Fort Myers Beach Fire District - Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District

FORT MYERS BEACH FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
TEN YEAR Comprehensive Plan
2007 – 2017
100 Voorhis Street
Fort Myers Beach, FL 33931
BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS
John Scanlon, Chairman
Theodore A. Reckwerdt, Vice Chairman
Betty Goodacre, Secretary/Treasurer
Carol Morris, Fire Commissioner
Joseph Schmid, Fire Commissioner
Mike Becker, Fire Chief
Prepared by:
Dr. Margaret Banyan
Tina Mayfield
ADOPTED JUNE 2007
2158 Johnson Street ■ Post Office Box 1550 ■ Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1550
(941) 334-0046 ■ Fax (941) 334-3661
Executive Summary
This 2007-2017 Comprehensive Plan outlines 1) the history of the district and purpose of
planning, 2) external factors affecting the Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District
(FMBFCD) operations, 3) a profile of the district, 4) service call data, 5) current and
future financial resources, and 6) the 2006 Fort Myers Beach Fire Commission-approved
goals and objectives.
This plan is the district’s analysis of past, future, and current trends. It uses information
from a variety of government and other sources, including the U.S. Census, Lee County,
the State of Florida, and other district data.
Chapter 1 reviews the FMBFCD long history of service to the community with a number
of changes to its mandate. These changes have been a result of the area’s growth and
administrative staff turnover. The district began as a volunteer fire department in 1949.
Census records show that Fort Myers Beach had a population of 2,500 residents in 1950
and had grown to 14,000 people by 2006. Currently, the FMBFCD jurisdiction overlaps
both Lee County and the Town of Fort Myers Beach. With this plan, the district has
embraced the opportunity to manage and direct change through the mechanism of a
comprehensive planning process.
Chapter 2 of the plan covers the external environment of the district. It reports on an
analysis of the district’s demographics, commercial, industrial, and institutional
development; residential profile; structure age and type; impacts of comprehensive
planning; physical infrastructure; hurricane and disaster planning; and coordinating
agencies. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the kinds of impacts and challenges
the FMBFCD faces as it works to protect life and property. Several points are important
in this chapter. An inventory of the district shows considerable diversity in type and age
of structures. Older structures cause a problem for the district for two reasons. First,
many structures in the district were built before the 1993 hurricane standards and as a
Executive Summary
Page ii
result are less prepared for hurricanes than other newer structures.
Second, older
structures may indicate a greater need for service due to the risk of collapse and pose an
increased fire hazard. In addition to older structures, the type of structure is important.
For example, mobile home parks are more susceptible to damage during hurricane or
other severe weather events. The infrastructure analysis includes an inventory of water
supply, roads, other support services, and cooperating agencies. The analysis reveals that
a portion of the district’s water system is insufficient to provide adequate fire protection
services. The road system also presents some challenges for response time. Specifically,
Estero Boulevard is a constricted road, which may limit the ability to reduce response
times. Finally, it should be clear that district operations are limited by its location
primarily on a barrier island. This requires that the district maintain strong collaborative
ties with other fire districts and governmental agencies to carry out its mission, especially
during natural disasters.
Chapter 3 reports on the district’s facilities, the organizational structure, and the vehicle
and equipment inventory.
This chapter also covers the district’s plans for station
renovations and the construction of a new facility to better serve the community. The
analysis finds that the district has a good plan for renovations and construction, but will
need to carefully monitor progress to ensure smooth transitions of service. The district
has done well in managing its physical property and will continue to manage its assets to
maintain efficiency and effectiveness.
Chapter 4 presents an analysis of the service demands and performance of the FMBFCD.
The analysis finds that EMS calls comprise the majority of district emergency calls. It
also finds that based on historical trends, the number of EMS and other fire related
service calls are expected to rise at an average rate of 1.8% per year. However, the
number of calls may be impacted by variations in population between ‘high’ and ‘low’
season. Chapter 4 also reports on response times within the district. The analysis shows
that EMS and other fire related activities response times increased overall, though by
very small percentages. The external environment, such as roads, and emergency room
operations has a significant impact on response times. It is therefore important that
Executive Summary
Page iii
statistics continue to be monitored for their impacts on the district over the life of the
plan.
Chapter 5 of this document reports the financial operations of the FMBFCD. The chapter
is divided into district revenues and expenditures. In reference to the district’s revenue,
historical trends show that the taxable value of district properties is expected to continue
to rise in the future. However, future revenues from ad valorem taxes are subject to
legislative action outside the control of the district. Ambulance fee revenue is projected
to remain a stable source of income, assuming billing and collection efforts continue to
be successful in the future. In addition, interest income provides a good source of
revenue for the district, but only to the extent that reserves are available for investment.
Finally, the contribution of impact fees to the district’s budget should clearly be
considered, but only as a supplemental source of revenue for capital improvements. The
districts expenditures reflect operations heavy on service delivery, dominated by labor
expenses. This is similar to the experience of other fire districts. As a result, the district
will continue “good faith” union contract negotiations to ensure the best possible
outcomes for the district and its employees. Finally, future expenditures will be impacted
by station renovations and construction. Those revitalization efforts starting in 2007
should be concluded by 2009; and by 2010, the district will assume a ‘maintain and
sustain’ posture after which the district expects to experience a downward trend in capital
improvements.
The concluding chapter (Chapter 6) of this document is the Commission-approved goals,
objectives, policies, standards, and actions. This document summarizes the strategic
direction of the district and allows for progress to be measured. Following chapter 6 is a
series of appendices and charts to support the body of the 2007-2017 FMBFCD
Comprehensive Plan.
Executive Summary
Page iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... II
CHAPTER 1 DISTRICT HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ........................... 1
Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Plan ......................................................................................................... 5
Relationship to Other Plans/Reports............................................................................... 6
Background of the 2007-2017 Comprehensive Plan Process ......................................... 6
Key Points....................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................ 8
Methodology ................................................................................................................... 8
Demographic Profile/Growth.......................................................................................... 9
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Development................................................ 11
Residential Profile......................................................................................................... 13
Profile of Structure Type and Age ................................................................................ 15
Comprehensive Planning .............................................................................................. 16
Infrastructure................................................................................................................. 18
Hurricane Planning ....................................................................................................... 22
Coordinating Agencies.................................................................................................. 24
Key Points..................................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 3 PROPERTY AND FACILITIES INVENTORY .......................................................... 28
Public Facility Report ................................................................................................... 28
Organizational Chart..................................................................................................... 31
Vehicle Apparatus Inventory ........................................................................................ 31
Property Inventory ........................................................................................................ 33
Key Points..................................................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER 4 SERVICE CALL ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 35
Call Load, Type, Zones, and Trends............................................................................. 35
Response Times Analysis ............................................................................................. 38
Call Time / Mitigation .................................................................................................. 43
Key Points..................................................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 5 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................... 45
District Revenue............................................................................................................ 45
District Expenses .......................................................................................................... 52
Key Points..................................................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 6 TEN YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES,
STANDARDS AND ACTIONS ................................................................................................ 55
APPENDIX A: FMBFCD BOUNDARY MAP ......................................................................... 76
APPENDIX B: PREVIOUS FIRE DISTRICT CHIEFS ................................................................. 77
APPENDIX C: CENSUS 2000 AND FMBFCD BOUNDARIES ................................................. 78
APPENDIX D: HURRICANE EVACUATION ROUTES .............................................................. 79
APPENDIX E: LEE COUNTY HURRICANE SHELTERS ........................................................... 80
APPENDIX F: FMBFCD ORGANIZATION CHART................................................................ 81
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: 2000 U.S. Census Demographics ....................................................................... 10
Table 2: Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial Land Use Elements within FMBFCD
........................................................................................................................................... 12
Table 3: 2006 FMBFCD Residential Parcels Profile........................................................ 14
Table 4: Summary FMBFCD Parcels by Type................................................................. 15
Table 5: FMBFCD Age of Structures............................................................................... 16
Table 6: Lee County Fire Hydrant Spacing Requirements............................................... 20
Table 7: Station Capacity Projections............................................................................... 31
Table 8: Equipment Management Plan............................................................................. 32
Table 9: Current Vehicle Inventory .................................................................................. 33
Table 10: 2000-2006 EMS and Other Rescue Service Related Calls............................... 35
Table 11: Call Load by Zone ............................................................................................ 38
Table 12: 1999/2000-2006/2007 Ad Valorem Tax Overview.......................................... 47
Table 13: Estimated Ad Valorem Tax Revenue ............................................................... 48
Table 14: Anticipated Debt Service for Years 2007/08 to 2011/2012.............................. 53
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: 2005-2006 Call Load by Month ........................................................................ 36
Figure 2: Actual and Projected EMS and Other Rescue Service Related Calls ............... 36
Figure 3 EMS and Other Call Types 2000-2006 .............................................................. 37
Figure 4: EMS Call Times by Zone.................................................................................. 40
Figure 5: EMS Call Times by Zone.................................................................................. 41
Figure 6: Average Response EMS and Other Rescue Service Related Calls .................. 42
Figure 7: Percentage of Calls within Target Response Range.......................................... 43
Figure 8: Historic Property Values and Millage Rates ..................................................... 47
Figure 9: Historic and Estimated Millage and Property Values ....................................... 48
Figure 10: 99/00 to 05/06 Ambulance User Fee Billings and Collections ....................... 49
Figure 11: Actual and Estimated Interest Earnings .......................................................... 50
Figure 12: Historic and Estimated Impact Fees................................................................ 51
Figure 13: 2000-2006 Expenditures.................................................................................. 52
Chapter 1 District History and Purpose of
Comprehensive Plan
Introduction
The Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District (FMBFCD) responds to fire, natural, and
man-made catastrophes throughout the Town of Fort Myers Beach and portions of
unincorporated Lee County, Florida.1
2
The core mission of the FMBFCD is, “combat
hostile fires and treat and transport the sick and injured as well as provide multiple levels
of rescue.”3 As this chapter explains, changes throughout Lee County and the Town of
Fort Myers Beach have brought about a variety of challenges and opportunities for the
district.
The remainder of this chapter outlines:
•
the history of the district
•
the purpose for comprehensive planning
•
the relationship between this plan and other plans
•
background of the FMBFCD planning process
•
key points summarizing the information presented
History of the Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District 4
The district began as a volunteer fire department in 1949 by the Beach Improvement
Association, Inc. with Earl Howie5 as its first appointed chief. With a population of
2,500 residents in 1950, the district incorporated as the Fort Myers Beach Fire Control
District, Inc. adding a fire rescue truck to its existing spray pump, tank, and trailer. The
Florida Legislature organized FMBFCD as a special taxing district in 1951, instituting a
1
Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District. 2007. Website retrieved 2/20/07 from
http://www.fmbfire.org/general_information.html .
2
See Appendix A for a map of the district.
3
Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District. 2006. Ten Year Comprehensive Plan. Fort Myers Beach Fire
Control District Board.
4
This section was developed from, McCarthy, J. “The history of the Fort Myers Beach Fire Department
booklet.” http://www.fmbfire.org/History.html. Please see that document for a more detailed narrative.
5
See Appendix B for a listing of FMBFCD Chiefs since inception.
-1-
3-member Governor-appointed board and limiting its territory to San Carlos and Estero
Islands. Shortly thereafter, Mr. and Mrs. Donald and Ora Zimmer donated land for the
construction of a Fire Station #1 (also known as #31) on Estero Boulevard.
The
Zimmer’s donated the land with the understanding that the property remain a fire station
or revert back to family ownership. Throughout the remainder of the 1950s, the district
grew.
The district funded the fire chief and captain positions, acquired additional
equipment (a 1947 Jeep and new Ford engine), levied taxes on real and personal property,
approved the first burn ordinance, and promoted Nicholas Briuglia to chief.
FMBFCD experienced considerable growth throughout the 1960s. In 1960, Joseph Busta
was promoted to chief. In that same year, the district acquired property, additional
trucks, communication equipment, and received a radio license. That year, Hurricane
Donna hit the beach on September 10, 1960 with 117 mile per hour winds, causing 26
million dollars worth of damage (in 1960 dollars). The storm caused severe financial
shortfalls for the district due to extensive recovery efforts. In 1961, the district acquired
an additional parcel from the Zimmer family for station expansion. Between 1961 and
1962, the Fort Myers Beach Equipment Vehicle Inc. and the Fort Myers Beach Rescue
Unit formed as not for profit organizations. The Rescue Unit transported patients to
Miner Corner for ambulance service to the hospital.
In 1962, Chief Thomas was promoted. In 1963, the district’s territory expanded to the
mainland, establishing its current boundaries. Also in 1963 the Fort Myers Beach Rescue
Unit, Inc. and all of its properties were transferred and became an official division of the
FMBFCD.
