential category of
“High Rise,” each dwelling unit is predicted to create 0.74 trips per day from “home-based
work,” nearly 1 trip for “home-based shopping,” two trips for “home-based other trips” and 0.42
“non-home-based trips.”
Using these numbers, we could observe 100 high-rise units and expect 74 trips generated by
home businesses, 96 trips for shopping, 207 other trips and 42 other trips that are not homebased.
In total, there are 419 predicted trips. Yet, the unit owned by the professional athlete is
outside this model. If many of his friends join him in the building as second-home owners, the
100 units might generate fewer than 200 trips per day.
As long as the increase in residential units continues to be at the high end, economically, many
new owners will not be the full- time residents who enter traffic 50 weeks out of the year. The
full-time population of Fort Lauderdale might not increase significantly, and certainly a lot less
than the 40% growth anticipated in the entire county from 2000 to 2015.
In short, the demographics of the residents of a particular building ought to have some influence
on how the Trip Rates schedule and parking requirements are interpreted.
Car sharing
There are a number of sophisticated car pooling or car sharing ideas in various stages of
development. These eventually involve using technology to facilitate sharing of vehicles in
several ways. Another way of looking at these concepts is to expand the car rental at an airport
model to other situations and locations. For example, you could take public transportation to
work but if you needed a car during the day, even on short notice, one would be available either
in your building or in the area. Larger corporations and local governments presently use such
arrangements (providing a vehicle pool for use by employees) but it would not be a difficult step
to make it more widespread, reducing inbound and outbound rush- hour traffic as well as parking
loads.
Taxicabs
Another very old “technology” exists for avoiding local trips in urban areas – taxicabs. In some
very dense urban areas – New York City and Washington, D.C., for example — they are widely
used by many people who wouldn’t dream of using their car to drive from place to place in the
city. In Broward County, cabs are used largely by tourists, the disabled, and by those who
cannot afford a car. Even with the free downtown TMAX Shuttle in place, people do not
hesitate to drive from one side of the river to the other. It’s very easy. Were it to get more
difficult, taxis, even water taxis, might begin to be used for that purpose. Should that need arise,
taxis can be encouraged by setting aside pick-up/drop-off spaces for them. There are a few but,
by and large, there are no cabs cruising or waiting to be hailed. That we are not using cabs in
that fashion is an indicator that during the day, it is easy to get around and park throughout our
urban areas, even downtown Fort Lauderdale.
On-street parking
Until very recently, the trend of urban planning has been to remove as much on-street parking as
possible. This was due to traffic engineers wanting to move cars more quickly. Wider lanes and
fewer distractions — people parking, opening doors, just being there — allow greater speed. Also,
many urban planners would like to keep cars away and out of sight. More recently, however,
this conventional wisdom has been challenged. Fort Lauderdale has had spectacular results from
its decision to return on-street parking to Las Olas Boulevard, proposed by Center founder Jack
Latona when he served on the Fort Lauderdale City Commission. It significantly increased
pedestrian activity and a sense of sophisticated urban ambience, as well as increased property
values and parking revenue. The reasons for this overnight change are many: on-street parking
increases parking capacity and the perception of increased parking availability. It provides a
buffer for pedestrians and outdoor diners, an important consideration for a through street like Las
Olas. It increases the amount of visual stimulation for pedestrians – people need constant visual
change to keep them interested as they walk. Long, empty vistas discourage walking. Also,
Americans, in particular, like to see where their car is, if possible.
On-street parking is being considered anew for low-density residential areas as well. Long
considered a traffic hazard and a sign of low- income status (older homes, i.e. pre-1940,
frequently did not have larger driveways and garages), on-street parking is now being seen as
having some positive aspects. First, it slows down traffic, a good thing in residential areas.
Second, as in commercial areas, it provides a buffer for pedestrians and visual interest. Third, it
increases parking flexibility where the number of cars in a household increases, usually when the
children begin to drive. Fort Lauderdale has examined various rules for parking in swales where
there are no sidewalks: for example, no tires on the swale, two tires on the swale or all tires on
the swale. There are arguments to be made for each format and their applicability varies from
neighborhood to neighborhood, depending on the width of streets and depth of setbacks to the
front of the house.