FMBFCD became one of only two districts in Lee County to handle
ambulance calls. In 1966, the district received a Certificate of Need (CON) license and a
$2,500 vehicle to operate an ambulance service. Also in 1966, the district constructed a
two-story addition to Fire Station #31. In 1969, the district purchased a new rescue
vehicle and promoted Eugene Goetze to chief.
Two years later Goetze resigned and was replaced by Robert G. Cornwell as acting chief.
Cornwell was replaced shortly thereafter by Al Bradford, who was promoted to
-2-
probationary chief. In 1972, Chief Bradford resigned and Lowell Hill took his position.
In May 1976, the Fort Myers Beach Professional Firefighters Union formed. This caused
considerable conflict between firefighters and the Commission over a three-year period.
In 1978, Chief Hill resigned amidst the turmoil and was replaced by John Duke. The
conflict culminated in lawsuits, strikes, and the 1979 resignation of all fire
commissioners. Still the district seemed to be moving forward as property was leased
and a second station opened in 1978. The growth was short-lived as the district scaled
back operations in 1979 due to financial constraints, terminating its fire prevention
activities and closing the newly built station.
More change was evident throughout the 1980s. In 1980, Chief Duke resigned and was
replaced by John McCarthy. At that time, the district’s programs included a medical
director, a fire apprentice program, and programs for educating schoolchildren on safety
behavior. In addition, the district reinstated its fire prevention activities and the Fire
Commission was expanded from three to five elected members.
In 1981, enabling
legislation authorized the Fire Board to determine millage and operate an ALS
ambulance. Station #2 (also known as Station #32) opened in a different location that
better served the residential and commercial patterns in 1983. The FMBFCD added
equipment to better support medical emergencies on the waterways and address cardiac
emergencies.
Despite these positive changes, there was continual turnover in the
administrative staff.
Chief McCarthy was suspended in 1983 and was replaced by
Assistant Chief Mulac with Fire Marshal Weatherby as assistant chief. McCarthy was
subsequently reinstated with Mulac and Weatherby moving back down to assistant chief
and fire marshal, respectively. Months later Mulac and Weatherby were accused of
misappropriating funds and were terminated.
During the 1990s, the district suffered severe financial setbacks as a result of poor
administrative decisions and the Save Our Homes amendment. Chief McCarthy was
placed on leave in 1995 for mismanaging the districts’ finances to the point of bankruptcy
and James Bradford took his position.
In 1997, Bradford was replaced by Doug
Desmond as acting chief, until Stephen Markus, from the Lehigh Acres Fire Department,
-3-
was hired. Doug Desmond then resumed his position as assistant chief. Chief Markus
served for nine years, during which time he worked to reestablish the district’s funding
base. Markus was replaced by the current chief, Michael Becker in 2006.
The district’s finances were also affected by the 1992 Save Our Homes amendment to the
Florida Constitution.
This amendment limited the increase in assessed value for
properties receiving the Homestead Exemption to no more than 3% or the increase in the
Consumer Price Index.6 The cap on property tax limited the financial capacity of all local
governments and special districts budgets.7 Despite rapid demographic growth and a
healthy tax base, the district spent the latter part of the 1990s recovering financially.
From 1990 to 2000, 5 employees were hired and no new stations were constructed.
Also significant was the 1995 incorporation of the Town of Fort Myers Beach. Prior to
incorporation the fire district was solely within the jurisdiction of Lee County; after 1995
the fire district also operated within the Town of Fort Myers Beach, requiring the fire
district to work with both local governments.
Currently, a five-member commission elected by district residents, each serving a term of
four years, governs the FMBFCD. The district is funded by an annual millage rate set by
the Fire Commissioners assessed on property within the district. The district employs 55
professionals,
serving
an
estimated
10,599
year-round
residents.8
Continual administrative turnover and past financial problems have created barriers to
effective and sustained planning. In order to meet future challenges a comprehensive
plan should strategically assess the impact of trends and create service goals.
Comprehensive plans are most useful when they are accurate, usable, and establish
performance standards.
Thus, the goal of the 2006 Commission-adopted Ten Year
Comprehensive Plan is:
6
Broward County Property Appraiser. 2007. Frequently Asked Questions. Broward County Property
Appraiser website retrieved 2/21/07 from http://www.bcpa.net/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.asp#23.
7
Thompson, P.M. 2006. Florida Home Builders Association website retrieved 2/21/07 from
http://www.fhba.com/index.cfm?referer=content.contentItem&ID=781.
8
A district profile will appear in later sections of this Comprehensive Plan.
-4-
“To provide the highest quality and most appropriate level of emergency
management, advanced rescue service, fire protection, prevention, and
public education to the citizens of the Fort Myers Beach Fire Control
District in the most professional, efficient, and cost effective manner
possible, based on available resources, and to advance the district to the
pinnacle of industry standards, between the years 2007 to 2017, through
the adoption of a Ten Year Comprehensive Plan, in measurable
performance standards..” 9
The following section further outlines the purpose of comprehensive planning for
the FMBFCD.
Purpose of the Plan
In general, comprehensive plans provide the mechanism for organizations to align goals
and service needs, strategically manage resources, improve service delivery, and
cooperate with other jurisdictions. The FMBFCD has adopted a second purpose for
planning, as follows.
“A Five/Ten Year Strategic Policy Plan is the document to establish
detailed direction and actions for the Fort Myers Beach Fire District for
the near future (1-3 years) and broad direction for the remaining years (410). Current data and projections (covering the time period of the plan)
pertinent to the operation of the fire district will be used to formulate the
actions in the strategic plan and will be included in a form that is easily
updated every year. Financials will be applied to the actions and be
integrated into the budget for future taxing authority decisions, balancing
the service needs with the cost.”10
9
The Fort Myers Beach Fire Commission adopted these goals and objectives in 2006. This document
currently reflects a plan for 2007-2017, with the expectation that the Commission will update the goals and
objectives to reflect a 2007-2017 timeline.
10
Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District Planning Committee. December 18, 2006. 10 Year Strategic
Policy Plan. Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District.
-5-
This comprehensive plan also meets the State of Florida’s 1985 Growth Management Act
requirements that special districts develop a plan to foster coordination with local
governments.
Relationship to Other Plans/Reports
The FMBFCD 2007-2017 Comprehensive Plan meets the State of Florida requirements
to prepare Public Facilities Reports (PFRs).11 Special districts must submit PFRs to their
appropriate local government authority. They must identify existing facilities owned and
operated by the special district and must include the current capacity of each facility,
estimate demand, and document facility locations. The PFR must describe any public
facility the district is building, planning to build, or expanding over the next five years.
PFRs must be based on data gathered from the district and other sources and analyzed in
such a way as to make future projections.
Background of the 2007-2017 Comprehensive Plan Process
In 2006, the Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District convened a Planning Committee that
has guided the 2007-2017 Comprehensive Plan. In developing the plan, the committee
conducted a series of citizen workshops designed to encourage an open public process.
The FMBFCD retained Johnson Engineering, Inc. to prepare documents and analyze
data. The Planning Committee continues to meet regularly to develop ideas, prioritize
needs, and review plan drafts. The outcome of this effort is a plan that serves as a guide
for decision making in areas such as, capital improvements, funding, and internal staffing
needs.
The Planning Committee expects the goals, outlined in the concluding section of this
document, to be achieved by 2017. Periodic assessments, updates, and modifications
through the Evaluation and Review Process will be conducted.
11
Public Facility Reports are required through the Uniform Special District Accountability Act of 1989
F.S. 189.401 that mandated special districts to provide for financial allocations for their operation and
coordinate with local governments on comprehensive planning issues.
-6-
The next section of this document will assess the agency’s external environment. It
includes a demographic and housing profile; the district’s relationship to other
jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans; the state of industrial, commercial, and institutional
development; the districts’ infrastructure; and other coordinating agencies with whom the
agency collaborates.
Key Points
This chapter has highlighted the following key points:
•
FMBFCD has a long history of service to the community with a number of
changes to its mandate.
•
FMBFCD has periodically experienced change and turnover in its administrative
structure.
•
FMBFCD has grown considerably from 2,500 people in 1960 to approximately
10,599 people in 2006.
•
FMBFCD jurisdiction overlaps both Lee County and the Town of Fort Myers
Beach.
•
FMBFCD has embraced the opportunity to manage and direct change through the
mechanism of a comprehensive planning process.
-7-
Chapter 2 External Environment
This section of the FMBFCD Comprehensive Plan explores external factors that
influence the district’s growth and development. These are elements of which the district
has little or no direct control. For the purpose of this document, these factors comprise
the external environment. This external environment analysis consists of:
•
Demographic profile and growth estimates for the district
•
District commercial, industrial, and institutional profile
•
Housing profile and growth estimates of the district
•
Influence of both the Lee County and Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plans on
district growth and development
•
Profile of FMBFCD infrastructure including water, surface water, and roads
•
Impacts of hurricanes on the district
•
Profile of other coordinating agencies with which the FMBFCD interacts
•
Key points related to the external environment
Methodology
To arrive at the figures presented in this chapter, several sources of information were
consulted. Because the district overlaps several jurisdictions, no one data source was
sufficient to capture all the relevant demographics. The 2000 United States Census tracts
601.01, 601.02, and 602 provided demographic information. Though the census tracts
are generally consistent with the district’s boundaries, they do not include a small
residential area, skewing the 2000 U.S. Census somewhat. According to the Property
Appraiser parcel information, there are approximately 1,072 single-family homes, and
500 other residential units that are not included in the Census 2000 figures. To illustrate
the areas not captured by the 2000 U.S. Census, a map of the district with a Census tract
overlay is provided in Appendix C.
The Lee County Property Appraiser’s office provided the most current data on property
use, ownership, number, and type of structures in the district. Property Appraiser data
-8-
provides important information on assessed values and the number of structures at risk of
fire or hurricane damage. The main limitation of Property Appraiser data is that it lacks
population estimates.
Together, the Property Appraiser and the 2000 U.S. Census
provides a relatively accurate description of the district demographics.
Demographic Profile/Growth
Boundaries. As stated in the previous chapter, the FMBFCD overlaps the boundaries of
unincorporated Lee County and encompasses the Town of Fort Myers Beach. The Town
of Fort Myers Beach comprises two-thirds of the district’s land mass and 62% of the
district’s population. This section reports on the district’s demographics as they relate to
potential service delivery elements for the district.
Current Population. The 2000 U.S. Census reported that on average the district is
older, less diverse, and better off economically than the rest of Lee County. 12 The U.S.
Census reports that there are approximately 1.88 people per household. The district
population is estimated to be 10,59913 with 6,561 people in the Town of Fort Myers
Beach.14 Spikowski and Associates estimated the 2003 peak seasonal population for the
Town of Fort Myers Beach to be 16,517.15 Table 1 (below, p. 10) summarizes the
district’s demographics.
12
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000. Retrieved 3/12/07 from http://factfinder.census.gov/
The U.S. Census Bureau reports population for tracts 601.01, 601.02, and 602 population to be 7,644.
Incorporating the 1,572 units outside the district boundaries, at a rate of 1.88 persons per household, the
district is estimated to have a population of 10,599.
14
Census tracts 601.01, 601.02, and 602.
15
The peak seasonal population includes seasonal residents as well as permanent residents. Estimates
based on information provided by: The Town of Fort Myers Beach. 1999. The Town of Fort Myers Beach
Comprehensive Plan. The Town of Fort Myers Beach, FL.
13
-9-
Table 1: 2000 U.S. Census Demographics
FMBFCD
16
Lee County
Population
10,599
440,888
White (not Hispanic)
98%
82%
Older than 65
36%
22.5%
Poverty
4.5%
6.7%
Income less than $15,000
17%
13.4%
Income greater than $50,000
39%
38.3%
Population projections. Population growth is an important factor that determines the
district’s needs over the lifetime of its plan. Because the district lies within both the
Town of Fort Myers Beach and unincorporated Lee County, there is no one data source
that projects population for the district. Lee County is expected to grow by an average
rate of 11% until 2025, but the Fort Myers Beach population is expected to decline by an
average rate of 5% (reaching 3,854 by 2025.)17 Averaging the simultaneous rates of
growth and decline for the Town and unincorporated Lee County, to an average rate of
growth of 5.5%, the population of the district is estimated to reach 13,852 by the year
2020. This estimate is a simple straight-line rate of growth, which could be influenced by
a number of factors. For example, there is agreement that population growth will be
influenced by the available land in the district and will slow as the area reaches buildout.18 Given these factors, the 2010 U.S. Census should be consulted to provide more
accurate estimates of district population. Census data will be available to coincide with
the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). Population projections should also
account for the seasonal population, which consists of seasonal residents, motel guests,
RV guests, and time-share guests.19 The Town of Fort Myers Beach estimates that the
peak season population could reach 17,772 by the year 2020.