Parking Meters
On-street parking in commercial areas raises the issue of parking meters. Meters serve two
purposes, one obvious – revenue – the other not so obvious but also important – turnover.
Turnover means new visitors can have some expectation of finding a space. No turnover,
probably the result of employees parking in front of the store, does not encourage people to stop
and shop. While people can find parking meters and parking tickets an annoyance, they not only
fill municipal coffers but serve the public as well by keeping alive at least the hope of achieving
the American dream: an empty parking space right in front of my destination. It just won’t be
free. There is a large body of information and technology concerning the placement, design and
monitoring of meters as well as an entire business of collecting parking tickets. We feel that is
outside the scope of this study.
All of the above parking strategies can be implemented with existing low-tech methods. Hightech
parking can be seen in our future as well, however.
Siemens Traffic Guidance Systems
As we have stated, changing people’s behavior is difficult. Giving them the information they
need to get to their destination, that is, a specific open parking space, can make their lives easier,
reduce congestion, and improve our environment. As described above, Miami-Dade County is
considering a full- time traffic information radio station, much like those now in service near
large airports. Parking information could easily be made available over this same station.
Siemens has developed a system that enables parking structures to measure incoming vehicles
and to direct them to spaces according to size, thus increasing the capacity of the structure. They
also have developed traffic guidance systems for traffic control which could be connected to the
Parking Information Network and direct drivers to available parking. Other techniques for
enhancing parking structures are available. Presently, it is possible to put traffic and parking
information on the Internet. Soon, it will be possible to get real time information about available
parking and reserve your space before you leave home! More and more cars are coming
equipped with Global Positioning Systems (GPS) either as options or, in some cases, standard.
G P S
While presently a one-way system – you can find out where you are – soon it will be possible to
create an interactive system. (Some vehicles also have a cell phone-based emergency system
that might be adapted to a parking information system.)
This is the perfect example of creating the future: the technology exists or is foreseeable. A chip
in each parking space will communicate to the Parking Information Network that it is empty; you
will ask your GPS to identify a parking space closest to your destination; the screen will show
you the exact location, not just the parking facility, but the space in it. You will then reserve the
space by paying for it with a credit card and go directly to the space, saving time, reducing stress,
and reducing pollution. As the cost of making this technology available comes down, the
need/demand will increase and at that intersection, the future of parking will be created.
Bicycles
When discussing parking, most people think only of automobiles. However, bicycles should also
be given some attention. Broward County and the Florida Department of Transportation have
been quite aggressive in developing bike lanes so that increasingly one can bike, either for
recreation or commuting, throughout much of the County. Less attention has been paid to safely
and conveniently parking bicycles (or motor bikes of one sort of another). Municipalities can
provide more parking for bikes and begin to require it from office and commercial developers.
There are two good reasons for such a policy. First, there are people who prefer to ride their
bikes and they are entitled to accommodation just as automobile drivers are. Second, the more
bike riding is facilitated, the more of it will occur. This is good for both the bike riders and nonriders.
Bikes are healthy for the rider, take up much less space on the road or for parking and do
not pollute. (Even motor bikes take up less space and produce fewer pollutants.) In other parts
of the world, bicycles are very important part of the transportation system, usually because they
are so much cheaper. However, particularly given our climate, there is no reason that more
travel in Broward County could not take place on bikes.
Like walking, riding a bike necessitates dressing differently than most business people presently
do. We need to get away from suits, ties, high heels and panty hose as the business person’s
uniform. In addition to reducing our traffic and parking burdens, this would also enable us to set
our office thermostats higher, saving energy and reducing pollution. Further, we would then
require less cooling as we drive home and after we arrive there.
Most traffic-policy reduction programs involve getting people out of their cars more – that will
not happen in South Florida until we “dress light.” (Key Point 8.)
Conclusions
The future of parking in Broward County can be seen and it can be created. Presently, except for
occasional peak time circumstances, there is no parking crisis in Broward County. That does not
mean there are not specific problems to be solved or that some people still may think there is a
crisis. It means we presently have the facilities available to deal with existing needs so long as
we take steps to maximize the use of what we have. That may involve more efficient use of
present spaces, better information, especially signs, about where parking is available, and, to
some degree, getting people to understand that they should not expect to find a free, empty space
ten steps away from their destination.
Will demand increase?