16
Adjusted for residences outside census tracts; see footnote 2.
Shimberg Center. 2007. Population Projection by Age for 1990-2025. Retrieved 3/12/07 from
http://www.flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu/a/population
18
The Town of Fort Myers Beach. 1999. The Town of Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan. The
Town of Fort Myers Beach, FL.
19
The peak seasonal population includes seasonal residents as well as permanent residents.
17
-10-
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Development
An additional planning element includes consideration of the structural composition of
the community. There are approximately 248 commercial parcels; 48 vacant commercial
parcels, 49 industrial parcels, and 51 institutional parcels within the district. While there
has been growth in office space and restaurants, the amount of hotel/motel space has
decreased and more commercial lots have been vacated. Uses on these parcels are
summarized in Table 2 (below, p. 12) that follows.
-11-
Table 2: Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial Land Use Elements within FMBFCD
Commercial Land Use
Vacant Commercial
1-story Retail
1-story Office
Medical Office
Supermarket
Community Shopping Center
Convenience Store
Restaurants/Cafeterias
Drive through facility
Nightclubs and lounges
Mixed-use
Financial Institutions
Theatre
Golf Course
Hotel/Motel
Tourist Attraction
Day Care Center
Bowling Alley
Laundromat
Auto Sales
Repair Garage
Utilities
Parking Lot
Sub-Total Commercial Land Use
Institutional & Industrial
Fuel Stations
Service Stations
Paint Storage
Bulk Fuel Storage
Marine Vessel Storage (with US Coast Guard)
Telephone Switching Station
Water Storage Tanks
United States Coast Guard Station
Sub-total Institutional and Industrial Land Use
1996
26
40
14
6
8
22
1
4
13
3
1
41
2006
48
42
23
1
2
8
7
27
1
7
14
3
1
1
37
3
1
1
1
3
1
2
10
248
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
8
A majority of the commercial development occurred during the 1970s, some of which is
currently being redeveloped. Some of the proposed and existing redevelopment projects
within the district include: 3,607 square feet (sf) for Big John’s Boardwalk Eatery;
22,450 sf of retail space on San Carlos Boulevard; and 86 hotel/motel units at the Edison
Beach House, Pink Shell Resort, Seafarer’s Plaza, and the Carousel Motel combined.
The district is also experiencing new development on the island, including an Industrial
Planned Development on San Carlos Island for mixed-use and Marine Oriented
-12-
Development, rezoning of Bigelow Plaza, Hotel Casa Playa, Captain’s Plaza, and
Outrigger Resort.
Other uses in the district are categorized as institutional and industrial; however, they are
not considered commercial. Institutional uses include Fort Myers Beach Elementary,
parks and recreational facilities, cultural facilities, clubs and lodges, churches, and
federal, state, and local government facilities. Industrial uses in the district include
packing plants, warehousing, and open storage. In addition, there is a 100-year history of
fishing on the island with an accessible port on San Carlos Island. Political uncertainty in
Cuba may require additional port security at some point in the future. Also on the island
is a 46,000-gallon fuel storage tank.
Each of the above land uses is important for the district to consider when developing
plans to maintain or exceed level of service standards. Improvements to commercial,
institutional, and industrial uses will bring building up to current code; however, they
also have the potential to affect traffic and congestion within the district. Improvements
and new development increase the likelihood that people from outside the district will
travel to the district to partake in new and improved activities and services offered.
Residential Profile
Another important consideration is the characteristics of the housing stock within the
district. The district’s residential profile is summarized below in Table 3 (below, p. 14).
-13-
Table 3: 2006 FMBFCD Residential Parcels Profile
Type of Unit
Unit Count
Vacant Residential
113
Single Family Residential
2,669
Multi Family Residential
1,009
Mobile Homes
901
Condo
6,10620
Boat Slips
627
Total Units
11,425
Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) and planned developments are large residential
developments within the district that may have an impact on service needs. Each type of
development is discussed below.
Developments of Regional Impact. There are two DRI’s within the district, Boardwalk
Caper and Bay Beach. Boardwalk Caper, located west of Station #32, is fully developed
and built-out with 33 acres, 300 units, 254 wet slips, and 14,025 sf of commercial
building space. Bay Beach Lane, at the southern end of Estero Island has approval for
1,731 units; of which 930 are built (remaining units are pending approval).
Planned Developments.
Other Planned Developments include Pink Shell Resort
(located on the northern tip of Estero Island with 43 units), Port Carlos Cove Mobile
Home Park (located on San Carlos Island with 155 units on 45 acres), Canal Point Mobile
Home Park (located on San Carlos Island with 246 units on 26 acres), and Old Pelican
Bay (located on the mainland with 39 single family units on 21.73 acres). Several new
areas of residential development are expected at the southern end of the island.21 These
developments will be impacted by both the Lee Plan and the Town of Fort Myers Beach
Plan.
20
Condo include land use listed as Timeshare, Condo Reserve Parcels, Land Condo and Condo.
Town of Fort Myers Beach. 1999. Town of Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan. Fort Myers Beach,
FL.
21
-14-
Profile of Structure Type and Age
Along with a residential profile of the district, it is important to understand the age and
type of structure that may have implications for service standards, including risk of
collapse or increased fire danger.
Summary of structure by type. The total land use within the district is summarized in
Table 4 (below, p. 15).
Table 4: Summary FMBFCD Parcels by Type
Land Use
Count
Residential
11,425
Commercial
248
Industrial
49
Institutional
51
Total
11,773
Age of Structures. Nearly 81% of the district’s structures were built after 1970, which
appears to be the beginning of the housing boom. Hurricane building codes were adopted
in 1993, since then 495 residential units have been constructed. Also important are
historic structures, which pose a greater fire risk than those that are new. Within the
district, 286 structures were built between 1923 and 1950. Of these, 117 are in the Town
of Fort Myers Beach and are listed on the Florida Master Files, a state archaeological and
historic inventory. Of those 117 historic structures, 43 are private single-family homes, 3
are commercial, 4 are duplexes, and 5 are business establishments. All of the historic
structures were constructed in frame vernacular. The age of the district’s structures are
summarized in Table 5 (below, p. 16).
-15-
Table 5: FMBFCD Age of Structures22
Year of Construction
Number
Percent
before 1939
109
1.00%
1940-1949
177
1.62%
1950-1959
704
6.43%
1960-1969
1,091
9.96%
1970-1979
3,046
27.81%
1980-1989
2,755
25.15%
1990-1999
2,030
18.53%
2000-2006
1,041
9.50%
Total
10,953
Comprehensive Planning
The FMBFCD boundaries lie within the jurisdiction of Lee County and the Town of Fort
Myers Beach. As a result, the district is covered by the comprehensive plans of both Lee
County and the Town of Fort Myers Beach, each of which are discussed below.
Lee County Comprehensive Plan (The Lee Plan). This plan divides parts of the district
into land use categories, such as urban services, industrial development, resource
protection, and environmentally sensitive areas. Goal 12 of the Lee Plan contains a
special land use designation for San Carlos Island because of its specialized fishing and
warehouse waterfront uses. The Lee Plan includes allocation tables that designate the
amount of available acreage within a planning community for certain types of
development until the year 2020. The 2020 allocation shows the proposed distribution,
extent, and location of generalized land uses. Fort Myers Beach and Iona-McGregor
planning communities (including San Carlos Island) encompass the FMBFCD
jurisdiction. Planning community allocations determine the extent to which an area is
built out and the level of service standards required.
While there are additional
22
This table analyzes the age of the district’s structures, which is distinct from parcel uses. Not every
parcel has a structure associated with its use.
-16-
allocations available in Iona-McGregor for some future residential, commercial, and
industrial development, the Town of Fort Myers Beach is nearing build out.
Town of Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan. The Town of Fort Myers Beach
Comprehensive Plan affects the district’s future population, commercial growth, assessed
values, zoning, and code enforcement. The Town’s plans should be monitored to assess
service delivery impacts for the district. The Town’s Plan indicates that as of 1999, it has
used 92% of its land mass and is 85% built out.23 There is some discussion that future
development could occur, as Spikowski Planning Associates projected that 1,028
additional dwelling units could be built within the Town of Fort Myers Beach, generating
an approximate population increased of 845 people. The Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) for the Town will generate some additional commercial and residential
redevelopment. The Town Plan recommends a maximum of 8,738 dwelling units with a
permanent population of 6,844 and a peak-season population of 17,772 by 2020.24 The
Town of Fort Myers Beach has adopted two development plans. A 1991 plan focuses on
Estero Island redevelopment, including improved signage and lighting on Estero
Boulevard, sidewalks and bikepaths, revitalization of Times Square and Estero Blvd
Commercial Corridor, increased beach access and residential neighborhood preservation,
enhanced streetscapes, relaxed zoning regulations to encourage redevelopment and
conservation of existing structures, rehabilitation of certain older structures, clean-up and
dredging of back bay, beach renourishment, island beautification, and streetscape design
and appearance codes. In addition to the 1991 plan a second 1995 redevelopment plan
included a retail/entertainment district on Old San Carlos Drive at Times Square,
expanded marina at the Matanzas Pass, expanded opportunities for water-taxi alternatives
to automobile traffic, and decreased regulation of lot coverage density, lot size, setbacks,
and building heights.
23
Town of Fort Myers Beach. 1999. The Town of Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive Plan. Fort Myers
Beach, FL.
24
Ibid.
-17-
Infrastructure
The FMBFCD services are influenced by the state of its infrastructure and conditions
related to its physical location. This section covers issues related to sewer, water, surface
water management, physical boundaries, transportation, and hurricane planning.
Sewer. The Fort Myers Beach Sewage Treatment Plant, located on Pine Ridge Road,
serves the district, utilizing a water re-use distribution center for golf course irrigation
systems. This plant was originally designed in 1978 with a 2.7 million gallons per day
(MGPD) capacity; as of 1989 it is capable of collecting, treating, and disposing 6 MGPD.
All new district developments must utilize this plant that currently serves 6,519
residential and 496 commercial customers. The district also has a sewage transfer station
on South Street, which transfers sewage from the district to the mainland.
Water supply. The Town of Fort Myers Beach owns and provides water service within
its geographical district while Lee County Utilities provides water service to the
unincorporated portions of the district. Within the Lee County Utility and unincorporated
areas, there is sufficient water service and supply. Although with the area of Fort Myers
Beach, there is sufficient water supply, the delivery system is insufficient due to the
limited size of water mains on many streets.
These smaller mains do not supply
sufficient pressure for fire service. Small water mains are located at:
•
Local streets along Siesta Drive (4 to 6 inch mains)
•
Side streets along San Carlos Boulevard (3 and 4 inch mains)
•
Estero Boulevard side streets (2 to 6 inch mains) with the exception of Mango
Street with a 10-inch main.
•
Siesta Drive off Holme Avenue and off Pine Ridge Road to the north (8 inch main)
The larger mains that provide sufficient water pressure are located at:
•
Estero Boulevard (10 to 18 inch mains)
•
San Carlos Boulevard adjacent to Station #32 with adequate hydrants along San
Carlos Boulevard (16 inch main)
-18-
•
San Carlos Boulevard has a 16-inch water main, which reduces to 12 north of the
bridge near Seafare Restaurant.
•
South Street (16 inch main)
In the past, the lack of water supply has required the district to use back bay and
seawater; however, these sources are no longer available, due to accessibility problems,
safety issues, and fire engine weight. Instead, the district now uses 750-gallon fire
apparatus’ and multiple engines to respond to fires. The Town has recently taken
action on this issue, approving through a March 13, 2007 ballot measure, to fund water
improvements through increased debt service.25
Future development will be required to comply with the Lee County Land
Development Code (LDC) that requires fire flow for one and two family developments
with a distance of over 300 feet between buildings be 5,900 gallons per day. It also
requires 750 GPD for a 0 to 30 ft distance between buildings. Code also requires fire
sprinklers in all single-family residences of three stories or more, including stilt homes
of two stories or more. Other buildings are required to follow formulas set by Lee
County and the National Fire Protection Association with a minimum of 500 GPD.
Fire hydrants are regulated through the Lee County LDC and are required to be located
within 10 feet of the curb line of fire lane streets or private streets, and spaced
according to Table 6 (below, p. 20).
25
Based on the Lee County Division of Elections report as of March 15, 2007; 91.21% of Town residents
voted in favor of increased debt service as a funding mechanism for water improvements.
-19-
Table 6: Lee County Fire Hydrant Spacing Requirements
Hydrant Spading
Type of development
800 feet apart
One to two dwelling unit developments
600 feet apart
Multi-family developments with 3 to 6 du per
building not exceeding 2 stories
400 feet apart
Multi-family developments with more than 6 du per
building or more than 2 stories in height in
commercial areas
300 feet apart
All industrial and hazardous storage areas
Surface Water Management. Surface water management is another infrastructurerelated issue for the district as it influences response times for fire and EMS. Estero
Boulevard is a low-lying corridor that often floods during minor hurricane or tropical
storms.