The future is another matter. While there are some possible changes in work and shopping
behaviors which could lead to a reduced number of automobile trips and the resulting need for
fewer parking spaces, they are most likely only to reduce the anticipated increase in demand, not
cause an actual reduction in demand. (Key Point 9)
The forecast of an increase in demand is based on increases in population, demographic changes
– more young people and more active seniors — and increasing work and non-work choices, all
leading to more trips and more non-home conclusions to those trips, i.e. more parking.
This means we should take steps today to make the parking experience of the future easier, less
stressful and less environmentally damaging.
Two poles of parking policy
Parking policies fall between two poles: do nothing, let the market take its course; or
aggressively restrict parking to shift people from their cars to public transportation (referred to as
the San Francisco Model).
San Francisco has been able to pursue this policy because it already had a very dense, very
compact urban community (49 square miles), politically willing to restrict automobiles, an
economic magnetism that drew countless new dot-com business to want to locate there, and an
existing public transportation infrastructure of buses, trolleys, cable cars, the Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) and a sophisticated fleet of taxis which can be hailed on the street in the
downtown.
Broward County, much larger geographically (414 square miles), has not achieved either the
population density or the economic magnetism essential to make such a policy successful.
However, Broward County is continuing to grow rapidly and a hands-off public policy will lead
to chaos in heavily congested areas of the County.
This report sets forth tiers of policy choices that can be adopted as policy makers determine that
circumstances require.
Analysis of the nine key points of the study lead to the conclusion that Broward County should
begin to develop a “Smart Parking” policy that begins with creating the Parking Information
Network which will lay the foundation for efficient implementation of the other parking
solutions available now or in the foreseeable future. These solutions will reduce stress on drivers
and on the environment and can be implemented as needed (Key Point 1). Broward County
should not wait until future developments force reactive solutions (Key Point 6). Demand for
parking will continue to increase but there are factors which may reduce that likely increase (Key
Point 9).
If parking becomes too difficult people will go elsewhere (Key Point 5). To gain acceptance of

new solutions, those most likely to succeed will impose the least change on individuals (Key
Point 7). People will not give up their cars until the alternatives are equally or more attractive
than their present circumstances (Key Point 8).
It is possible to reduce the negative impact of parking (Key Point 3). Parking facilities can and
should be as attractive as any other part of our visual environment (Key Point 4). We can create
the future of parking in Broward County (Key Point 2).
Incremental, low-cost, short-term actions
Most of the steps we have outlined are incremental, low-cost and can be implemented within a
short time frame. Only a few require new and expensive technology and those do not have to be
used to obtain much improved parking experiences. One first step is essential: obtaining and
maintaining up-to-the-minute parking information for the entire county. This will enable public
and private planners to avoid under or over building of parking facilities and allow for the finetuning
techniques we have suggested in this report. Where parking conditions are tight or
perceived to be tight, the information can then be provided to people to maximize existing
parking facilities and reduce the time and stress associated with coping with these conditions. A
Parking Information Network for the County would be a cost-effective first step to creating the
future of parking in Broward County. Other steps could then be taken as we become aware of
the need. If we begin now, we can create a future of faster, easier and cleaner parking in
Broward County.
………….