Improvements made to San Carlos Boulevard have been unsuccessful in
preventing significant flooding.
Physical Boundaries. The FMBFCD is influenced by its natural boundaries that limit
ingress and egress to the district. This requires the FMBFCD to consider its access to
service areas and emergency room facilities. These boundaries include Pelican Bay and
Hurricane Bay, Estero Pass, Matanzas Pass, Estero Bay, Hendry Creek, Helpeckish Bay,
Ostego Bay, Big Carlos Pass, and the Gulf of Mexico. A map that further describes these
physical boundaries appears in Appendix A of this document.
Transportation & Road System. As a result of the confinement of the district, this plan
considers the road infrastructure and implications for service. The following roads and
their condition influence response times for the district.
•
San Carlos Boulevard. San Carlos Blvd is the primary route through the mainland
portion of the district and provides the most direct access to the northern end of
Estero Island. The state widened San Carlos to four lanes and improved the
bridge to help alleviate traffic congestion to and from Estero Island.
-20-
•
Estero Boulevard. Estero Boulevard is the only arterial that runs through Estero
Island down to Bonita Beach. Estero Blvd is a 2-lane collector road and the main
thoroughfare through Estero Island. Widening of Estero Boulevard is currently
prohibited through both the Lee County and Fort Myers Beach Comprehensive
Plans. Estero Boulevard is considered one of the most constrained roads in the
county, operating with a level of service (LOS) “F”. An LOS F means that
waiting times are, “more than 50 seconds per vehicle for intersections with nonexistent or inadequate signals or more than 80 seconds per vehicle for
intersections with signals.”26 This makes waiting time a key factor in FMBFCD
response times. Lee County and the Town of Fort Myers Beach are working to
determine if a dedicated trolley lane on Estero Blvd would reduce traffic and aid
fire rescue efforts.
•
Matanzas Bridge. The Matanzas Bridge is the primary entrance onto Estero
Island. It is a two-lane, weight restricted, high-rise spanned bridge that replaced
an older swing bridge in the 1970s. The Matanzas Bridge reduced congestion as
vehicles no longer needed to stop for water traffic under the bridge.
•
Big Carlos Pass Bridge. The Big Carlos Pass spans the southern end of Estero
Island to Black Island and connects to the mainland. The Big Carlos Pass Bridge
is the second point of access to the district. It also has a weight restriction and, as
of March 2007, was in the process of renovation.
•
Other mainland roads. There are other mainland roads that if widened would
improve response times for the district. These include Pine Ridge Road, which
parallels San Carlos Boulevard and is scheduled to be widened. Summerlin Road
is a major arterial currently being widened to six lanes between San Carlos
Boulevard and Colonial Avenue (on mainland). These improvements will help
the district reach the healthcare facilities faster. Outside the district, ancillary
roads of importance include Kelly Road, which extends from McGregor
Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road and may be widened to four lanes; and McGregor
26
2002. Steven J. Dush, S. J., Gregory P. Muhonen, G.P. The Language of Traffic. American Planning
Association. Spring 2002. Website retrieved 4/16/07 from
http://www.planning.org/thecommissioner/spring02.htm .
-21-
Boulevard, which links the island to downtown Fort Myers. It is unlikely that
McGregor Boulevard will be widened, due to its status as a scenic highway.
•
New Roads and Bridges. There are additional proposals to establish an east/west
corridor that would extend from Summerlin Boulevard and Winkler Road to
Alico Road, providing service to a direct east/west route to I-75. A proposal for
the construction of a new bridge between Coconut Road and Estero Island for the
purpose of facilitating hurricane evacuation was rejected by the Lee County
Board of County Commissioners. The extensive environmental impacts of the
bridge was the primary reason for rejection.
In addition to the condition of these roads, other considerations influence response times.
The Town of Fort Myers Beach and Lee County have considered streetscapes, trolley
services, and underground utilities to ease the situation. Fort Myers Beach implemented
a circulation plan around Times Square to create a smoother flow of traffic but
congestion has not been eliminated, even with the widening of San Carlos Boulevard.
Lee Tran currently serves the district with a trolley system and bike routes have been
proposed to alleviate congestion in the area. The FMBFCD should coordinate and
monitor future transportation and infrastructure developments with the Town of Fort
Myers Beach and Lee County.
Hurricane Planning
The FMBFCD currently faces several challenges with regard to the threat posed by
hurricanes. As previously mentioned, Hurricane Donna (1960) and Hurricane Charley
(2004) were the most recent significant disaster events in the district. Southwest Florida
is highly vulnerable to hurricanes due to its location, size of its population, and length of
time to evacuate the area.27
27
Mayfield, M. 2006. Written testimony of Mr. Max Mayfield, Director Tropical Prediction
Center/National Hurricane Center National Weather Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration U.S. Department of Commerce. Oversight hearing on “2006 Hurricane Season and At-Risk
Cities” before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Disaster
Prevention and Prediction. Retrieved 3/12/07 from
http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/mayfieldfinal052406.pdf
-22-
Hurricane Evacuation. The dense development and location on a barrier island poses
the most serious challenges relating to disaster preparedness for the district. Residents of
other islands share evacuation routes with district residents. The Town of Fort Myers
Beach estimates that the amount of time it takes to clear the island is determined by
dividing the number of vehicles by the road capacity. For the Town of Fort Myers Beach
Spikowski estimates that population would be approximately 10,100 (including seasonal
and permanent residents); and assumes that 2 persons per car would evacuate. This
number, 5,050 is divided by the road capacity of 943 (Estero Boulevard capacity is a
service level F road and has a capacity of 943 vehicles per hour in the primary direction,
or 1,660 per hour for both lanes exiting). This yields an evacuation time of 5.35 hours.
At build-out, with an estimated seasonal population of 11,600 people (5,800 cars) the
evacuation time would be 6.15 hours.28 However, hurricane season does not coincide
with the same timeframe as when a majority of seasonal residents populate the district.
Regardless, the 6.15-hour evacuation time is a low estimate, as accidents or flooding are
likely to cause significant delays. In addition to evacuation, re-entry for residents is
complicated by storm debris, blockages, and flooding.
A map of the hurricane
evacuation routes appears in Appendix D.
Hurricane Shelters. The limited availability of evacuation routes is complicated by the
lack of shelter space for evacuees in the county. Primary and special shelter space and
life safety facilities are available to this district through the county school system. There
are 34 schools available county-wide with 8 along the most likely routes. Those closest
to the district include Cypress Lake High School, Germaine Arena, and Estero High
School. These shelters are shared with other county residents and may be unusable in a
higher category storm. A map of these shelters appears in Appendix E. The Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council identified potential space in Lee County for up to
16,500 additional evacuees, however, this is short of the shelter space required for the
county. Hurricane planning and district operations require a collaborative effort with
FMBFCD and other coordinating agencies.
28
Op. Cit. Town of Fort Myers Beach.
-23-
Coordinating Agencies
A variety of agencies and districts in Lee County must coordinate activities with the
FMBFCD. Both the district’s geographical and water-based locations require greater
intergovernmental coordination than may be necessary for other Lee County fire districts.
The FMBFCD does not currently have a marine vessel; however, the Coast Guard, IonaMcGregor, and Bonita Springs all have boats. As a result, water operations must be
coordinated with these agencies. Because there is a significant need for mutual aid
agreements and automatic mutual aid with all surrounding districts, thus an understanding
of each district’s resources is critical. The coordinating agencies and agreements are
listed and briefly described below.
ƒ
The Beach Demographic District consists of the Town of Fort Myers Beach,
Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District, and the Iona-McGregor Fire District. All
three entities operate together under a command structure during a state of
emergency.
o The Town of Fort Myers Beach and the FMBFCD coordinate on
planning and other issues. The Town structure is a council-manager
form of government with a hired City Manager. The FMBFCD Fire
Chief and Fort Myers Beach City Manager should coordinate on issues
related to each entity’s jurisdiction. For example, FMBFCD should
coordinate with the Town on future updates of the Comprehensive
Growth Management Plan.
o The Iona-McGregor Fire District neighbors FMBFCD on the
mainland. Iona-McGregor covers a 40 square mile area, and offers
support with its ladder trucks and other equipment. FMBFCD has
interlocal and automatic aid agreements with Iona-McGregor to
provide mutual support when needed.
o The Bonita Springs Fire District is located immediately to the
southeast of the FMBFCD.
together
to
respond
to
The two districts work very closely
emergencies
within
their
respective
-24-
jurisdictions.
This coordination is more important given Bonita’s
services to Black Island, just south of the FMBFCD. Bonita’s rapid
growth has, in recent years, created a much larger district and has
added three new stations and a number of new firefighters.
•
The Automatic Interagency Mutual Aid System (AIM System) authorizes an
automatic response from the closest station regardless of jurisdiction. Mutual aid
with Iona-McGregor’s Water Operations Team is particularly important for
rescue boat and water related operations.
•
Lee County Public Safety is also an important partner due to its coordination of
the following efforts.
o The Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) force provides specialized
rescue responses to specific incidents beyond standard level of
operations.
The force is comprised of firefighters, EMTs, and
paramedics representing several agencies from across the state. Local
disaster events are externally staffed by members from other
jurisdictions across the state.
o The Division of Communications operates
consolidated 911 Dispatch System.
the
countywide
For service calls within the
district, Lee County 911 receives and dispatches the call to the
FMBFCD.
o The Lee County Division of Emergency Medical System (EMS)
provides additional back up services to the district. Lee County EMS
treats and transports acutely ill and injured people, provides advanced
life support, and pre-hospital emergency care via ambulance and
helicopter.
•
The US Coast Guard’s primary mission is to provide search and rescue, law
enforcement, and medical assistance in their jurisdiction. The Coast Guard uses
FMBFCD personnel primarily in medical emergencies.
•
Lee County Health Care System’s HealthPark is the closest major facility to the
district. A new major hospital facility is under construction at Daniels Parkway
and Metro Parkway, which may offset potential patient congestion at HealthPark.
-25-
ƒ
The Lee County Port Authority Airports Crash, Fire and Rescue Department is
responsible for providing fire protection to all airport properties as well as the
Alico Fire Protection Municipal Services Benefit Units (MSBU). In the case that
a hazardous spill occurs in the FMBFCD, the Port Authority and Lee County’s
Hazardous Materials Team would respond. The Port Authority has two stations,
covering a 26.5-mile district.
•
The State Division of Forestry has jurisdiction throughout Lee County for all
forest fire control activities. They have the legislative responsibility for all forests
in Florida, irrespective of the independent fire district jurisdictions. The Division
of Forestry has a lesser role in the FMBFCD than that in other districts in Lee
County due to the lack of forested land. Regardless, coordination is necessary
due to the threat of brush fire.
•
The State of Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for
several stated roads and bridges within the district. DOT is responsible for road
improvement on the Matanzas Bridge and San Carlos Boulevard. FDOT provides
information regarding road construction or maintenance. The Fort Myers NewsPress column, “Road Almanac” is a good source for transportation planning for
FDOT projects and their impact on emergency vehicle access.
Key Points
Based on this analysis, there are several key points that are highlighted in this chapter and
are summarized below.
•
The FMBFCD is diverse in the type and age of structures.
o Many structures were built before the 1993 hurricane standards. These
structures will be less prepared for hurricanes than newer structures. In
addition, older structures may indicate a greater need for service due to the
risk of collapse and increased fire hazard.
o The several mobile home parks in the district are more susceptible to
damage during hurricane or other severe weather events.
-26-
•
A portion of the district’s water system is insufficient for FMBFCD to carry out
its mission at the present time.
•
The nature of the district as primarily operating on a barrier island requires it to
depend on other governmental agencies to carry out its mission, especially with
respect to natural disasters.
-27-
Chapter 3 Property and Facilities Inventory
This section of the FMBFCD Comprehensive Plan reports on the facility inventory of the
Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District. This section includes:
•
A report on the district’s property, stations, and building plans, satisfying the
State of Florida’s Public Facility Report (PFR) requirements.
•
An organizational chart outlining personnel per district facility.
•
An inventory of the district’s property.29
Public Facility Report
Every five years, 12 months prior to its EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report)
submission Florida Statutes 189.415
30
and FS 191.013(2)31 require special districts to
report public facilities, and operational costs. The Public Facility Report (PFR) requires:
•
The location, current capacity, and demands placed upon each facility.
•
A description of each public facility the district is building, improving, or
expanding or is currently proposing to build, improve or expand within at least the
next 5 years.
•
How the district currently is, or proposes to, finance facility construction or
renovation.
•
The anticipated time frame for construction, improvement, or expansion of each
facility.
•
The anticipated capacity of and demands on each facility when completed.
•
Both the existing and anticipated capacity if improving or expanding a facility.
29
The district property inventory is not currently available, but will be included on subsequent versions of
this chapter.
30
Florida Statute 189.415. Special District Public Facility Report. Retrieved 3/22/07 from:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0189/ch0189.htm .
31
Florida Statute FS 191.013(2) requires identification of facilities, equipment, personnel and revenue
needed by the district during the 5-year period.
-28-
The following inventory is a summary of the district’s facilities as required by the PFR
statutes.
Administration Building: 100 Voorhis Street.
•
Capacity: 3000 square feet; 266 square feet meeting and conference space.
•
Demands: Administrative space for 9 personnel.
•
Future Improvements: None.
•
Financing: N/A.
Station #31: 3043 Estero Boulevard.
•
Capacity: 5900 square feet; 780 square feet meeting and training space; 8
individual bunkrooms.
•
Demands: Houses 8 personnel; 1 engine, 1 ambulance; and 1 4-wheel drive
support vehicle.
Station #31 runs approximately 1,080 calls per year for
emergency response.32
•
Financing: Budget reserves
•
Renovation Timeline: 2010-2012 (anticipated). Long term planning calls for a
major renovation to Station #31, including the addition of a three-story structure
replacing the current ground floor area facing Estero Boulevard. Station #31 will
also require additional updates to increase parking availability as well as to
comply with hurricane, building, and ADA codes.
•
Anticipated Capacity: personnel will remain unchanged. By 2012 estimated call
load could reach 1,202 calls33 without the construction of Station #33. When
constructed, Station #33 will alleviate approximately 658 of these calls. Station
capacity is summarized in Table 7 (below, p. 31).
32
Estimate based on Station #31 (611 calls annually) and ½ of Split Zone calls (938 calls annually).
Estimated based on 1.8% average growth; see Chapter 4 for growth rate justification. Call load of 1,202
calls is based on current station capacity with additional 1.8% growth. The construction of Station #33 will
alleviate the demands on this station.
33
-29-
Station #32: 17891 San Carlos Boulevard
•
Future capacity: 12,297 square feet; 800 square feet meeting and training space; 6
individual bunkrooms. 3,085 square feet are designated to accommodate The Fort
Myers Beach Fire Control District, The Town of Fort Myers Beach and Iona
McGregor Fire Department as an Emergency Operation Center for disaster
management.
•
Demands: Houses 6 personnel; 1 engine, 1 ambulance. Station #32 runs
approximately 999 calls per year for emergency response.34
•
Financing: Reserved Funds; no additional debt will be required.
•
Renovation Timeline: August 2007 thru August 2008. Station #32 will close
August 2007 with temporary relocation of resources to the Coast Guard Station,
Stations #31 and Lenell Road. The district is currently under contract with a
construction manager and architectural firm.
The scope of work includes
temporarily remodeling the shopping plaza at 121 Lenell Road, and converting it
into a temporary fire/EMS station. Immediately after completion of Station #32,
the resources will be returned to that facility and the facility at 121 Lenell Road
will be demolished and the permanent Station #33 will be built on that site.
•
Anticipated Capacity:
personnel needs will remain the same, but will run
approximately 1,035 calls by completion date of 2008, 1,054 calls by 2009, and
1,073 by 2010.35 Station capacity is summarized in Table 7 (below, p. 31).
Station #33: 121 Lenell Road 36
Currently under construction, this facility is unoccupied but the anticipated projections
are as follows:
•
Financing: Currently researching 5 to 10-year funding options for construction.
•
Renovation Timeline: Construction will begin after Station #32 is completed and
continue until 2008.
34
Estimate based on Station #32 (531 calls annually) and ½ of Split Zone calls (938 calls annually).
Estimated based on 2% average growth; see Chapter 4 for growth rate justification.
36
Proposed.
35
-30-
•
Anticipated Capacity: 5716 square feet; 6 individual bunkrooms. Will house 4
personnel, 1 reserve engine, 1 reserve ambulance; the ladder company and 1
support vehicle. Will run 630 calls by anticipated completion date of 2008.37 641
calls are anticipated by 2009, 653 by 2010, and 665 by 2011. Station capacity is
summarized in Table 7 (below, p. 31).
Table 7: Station Capacity Projections38
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Station 31
1099.44
1119
1139
1160
1181
1202
Station 32
1017
1035
1054
1073
1092
1112
Station 33*
N/A
630
641
653
665
677
*The numbers shown for Station #33 represent portions of the call load for Stations #31
and Station #32. Estimates of total calls between 2007 and 2012 are reported on Figure
2, p. 36.
Organizational Chart
The FMBFCD is organized into three shifts divided amongst the stations. Each station is
configured to maximize effective and efficient operations. The personnel functions of
company officer, engine, ambulance, truck, and support are covered. In addition, the
district also employs a chief, assistant chief, community resource development officer,
medical officer, fire marshal, fire inspector, chief financial officer, administrative
assistant, and receptionist. An organizational chart reflecting personnel and equipment is
included in Appendix F of this document outlining reporting responsibilities to the Board
of Commissioners.
Vehicle Apparatus Inventory
The district has inventoried all vehicles and rescue apparatus bought and sold and will
continue to document replacement timelines and costs. Table 8 (below, p. 32) outlines
the management plan for equipment purchases and sales. The district also assesses
37
Estimate based on projections for Zone 703 (currently 608 calls annually) at a 1.8% average growth rate
until completion date of 2010. Zone 703 will primarily be served by Station #33.
38
Does not account for out of district calls. See Table 5 on p. 12 for additional call detail.
-31-
mileage, documenting needed maintenance and vehicle repair in order to ensure efficient
and effective vehicle operation.
Table 8: Equipment Management Plan
Retention
Reserve Service
Front Line Apparatus
15 Years
5 Years
Staff Support Vehicles
5 Years
SUV’s
5 Years
Ambulance Transport Vehicles
3-4 Years
Total Life of Vehicle
20 Years
3 Years
The district continues to designate additional funds in reserve for the purchase of vehicles
and the accompanying equipment. The current fleet inventory follows in Table 9 (below
p. 33), with the estimated cost of fleet increases at 3% per year:
-32-
Table 9: Current Vehicle Inventory
Year
Manufacturer/ Model
2000
Ford/Horton Ambulance
Reserve
55,000
3-4 years
2004
Ford/Horton Ambulance
Station 31
27,000
3-4 years
2004
Ford/Horton Ambulance
Station 31
21,000
3-4 years
1998
Pierce Quantum Engine
Station 31
32,400
15-20 years
1998
Pierce Quantum Engine
Station 32
32,600
15-20 years
2004
Sutphen Shield Engine
Reserve
24,000
15 years
2005
Sutphen Mini Tower
Station 32
4,500
15 years
2003
Ford F250 4X4 Pickup
Station 31
9,400
5 years
2003
Ford F250 4X4 Pickup
Station 32
16,800
5 years
2005
Ford Expedition 4X4
Battalion 31
9,000
5 years
2007
Ford Explorer
Chief
New
5 years
2007
Ford Explorer
Assistant Chief
New
5 years
2007
Ford Fusion
Fire Marshal
New
5 years
2007
Ford Fusion
Fire Inspector
New
5 years
2003
Dodge Durango 4X4
Medical Officer
37,000
5 years
2003
Ford Econoline Van
Fire Inspector
25,000
5 years
Pool vehicle
70,000
5 years
2000
39
Dodge Durango 4X4
Assignment
Mileage
Lifespan
Property Inventory
The district owns a variety of equipment that supports its administrative, EMS, and fire
suppression activities. The district’s inventory includes such items as operations-related
communication equipment, power tools, defibrillators, and air guns; training equipment,
such as projectors and manikins; and administrative tools such as, computers and copiers.
The lifespan of each item varies dramatically from 3-4 years for some items and 10-15
years for others. The equipment inventory also includes above-mentioned assets such as
land, buildings, and vehicles.
The district maintains a property inventory list
documenting the date placed in service and acquisition cost.
39
Dodge Durango is currently being placed in surplus.
-33-
Key Points
The preceding analysis indicates key points noted from this section:
•
The construction schedules for Station #32 and #33 should be carefully monitored
to facilitate smooth transition(s) of service.
•
To ensure efficient and effective equipment, the district should continue to work
collaboratively with other entities to ensure proper maintenance and monitor its
vehicle inventory to ensure timely replacement.
-34-
Chapter 4 Service Call Analysis
This section of the FMBFCD Comprehensive Plan analyzes service calls to highlight the
current capacity, as well as project future trends of the district. It covers the following
sections:
•
Type, number, and trend of calls for service.
•
Response times for EMS and other/fire related calls.
•
Average response time to calls.
•
Call / Service mitigation.
Call Load, Type, Zones, and Trends
Call Load / Number. The Firehouse data system reports the total number of calls
between 2000 and 2006. Table 10 (below, p. 35) summarizes the total number of calls
and the type of call.
Table 10: 2000-2006 EMS and Other Rescue Service Related Calls
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
EMS Calls
925
1035
1555
1504
1661
1695
1602
Other Fire Related Calls
996
1079
564
583
721
583
503
Total
1921
2114
2119
2087
2382
2278
2105
Total / Day
5.26
5.79
5.81
5.72
6.52
6.24
5.77
Call Load / Number by Month. Four major factors affect the district’s work and call
load. These are the peak tourist, brush fire, and hurricane seasons as well as special
events where large crowds inhabit the district. Figure 1 (below, p. 36) below summarizes
the calls per month for EMS from July 2005 through June 2006. This time period was
chosen in order to highlight the monthly trends through an entire season. March had the
highest number of calls (8.7 calls/day) and September the lowest (3.9 calls/day). Call
peak times may have implications for staffing in the district.
-35-
Ju ly 2005 to Ju n e 2006 Ca ll L o a d b y M o n th
300
250
Month
200
Total
150
Total per day
100
50
0
7/05
8/05
9/05
1/06
2/06
3/06
4/06
5/06
Total
234
160
118
10/05 11/05 12/05
151
190
155
203
194
271
226
165
6/06
149
Total per day
7.55
5.16
3.93
4.87
6.33
5.00
6.55
6.93
8.74
7.53
5.32
4.97
# o f C alls
Figure 1: 2005-2006 Call Load by Month
Call Load Trends. Figure 2 (below, p. 36) shows the total actual and predicted EMS
and other rescue service related calls within the district. This data shows an average
increase of 1.8% between 2000 and 2006. A straight-line estimate using the average rate
of growth indicates that call load could reach 2,568 by the year 2017.
Actual and Projected EMS and Other Service Related Calls
3000
Nu m b er o f Calls
2500
2000
Call Totals
1500
1000
500
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Call Totals 1921 2114 2119 2087 2381 2277 2105 2143 2182 2222 2263 2304 2346 2389 2432 2477 2522 2568
Ye ar
Figure 2: Actual and Projected EMS and Other Rescue Service Related Calls
-36-
Call Load by Type. Figure 3 (below, p. 37) graphically illustrates the types of calls to
which the district has responded over a seven-year time period. While documenting a
trend line that is useful for addressing changes over time, Figure 3 also illustrates that
EMS calls are increasing over time while all other rescue related calls are decreasing.
EMS and Other Call Types 2000-2006
2000
1800
1600
# of Calls
1400
1200
EMS
ALL OTHER
1000
Linear (EMS)
800
600
Linear (ALL OTHER)
400
200
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
EMS
925 1035 1555 1504 1661 1695 1602
ALL OTHER 996 1079 564
583 721
583
503
Ye a r
Figure 3 EMS and Other Call Types 2000-2006
Call Load by Zone. Another perspective on call load involves analyzing the incidents
by station for the 2001-2006 time period. Firehouse reports on district zones indicating
call load per station. These loads are summarized in Table 11 (below, p. 38). It is
significant to note that of those calls assigned to Station #31, the majority are responding
in what is classified as Zone 703. Zone 703 will be assigned to Station #33 upon its
completion. Zone 703 calls, which are currently split between Stations #31 and #32, will
be adjusted to balance response time and call loads. As Station #33 goes operational,
Station #31 will be positioned to assume additional calls from Station #32, with the
understanding that response times should be balanced among the district’s stations.
-37-
Table 11: Call Load by Zone
Station
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Station 32
632
589
587
664
602
531
Station 31
660
622
602
637
601
611
Split Station 31 & 32
792
892
876
1,063
1,061
938
Total Within District
2084
2103
2065
2364
2264
2080
Out of District / Not reported
30
16
22
17
13
25
TOTAL
2114
2119
2087
2381
2277
2105
Zone 703
657
615
597
637
601
608
Response Times Analysis
Response time is an important measure of district service. Every additional minute of
response time leads to increased loss of property and potential impacts on lives.