Key Point 1
Parking solutions are much less capital intense and have much shortest implementation times
than related traffic solutions.
Key Point 2
CREATE THE FUTURE OF PARKING NOW RATHER THAN WAITING FOR IT.
Key Point 3
Improving access to parking, making it easier to park, increases the perception of availability of
parking and reduces the stress of parking.
Key Point 4
Parking facilities should be as attractive as any other part of our visual environment but they
needn’t be invisible. U.S. drivers like to see where their car is and is going to be.
Key Point 5
If the experience of parking is too stressful, expensive or difficult, people won’t park there and
they will go somewhere else.
Key Point 6
Doing nothing is a choice just as much as adopting one or more policy choices. Doing nothing
actually means choosing to have a wide variety of public and private decision makers respond on
an ad hoc basis to each need or “crisis” as it arises. If the response is inadequate, people will
adjust various ways and life will go on.
Key Point 7
Until the crunch is severe, those solutions will work best which require the least change of
behavior by consumers.
Key Point 8
Most traffic-policy reduction programs involve getting people out of their cars more – that will
not happen in South Florida until we “dress light.”
Key Point 9
Changes in work and shopping behaviors are most likely only to reduce the anticipated increase
in demand, not cause an actual reduction in demand.

Background Materials
For readers who want more of the details.
The study was designed to be read in one sitting. It is supported by visuals that help the reader to
grasp the complexity and interconnections of the subject. Parking is not just about placing cars
in safe, convenient zones in a downtown area. Parking defines the interactions between people
and the environment and colors their experience of the city. The best way of capturing the
concepts visualized in this report would be with an animated documentary, which is
recommended for a future information campaign about parking policy issues that might one day
be directed at the general public. The audio- visual items that support this study as background
materials include several videos that have been converted to run on Quicktime Software.
Videos on CD:
Robotic Parking (Information)

Robotic Parking (TV broadcast)
Visit to Publix Multi-Story Garage in Miami Beach
The Case Study: Las Olas Art Fair (September 2001)
Auto-Park Demonstration
Contacts
Paul Carpenter, Executive Director, Do wntown Fort Lauderdale Transportation Management
Authority.
761 3543 Ridership runs an average of 300,000 a year. The “park and ride” lot at 441 and
Oakland Park Blvd. has about 57 riders a day. The ridership in the morning tends to be higher
than the number of riders in the afternoon (some morning commuters apparently catch a ride
home on the bus or with a friend). Two shuttle buses both make two trips in both the morning
and the evening, a total of 8 round trips per day.
Ed Davis, County Parking Manager
A fifteen-foot tall sign (viewable from Broward Blvd. along SW 1st Avenue from Broward), will
be installed on the County Garage. This is the first of what this study’s writers hope will be
more signage to help the first-time visitor to Broward County in navigating.
The diagram is a schematic: it does not represent the actual end product and it is an artist’s
rendition. It was provided by the very helpful and consumer-oriented parking manager who
works for the County.
Source: Ed Davis, edavis@broward.org
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION 357-6608
115 S. Andrews Avenue, Room 329H, Ft. Lauderdale, 33301 FAX 357-6228
Director: Bruce Wilson 357-6641; Congestion Management Team – Enrique R. Zelaya 357-
6635; Long Range Transportation Planning Team – Ossama Al Aschkar, P.E. 357-6653
Jeff Weidner, Florida Department of Transportation
Jeff coordinated a useful series of workshops to bring together teams that are working on various
projects in Broward and Southeast Florida. His workshops helped many participants realize that
each team is not only working on a specific project, but also helping to construct part of a
transportation system for the region.
Publications
Countywide Parking Policy Study for Miami-Dade County (project No. E95-MPO-02R), August
1999, prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates. Provided by Jesus Guerra, guerraj@co.miamidade.
fl.us, 111 NW First St, Miami, FL 33128, (305) 375-4507
Year 2000 Traffic Count Report, April 2001, Broward County Metropolitan Planning
Organization.”

more to come…………

Post Division
Older Posts »