FMBFCD response times consist of two separate, but related analyses. The computer
program, Documed, captures response times for EMS calls while the Firehouse data
system captures both EMS and other rescue service calls.
As determined by the U.S. Fire Administration, response time is typically measured from
the time a call is received by the emergency communications center to the arrival of the
first apparatus at the scene. For the public, the clock for response time begins when the
public becomes aware there is an emergency incident and the fire department is notified.
In reality, however, the response time clock for fire suppression begins at the moment of
fire ignition and continues until the fire is extinguished.40 The U.S. Fire Administration
outlines seven basic components of response times.41
The National Fire Protection
Association targets a 4-6 minute response time standard for fire districts.
•
Detection. The time it takes to detect a fire depends on the detection system,
time of day, and efficiency of those notifying officials about the fire.
40
U.S. Fire Administration/National Fire Data Center. 2006. Structure Fire Response Times. Topical Fire
Research Series, Volume 5 – Issue 7, January 2006 / Revised August 2006. Retrieved 4/9/07 from
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/tfrs/v5i7.pdf .
41
Ibid.
-38-
•
Alarm. The time that elapses between fire detection and the transmittal of the
alarm.
•
Dispatch.
The time required to process the information and dispatch
emergency personnel.
•
Turnout. The speed with which personnel can report to duty, staff apparatus
and commence travel to the incident
•
Drive time. The actual travel time from the station to the fire depends upon
the location of the stations, physical barriers, traffic congestion, and weather
conditions.
•
Attack preparations.
The time required to accomplish the activities in
preparation for fire extinguishment, including hose layout and ladder
placement.
•
Extinguishment. The time it takes to extinguish the fire depends upon type of
fire, the surrounding environmental conditions, and the fighting process
employed.
The following narrative discusses response times for EMS and other rescue service calls.
EMS Response. As noted EMS calls dominate the majority of activity within the
district. The Documed program tracks the average response time for calls originating
from Zone 1 (Station #31), Zone 2 (Station #32), and the reserve ambulance. The reserve
ambulance is a readied, stand alone resource, immediately available when the call load
prompts a need for additional EMS personnel. Figure 4 (below, p. 40) documents the
overall response time, or the time at which an emergency call is received by Lee Control
(911) to the time there is an ambulance response, for EMS calls. From 2004 to 2006, the
district-wide average has risen 2%. If there is no change to the infrastructure, a simple
straight-line estimate indicates that by 2017, response rates for ambulance service could
reach 7.37 minutes.
However, with the strategic relocation of resources (e.g., the
construction of Station #33) the district expects to maintain a four to six-minute response
time.
-39-
Overall Response Time Initial Call to Arrival
8.00
7.00
# of Minutes
6.00
5.00
Reserve Ambulance
4.00
Zone 1
3.00
Zone 2
2.00
1.00
0.00
2004
2005
2006
Reserve
Ambulance
5.45
6.98
5.5
Zone 1
5.80
5.84
5.85
Zone 2
5.96
6.38
6.4
Ye ar
Figure 4: EMS Call Times by Zone
The overall response time indicated above includes the time it takes for Lee Control to
dispatch the call to the district. By excluding the Lee Control dispatch variable it allows
the district to more clearly understand the impacts of traffic and other district-specific
variables. Figure 5 (below, p. 41) illustrates that from the time of dispatch to arrival on
scene, response time grew district-wide at an average rate of approximately 2%. If left
unchanged and no additional resources were added, using a simple straight-line estimate,
the time it takes to respond to an emergency after dispatch could grow from 5.25 (districtwide) to 6.68 minutes by the year 2017. The district should continue to monitor dispatch
and other external variables that affect dispatch times.
-40-
Dispatch to Arrival
7.00
6.00
# Minutes
5.00
Reserve Ambulance
4.00
Zone 1
3.00
Zone 2
2.00
1.00
0.00
2004
2005
2006
Reserve
Ambulance
4.85
6.25
4.86
Zone 1
5.22
5.15
5.25
Zone 2
5.19
5.33
5.73
Ye a r
Figure 5: EMS Call Times by Zone
EMS and Other Rescue Service Calls: Average Response Times. The Firehouse
system captures response times for calls and includes both EMS and other rescue service
related calls. This data is summarized in Figure 6 (below, p. 42). Data from the
Firehouse program is available for the years 2000 through 2006. Response time peaked
in 2004, but decreased in 2005 and 2006. This data represents an overall average
decrease of 1.5% (2.15 seconds) in response time between 2000 and 2006.
-41-
Average Response 2000 - 2006
6.00
Response in Minutes
5.00
4.00
3.00
AVG
2.00
1.00
0.00
AVG
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
4.70
5.24
5.26
5.40
5.62
4.63
4.15
Ye ar
Figure 6: Average Response EMS and Other Rescue Service Related Calls 42
Average response within 6 / 8 Minutes.
Based on the National Fire Protection
Association standards, the district has established a response time goal of four to six
minutes. The following analysis tracks the percentage of calls within four, six, and eight
minutes (see Figure 7, below, p. 43). In 2006, 61% of calls were responded to in four
minutes or less, a significant improvement over the previous years.
Similarly, the
percentage of calls that were responded to in less than six-minutes gradually increased at
an average rate of 1% per year. In 2006, the district was able to respond to 85% of calls
within the six-minute time frame. Further, in 2006 the district was able to respond to
96% of its calls within eight minutes or less, a response time that has remained relatively
stable over the preceding seven years. It is important to note that although the district has
maintained good response times, there will be an increase in call load that may have an
impact. However, with the addition of strategically located resources, the district can
expect to meet a greater percentage of its calls within the four to six-minute call goal.
42
All calls over 30 minutes were removed from analysis for several reasons. FMBFCD personnel noted
that those calls above 30 minutes were due to data input errors and unusual out-of-district mutual aid calls.
This represented a very small number of calls. 6 calls were removed for 2000, 14 for 2001, 14 for 2002, 11
for 2003, 11 for 2004, 17 for 2005, and 21 for 2006.
-42-
Cumulative Response Time (Minutes)
Response Times
1.20
1.00
0.80
Less than 4 minutes
0.60
Less than 6 minutes
Less than 8 minutes
0.40
0.20
0.00
2000
2001
2002
2003 2004
2005
2006
Less than 4
minutes
0.49
0.40
0.41
0.36
0.34
0.53
0.61
Less than 6
minutes
0.81
0.73
0.71
0.68
0.67
0.80
0.85
Less than 8
minutes
0.94
0.90
0.89
0.89
0.88
0.92
0.96
Ye ar
Figure 7: Percentage of Calls within Target Response Range
Call Time / Mitigation
An important source of data for 2006 is provided by Lee County Public Safety Division
of Communications (DOC). Lee County Public Safety DOC tracks the time units spend
on calls from dispatch to the time the engine or ambulance arrives back at the station and
are ready to take another call (mitigated). This data indicates the extent to which district
resources are inhibited. The average time spent on all EMS and other emergency service
calls was 46 minutes. EMS calls were mitigated in 50 minutes on average. The district
should continue to track the amount of time spent on calls, especially as other
environmental factors begin to impact district operations. These changes might include
the recent Lee Memorial Health System acquisition of critical health facilities and the
potential increases in wait times for district ambulances while at those facilities. The
district will continue to monitor call time / mitigation by collecting data for future
analysis.
-43-
Key Points
The preceding analysis indicates the following key points:
•
EMS calls continue to dominate the FMBFCD activities.
•
The number of calls is expected to rise at a rate of approximately 1.8% per year.
•
Peak high and low season call numbers may be used for future staffing decisions.
•
Average response times of EMS and other fire related activities showed an
average overall increase, albeit by small percentages per year. These trends and
their impact should be monitored throughout the lifetime of this comprehensive
plan.
•
As external conditions change, such as emergency room operations, EMS call
times and mitigation of calls should be monitored with data collection to estimate
impacts for time spent on calls.
-44-
Chapter 5 Financial Considerations
This section of the 2007-2017 FMBFCD Comprehensive Plan analyzes the financial
considerations and constraints facing the district as it progresses through the 2007-2017
time frame. Information in this section is based on a budget model created by the
district’s consulting firm, Schultz, Chaipel, Redovan, Baker & Co., L.L.P. as a tool to
assist management in forecasting future revenues and expenditures. The forecasting
portion of this budget model is based on historical trends and management's best
estimates of future operational needs.
This section summarizes the financial picture of the district covering the following items:
•
District revenue and revenue projections
•
District expenditures and projections
District Revenue
The district revenue is comprised of property tax revenue (89.3%)43; ambulance fee
revenue (5.6%); interest income (2.2%); inspection fees (.1%); impact fees (.4%); and
other relatively small additions to the budget from donations, grants, and special event
fees (2.3%). Each source is discussed below.
Property Tax Revenue
Property (ad valorem) taxes for all districts are based on two elements: 1) the property
value as set by the property appraiser and 2) the tax rate, set by the district board and
limited by a millage rate cap. Homes with a homestead exemption have limits placed on
taxable values by a 1992 voter-approved initiative, Save Our Homes. The initiative,
implemented in 1995, limits annual assessments to a maximum of 3% per year or the
percentage change in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less. The limitation only
applies to homes for which there is a homestead exemption. Upon sale of a property, the
43
Percentages based on a six-year average of district revenue.
-45-
assessed value returns to the market value in the year following the sale.44 This initiative
has affected taxable value throughout the state and in the FMBFCD jurisdiction. The
Save Our Homes initiative has limited some increases, however, the transfer and sale of
properties has caused the overall taxable value in the district to rise between the years
2000 and 2006.
The income derived from property value is based on the following formula:
[District Property Value (x) Millage rate] (–) [Property Appraiser Fees] = [Revenue]
The changing values in the district and different millage rates cause revenue sources to be
adjusted within the district on an annual basis. The millage rate cap is fixed by the state
legislature; any millage rate increase by the fire commission in excess of the fixed 3%
cap would require the district to petition the state legislature and hold a local referendum.
As of 2006/2007, property values totaled $4.450 billion. Between 2000 and 2006, values
increased at an average overall rate of 17.65% per year.
Historic property values and revenue derived from ad valorem taxes.
Table 12 (below, p. 47) reports the estimates of revenue derived from ad valorem taxes
for the years 1999/2000-2005/2006. Figure 8 (below, p. 47) reports the historical revenue
and millage rates.
44
Lee County Property Appraiser. 2007. Amendment 10 – “Save Our Homes.” Website retrieved 4/19/07
from: http://www.leepa.org/ .
-46-
Table 12: 1999/2000-2006/2007 Ad Valorem Tax Overview
Property
99/00
00/01
01/02
02/03
1.560 Bil
1.681 Bil
1.933 Bil
2.248 Bil
7.22%
7.73%
15.04%
16.25%
2.8000
2.8000
2.8000
4,580,588
5,284,558
03/04
04/05
05/2006
06/07
3.105 Bil
3.614 Bil
4.450 Bil
19.66%
15.44%
16.37%
23%
2.7000
2.6500
2.6500
2.6500
7,081,061
8,020,299
9,261,770 11,556,06145
2.690 Bil
Value
%
Property
Value
Increase
Millage Rate
Net Revenue 4,256,761
2.8000
6,116,516
(to FMBFCD)
Historical Property Values and Millage Rates
2.85
$3,500,000,000
2.8
$3,000,000,000
Millage Rate
$2,000,000,000
2.7
$1,500,000,000
2.65
$1,000,000,000
2.6
Property Values
$2,500,000,000
2.75
Millage rate
Property Values
$500,000,000
2.55
$0
99/00
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
Year
Figure 8: Historic Property Values and Millage Rates
Future property values and anticipated revenue derived from ad valorem taxes.
Using the assumption outlined in Table 13 (below, p. 48), management estimates that
property values will increase, yielding additional future revenue. Property values should
be continuously monitored for changes as they relate to projections.46
45
Final revenue is not determined until the end of the fiscal year.
State property tax reform under discussion in the Florida State legislature may impact future income
estimates. Future ad valorem tax revenues should be reviewed in the Comprehensive Plan annual update.
46
-47-
Table 13: Estimated Ad Valorem Tax Revenue
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
Estimated property values
5.117 Bil
7.313 Bil
6.304 Bil
6.809 Bil
7.353 Bil
% assumed property value
15%
12%
10%
8%
8%
Estimated Millage Rate
2.6500
2.5000
2.4000
2.3000
2.3000
Net Revenue (to FMBFCD)
13,207,155
13,954,730
14,736,195
15,251,961
16,472,118
increase
Figure 9 (below, p. 48) summarizes the historical and estimated values and millage rate
for the district.47
Property Values and Millage Assessed
5.0000 7,500,000,000 7,000,000,000 4.5000 6,500,000,000 4.0000 6,000,000,000 5,500,000,000 3.5000 Millag e R ates
5,000,000,000 3.0000 4,500,000,000 4,000,000,000 2.5000 3,500,000,000 2.0000 3,000,000,000 2,500,000,000 1.5000 2,000,000,000 1.0000 1,500,000,000 1,000,000,000 0.5000 500,000,000 ‐ ‐ 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Property Value
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Millage Rate
Figure 9: Historic and Estimated Millage and Property Values
Ambulance Fee Revenue
Ambulance fees are the second largest contributor to the district’s budget. Ambulance
billings are derived from user reimbursements for use of the ambulance services of the
district. Ambulance fee billing was $301,283 in the year 1999/2000 and peaked at
47
Estimates of FMBFCD property values are based on district management’s estimates. Future estimates
will be adjusted upon receipt of current market information.
-48-
slightly over $500,000 in 2003/2004. For the next five years, (2007-2012) management
estimates that ambulance user billings will remain at the previous five-year average of
$398,382. The district uses external agencies to bill and collect ambulance fees. While
this may increase the amount of fees collected, it may also increase the costs to collect
past due bills. Figure 10 (below, p. 49) reports the historic ambulance user fee billings
and collections for the years 1999/2000-2005/2006.
Ambulance User Fee Billings and Collections for Years
1999/2000 to 2005/2006
600,000
500,000
Amount
400,000
Billings
300,000
Collections
200,000
100,000
99/00
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
Year
Figure 10: 99/00 to 05/06 Ambulance User Fee Billings and Collections
Interest Income
Interest income, used to cover operation expenses for the district, is the third largest
revenue source. Interest income is derived from investing reserve funds and operational
cash balances.
Interest income was $181,604 in 2000/2001 and is estimated to be
$413,800 by 2011/2012. Future interest income will be based on designated reserve and
current fund balances. Figure 11 (below, p. 50) illustrates the historical and estimated
growth of interest through 2012.
-49-
2000/2001 to 2011/2012
Actual and Estimated Interest Earnings
Actual
Budgeted
600,000
Estimated
Amount Earned / Estimated
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12
Year
Figure 11: Actual and Estimated Interest Earnings
Inspection fees
Inspection fees are derived from new developments and permits requiring inspections by
the fire district. Inspection fees are a relatively small portion of the FMBFCD budget,
but can be utilized in the general budget. Between 2000 and 2006, inspection fees
averaged $6,739 per year and are expected to remain flat at $9,822 through 2012.
Impact Fees
Lee County regulates the “development” of land so as to ensure that new development
bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital expenditures necessary to provide fire
protection and emergency medical services in the county….”48 Impact fees are collected
from residential, commercial, and industrial developments. Section 2-389 of the Lee
County Land Development Code requires that impact fees be designated to fund capital
48
Lee County Land Development Code, Sec 2-383. Intent and purpose of the division. Lee County, FL.
-50-
improvements for expansion of fire protection services. In April 2006, new impact fees
were increased by the Lee County Board of County Commissioners.49 An inter-local
agreement is in place between the district and the county, which describes how fees are
transmitted, spent, and accounted for. Before impact fees can be used, pursuant to the
above-referenced interlocal agreement, the district must request and receive approval
from the county. Audit reviews are conducted by the county at regular intervals.50
Section 2-390 requires that impact fees be segregated from other funds and be expended
in the order in which they are collected. Finally, though the county limits districts from
borrowing against impact fees, it does not prohibit the designation of future impact fees
to be directed to specific capital improvement projects.51 Figure 12 (below, p. 51)
illustrates the district’s historic and estimated impact fees.52
2000/2001 to 2011/2012
Actual / Estimated Impact Fee Receipts
Actual
Budgeted
80,000
Estimated
Fee Received / E stim ated
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
-
00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12
Year
Figure 12: Historic and Estimated Impact Fees53
49
Lee County Ordinance 06-05
Lee County Land Development Code, Sec 2-385. Imposition. Lee County, FL.
51
Lee County Land Development Code, Sec 2-390. Use of funds. Lee County, FL.
52
Impact fees are not a significant source of revenue for the district.
53
Historical impact fees reflected in this chart are actual receipts received. This differs from impact fee
revenue as stated in the annual audited financial statement that reports impact fee revenue when expended,
not received.
50
-51-
District Expenses
Current Expenses
The current budget of the FMBFCD is comprised of several expense categories
including, personnel services, operating expenses, capital outlay, and debt service. The
district’s 2006/2007 budget totals $12,217,104 (excluding designated reserves) with
$7,712,100 budgeted for personnel services. As with other fire districts, operations are
labor intensive; between 2000 and 2006, personnel services comprised an average of 72%
of the district’s budget. Operating expenses budgeted for 2006/2007 total $2,396,604 and
the capital outlay budget totals $3,441,400.54 Figure 13 (below, p. 52) illustrates the
district’s expenses between 2000 and 2006.
Expenditures for Years 1999/2000 to 2005/2006
7,000,000
Expenditure by Type
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
Personnel Services
Operating
Capital Outlay
Principal and Interest
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
99/00
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
Year
Figure 13: 2000-2006 Expenditures
54
Budgeted capital outlay for 2006/2007 is higher than previous years due to the renovation of Station #32.
-52-
Future Expenses
Future expenses are derived from the same category as above, however, they will
increase due to inflation, salary increases, station renovation, and new construction.
Union contracts are re-negotiated every 3 years in October (or 10/2007, 10/2010 and
10/2013). The district will continue to negotiate “good faith” contracts as it relates to
personnel services. The renovations on Station #31 and #32 will be funded out of the
district’s reserves. The construction of Station #33 is anticipated to require new debt.
The need for Station #33 results from demands for better response time, thus debt service
will be shared by current and future taxpayers. To the extent possible, impact fees should
be designated to supplement ad valorem taxes to satisfy debt. Table 14 (below, p. 53)
illustrates the estimated debt service over the next five years, based on a 10-year
amortization schedule.
Table 14: Anticipated Debt Service for Years 2007/08 to 2011/2012
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
Principle
237,223
249,360
262,118
275,528
289,625
Interest
144,613
132,476
119,718
106,308
92,211
$381,836
$381,836
$381,836
$381,836
$381,836
Total
The staffing and equipment resources of Station #33 will primarily be accomplished
through a redistribution of current district resources, with the exception of hiring an
additional company officer. Other staff may be needed to service district-wide growth.
Continued planning will utilize an administrative needs analysis process to ensure
efficient and effective district operations. Future cost savings will also be identified, such
as sharing facilities and equipment between neighboring districts.
-53-
Key Points
The preceding discussion illustrates several key points for the purpose of the district.
•
Based on historical trends the taxable value of district properties is expected to
continue to rise in the future.
•
Future revenues from ad valorem taxes are subject to legislative action outside the
control of the district.
•
Ambulance fee revenue is projected to remain a stable source of income assuming
billing and collection efforts continue to be successful in the future.
•
Interest income provides a good source of revenue for the district to the extent
that reserves are available for investment.
•
Impact fees should continue to be considered a supplemental source of revenue
for capital improvements.
•
Revitalization efforts starting in 2007 should be concluded by 2009. By 2010, the
district will assume a ‘maintain and sustain’ posture and forecasts a downward
trend in capital improvements.
•
Operating costs shall be balanced with service delivery needs.
•
The district will continue “good faith” union contract negotiations to ensure the
best possible outcomes for the district and its employees.
-54-
Chapter 6 Ten Year Comprehensive Plan: Goals,
Objectives, Policies, Standards and Actions
Introduction and Mission Statement
The Ten Year Comprehensive Fire District Plan addresses issues facing the Fort Myers
Beach Fire Control District (district) over the next ten years, from 2007 to 2017. In this
plan, the district greatly increases its facilities planning efforts to meet the growth needs
of the district. This plan provides for replacing stations, reconstructing out-dated and
obsolete existing stations, and training and assessing personnel. In addition, a plan for
updating vehicles, fire-fighting equipment, and communication equipment is included.
As many of these items have needed replacing and/or re-furbishing for some time, the
first three to five years of this plan will address these concerns. Thereafter, the plan will
assume a more preventative and proactive, rather than a “catch-up,” approach to the
district’s needs.
The mission of the Fort Myers Beach Fire District is to provide the highest level of life
safety and protection services through an aggressive fire control service, public medical
and emergency rescue management, and fire prevention and public education, while
meeting the needs of the district’s growth and enhanced service levels. This will remain
the focus of the district over the next ten years and the plan will assist in providing
guidance to the district in meeting this mission. This is further defined in the district’s
Core Mission Statement: Combat hostile fires and treat and transport the sick and
injured as well as provide multiple levels of rescue.
Much of these needs are based on past growth within the district that was not previously
addressed. However, should growth slow in the future, there will still remain a great
need for district services at possibly even a higher level of quality than presently offered,
to ensure state of the art rescue operations and fire fighting capabilities continue to be
met. These issues are analyzed in light of federal, state, and local policies as directed by
-55-
the district's Board of Fire Commissioners and other officials responsible for the
implementation of the plan. These goals, objectives, policies, standards and actions are
also written in compliance with the Uniform Special District Accountability Act of 1989,
F.S. 189.401.
Planning activities today will increase the district’s ability over the next 10 years, to
manage resources, maintain or increase levels of service, achieve cost savings to tax
payers, and decrease duplication of efforts.
The district's intentions are expressed as goals, which are stated in broad language and
comprise the ultimate expression of desire to meet the mission. Ancillary to goals,
objectives are statements which express the district's intentions and measure progress in
specific performance areas. Policies state the district's commitment to implement the
goals and objectives; and standards are the specific, numerical requirements needed to
fulfill the goals, objectives, and policies of the district. Actions constitute an even more
specific plan of meeting standards and policies.
It is assumed within the plan, that these goals, objectives, policies, standards, and actions
will be met by the plan's completion in 2017, or will be modified through the Evaluation
and Review (EAR) process, which should be conducted on an annual or biannual basis.
It is also anticipated that during the five-year interim period (2012), an assessment of
success or shortfalls of the Plan’s goals, objectives, policies, standards, and actions will
be reviewed by the district’s planning committee and Board of Fire Commissioners to
determine if new direction is needed. The Ten Year Comprehensive Plan is intended to
be a dynamic, working document that can be updated in accordance with new
information, standards, technology and other on-going evaluations that will continue to
place the Fort Myers Beach Fire District as one of the top districts in Lee County in terms
of response times, quality of service, fiscal efficiency and effectiveness, and pride of
community. The goals, objectives, policies, standards, and actions are divided into nine
elements:
• resources and capital improvements
-56-
• growth and development
• protection
• prevention
• public education
• communications
• training
• records management
• emergency preparedness
GOAL
To provide the highest quality and most appropriate level of emergency
management, advanced rescue service, fire protection, prevention, and public
education to the citizens of the Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District in the most
professional, efficient, and cost effective manner possible, based on available
resources, and to advance the district to the pinnacle of industry standards, between
the years 2007 to 2017, through the adoption of a Ten Year Comprehensive Plan, in
measurable performance standards.
OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, STANDARDS, AND ACTIONS
RESOURCES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan
Objective 1 To ensure adequate rescue services, fire protection, prevention,
and staffing, by making sure that adequate funds are available to meet district
capital needs both now and in the future, which may include, but are not
limited to, new and/or redeveloped fire stations, equipment, and vehicles.
Policy 1.1 The district shall prepare and adopt a financially feasible capital
improvement program (CIP) to prioritize and fund its planned expenditures
for these capital improvement projects.
-57-
Policy 1.2 The district shall provide for sound, innovative and cost effective
financial techniques to implement the capital improvement program,
continuing to operate within the millage cap currently in place, and with the
intention of decreasing the millage rate after the first construction project is
completed to ensure that the district does not incur unreasonable debt. Debt
services will be an option for large capital projects and shall be leveraged
over time, as needed, to utilize appropriate borrowing techniques, avoiding
long-term debt-service fees, and promote shared costs with funds from future
tax revenue, interest and impact fees.
Policy 1.3 Using best management practices for fiscal procedures, the district
shall build a reserve equal to a six-month cash level as a safeguarding
measure, in anticipation of natural or man-made disasters that may befall the
district.
In the event of no disaster, this reserve shall continue to be
maintained. If the reserve is used, every effort shall be made to rebuild the
reserve.
Standard 1.3.1 The district shall include hurricane preparedness
measures in all construction and training.
Policy 1.4 Every year, the district shall prepare 10 years of financial
projections based upon need and anticipated ad valorem tax revenue. A
significant financial assessment shall be completed at the five-year interim
plan period and again at the 10 year period of the plan. Millage Rate shall be
determined by the following:
Millage Rate:
Budget
Gross taxable value for operating purposes
Policy 1.5 To meet the needs of impacts from new and redeveloped areas, the
district shall explore and adopt supplemental methods and sources of non-ad
-58-
valorem tax revenue to fund suppression and advanced rescue equipment
apparatus, and facilities. This may be accomplished through transport service
fees, inspection fees, fire impact fees, grants, filing review fees, donations and
dedications, fund raising efforts, or any other fees available for fire
suppression and prevention service, rescue, capital equipment and facilities,
training facilities, and public information to keep ad valorem taxes at lowest
possible levels without incurring additional debt while allowing the district to
grow in accordance with its needs.
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
Objective 2 Ensure that new growth and development within the district is
coordinated through the district, provisions for additional fire stations and
sub-stations, resources, vehicles and facilities are available to meet the needs
of existing and future growth, and that the integrity and autonomy of the
district is preserved and protected.
Policy 2.1 The district shall maintain its independent integrity while
continuing to work with Lee County, the Bonita Springs Fire Control District,
the Town of Fort Myers Beach, Iona-McGregor Fire District and the Federal
Coast Guard, when necessary, to monitor any issues of fire district
consolidation, town annexation of land activity, adjacent district land
annexation, and become an active participant in all such proceedings for the
benefit of all taxpayers within the district.
Standard 2.1.1 The fire chief and/or his designee will meet with these
adjacent entities, as appropriate, at a minimum of once a month to ensure
coordination efforts.
Policy 2.2 The district shall oppose any and all efforts by state and local
governments to consolidate independent fire districts into one central fire
department or include the Fort Myers Beach Fire District or parts of the
-59-
district in another fire district even if other districts decide to merge or
consolidate.
Policy 2.3 In the event of a loss in the district infrastructure, the district shall
plan for new facility development and/or redevelopment of existing district
facilities and establish new standards for manpower, equipment and resources.
The district shall coordinate site location criteria with adjacent jurisdictions by
evaluating fire station location, identifying deficiencies in current station
coverage, and eliminating gaps in the system.
Standard 2.3.1 New district fire stations shall be located in the district,
with consideration of other jurisdiction’s anticipated expansion and/or
development of new facilities, to avoid duplication of resources as
reasonable.
Standard 2.3.2 The district will achieve the response time goal of
reaching 95% of the calls for service within four to six (4-6) minutes and,
by 2009, construct a new station or stations as necessary to meet this
standard.
Standard 2.3.3 Existing fire stations shall have any emergency repairs,
re-roofing, and preventative maintenance accomplished in a fiscally
responsible manner to ensure the existing stations can continue to function
during the new construction on replacement stations.
Standard 2.3.4 To provide a minimum workforce of 13 fire fighters for
initial attacks to structural fires within four to six (4-6) minutes of dispatch
through the year 2009; and increase the minimum workforce to fifteen to
sixteen (15-16) fire fighters after the anticipated opening of Station #33 in
2009.
-60-
Standard 2.3.5 To provide a minimum of twenty (20) fire fighters,
including mutual aid personnel, for sustained attack to structural fires
within fifteen to twenty (15-20) minutes of dispatch.
Standard 2.3.6
In the event of a complete loss of any district fire
stations, new district fire stations shall be located, based on established
growth criteria and land ownership of the district, to meet the greatest
need in the future for district residents in the most fiscally responsible
manner possible.
As part of this analysis, the district shall consult
different types of location tools, such as mapping or GIS programs, or
access FLAME/ISO resources that use census maps and measure actual
response areas based on realistic speeds that fire engines travel, to evaluate
and strategically choose new station locations.
Action 2.3.6.1 Re-roofing and preventative maintenance shall begin
on Station #31 no later than January 1, 2007, to ensure the station can
continue to maintain existing levels of service while the new district
stations are under construction, and to initiate full hurricane protection
measures and construction techniques at this station.
Action 2.3.6.2 In 2007 through 2009, the district will rebuild Station
#32, maximizing the square footage of the facility and creating a
hurricane resistant building of up to Category 3 standards. Staffing
and
manpower
capabilities
at
this
station
will
increase,
communication and technology will improve to state of the art levels,
and district resources will be maximized while using district-owned
facilities and land.
Action 2.3.6.3 By 2007, in addition to the United States Coast Guard
Station, the previously purchased ‘Cap Plaza’ property will also be
used as a temporary station for Station #32 staff and equipment while
-61-
the rebuilding of that station occurs. During this project, the district
will employ fiscally conservative measures such as reuse of furniture,
equipment, and vehicles and authorize legal and district staff to take
whatever measures necessary to ensure the safe and efficient
establishment of this location as the temporary Station #32.
Action 2.3.6.4
As soon as possible, and after the completion of
Station #32, the district Board shall begin demolition of ‘Cap Plaza’
and initiate construction of the new Station #33 at the ‘Cap Plaza’
location. Using state of the art construction and technology techniques
the new construction will maximize square footages and parking, and
include an emergency services shelter.
Action 2.3.6.5 By 2009, the new Station #33 shall be constructed and
occupied, with the district ensuring that debt is reasonable and
appropriate.
Action 2.3.6.6 One of the three existing ambulances will operate out
of Station #33 if and when needed, providing a valuable resource
without incurring new debt by the district.
Action 2.3.6.7
initiated;
By 2010, the remodeling of Station #31
ensuring
hurricane
construction
codes
and
will be
ADA
compliance is met. Equipment and resources will temporarily shift to
Stations #32 and #33 as an interim measure.
Action 2.3.6.8 By 2011, Station #31, the main fire station for the
business of the district, will be reconstructed using a three story plan.
Station #31 will include new state of the art training facilities,
residential space for staff, upgraded conference space, administrative
office space, and meeting rooms that will accommodate public
-62-
meetings, workshops and fire-fighting training. All renovations will
be ADA compliant.
Action 2.3.6.10. As vacant parcels of land adjacent to the existing
station sites become available, the district may purchase these parcels
for future expansion purposes.
Policy 2.4. The district shall appoint a comprehensive plan review
committee and a construction subcommittee to evaluate and make plan
recommendations for changes, as needed, during the ten year plan time frame,
based on growth and development occurring both internal and external to the
district.
Standard 2.4.1 The district shall meet regularly, no less than on a
quarterly basis, to review and evaluate the Ten Year Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 2.5 The district shall support existing mutual aid agreements and enter
into any needed additional interlocal agreements with other agencies of local
government including, but not limited to, independent special districts,
municipalities, counties, the state, MSTU’s and other jurisdictions as created,
to facilitate the provision of services and coordinate the town and the county's
overall emergency management plans for the community.
The goal of
coordination is to ensure greater efficiency, reduce duplication, and provide
adequate coverage for the maximum population at the lowest possible cost.
Policy 2.6 The district shall monitor the provision of services by adjacent
jurisdictions and seek to offer its services in adjacent areas, as needed. The
district will enter into additional automatic aid agreements, as needed, to
ensure staffing and manpower needs are met as emergencies arise.
Policy 2.7
The district shall review the population, demographic, and
physical changes within district boundaries at the five-year interim plan
-63-
deadline.
The purpose of this review is to monitor the progress of the
Comprehensive Plan.
ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT, RESCUE, APPARATUS, EQUIPMENT, FIRE
SUPPRESSION AND PROTECTION
Objective 3
To ensure the district employs the most advanced, industry
accepted and technologically sophisticated techniques available for fire
suppression, fire protection, and rescue activity within the district, based upon
benchmarks adopted by the district.
Policy 3.1 The district may establish minimum manning for engine, rescue,
and ambulance companies and minimum response levels to best meet the
needs of the district and to provide a level of service in keeping with industry
standards and benchmarks.
Policy 3.2 The district shall develop a fleet replacement plan that permits the
upkeep and replacement of vehicles in an orderly fashion, while keeping the
district out of debt by establishing a fleet replacement reserve fund in its
capital outlay budget plan.
Standard 3.2.1
The district shall retain front line apparatus such as
engine trucks, ladder trucks and other response trucks for a life span of
fifteen years followed by five years of reserve service for a total of twenty
years. These shall be replaced on a revolving basis to ensure that the
operations and rescue fleet is in top performing condition.
Standard 3.2.2 The district shall retain general staff support vehicles
(cars) for a life span of four years. A support rescue vehicle (SUV) shall
be retained for a life of five years. These shall be replaced on a revolving
basis to ensure that the staff support fleet is in serviceable and dependable
condition.
-64-
Standard 3.2.3 The district shall retain rescue and ambulance transport
vehicles for a life span of three to five years. These shall be replaced on a
revolving basis to ensure that the rescue and ambulance transport fleet is
in top performing condition.
Standard 3.2.4 The district may purchase an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV)
and/or a rigid hull inflatable rescue boat within the next ten years if and
when warranted as long as levels of debt are not unreasonably increased.
Standard 3.2.5 The district shall retain large equipment and bunker gear
for a period of up to five years, to ensure this equipment remains in
excellent condition.
Policy 3.3 The district shall maintain its aerial ladder truck with a minimum
of 70 feet capability, and continue to utilize equipment through a written
mutual aid agreement with neighboring districts.
Policy 3.4 The district shall explore the option of entering into additional
automatic mutual aid agreements with neighboring districts, identifying and
considering areas of expertise by these various districts.
Policy 3.5 The district shall coordinate with the Town of Fort Myers Beach's
Comprehensive Plan and it’s adopted Capital Improvement Plan and
Intergovernmental Coordination Element.
Policy 3.6 The district shall continue to operate under the 911 system of
dispatch through Lee County and explore the option of initiating the Mobile
Data Computer Dispatching Aids (MDC’s).
-65-
Policy 3.7 The district organizational chain of command shall be in
accordance with the flow chart depicted herein, as Attachment F, and
amended as needed, to reflect the accuracy of any changes.
Policy 3.8
The district shall establish accepted levels of service for the
provision of fire suppression and advanced life support rescue and
transportation, identify areas needing improvement and create a plan detailing
the methods and means to finance these improvements, without incurring
unreasonable levels of debt.
Standard 3.8.1 The district shall strive to be at the scene of structure fire
and rescue calls within four to six (4-6) minutes or less and to be at the
scene of all other calls within five (5) minutes or less, from time
dispatched. These performance measures shall be used as part of staff
evaluations.
Standard 3.8.2 The district shall provide stations so that no point of a
target hazard will be more than 5 road miles from the closest engine
company.
Standard 3.8.3 To maintain skill levels in the district, a succession plan
for both experienced officers and firefighters shall be used to ensure that
as individuals are replaced they are done so with staff reinforced by
appropriate training, education, coaching and mentoring.
Standard 3.8.4 As growth takes place, the district shall review workload
and command issues and re-evaluate areas of accountability and
responsiveness.
Objective 4 The district is not currently due for reevaluation by the Insurance
Service Office (ISO). The district shall maintain the existing (ISO) rating at a
-66-
"4" until reevaluation in 2014.
Policy 4.1 In accordance with industry standards, the district shall update and
purchase the necessary equipment and apparatus to maintain the existing ISO
rating.
Policy 4.2 The district shall implement the proper training programs with
appropriate skills and training time to maintain the existing ISO rating. An
internal team or subcommittee will be instituted to prepare for the next ISO
grading event and explore accreditation options for the district to use as a
measurement technique.
Policy 4.3 The district shall utilize state of the art communication systems
with the purpose of maintaining the existing ISO rating.
Policy 4.4 The district shall build and refurbish/reconstruct the appropriate
fire stations needed to maintain the existing ISO rating.
Policy 4.5 Every ten years, the district shall participate in training events
under the auspices of the ISO in preparation for the reevaluation and interface
with the ISO to ensure maximum credit for all district actions since prior
grading.
Policy 4.6 The district shall seek reevaluation by the ISO every ten years.
The next ISO reevaluation will be conducted in 2014.
PREVENTION
Objective 5 To ensure the comprehensive, consistent, and uniform enforcement of
the Lee County Fire Code and ensure code compliance and adequate fire flow with
-67-
all new construction and redevelopment, and work with Code Enforcement to solve
community problems.
Policy 5.1 The district fire chief and/or his designee shall coordinate with Lee
County and the Town of Fort Myers Beach Divisions of Code Enforcement
and Utilities to enforce its adopted standards for prevention, providing for
consistent interpretation and effective enforcement, provide plan and site plan
review services to determine project compliance with all adopted fire and life
safety codes and regulations, and ensure an adequate water supply from the
appropriate utility company.
Policy 5.2 The district fire chief and/or his designee shall coordinate with the
County Fire Marshal to ensure enforcement of the fire code and interpretation
of fire code matters and testify as needed at Code Enforcement Board and
Board of Adjustment and Appeals hearings.
Policy 5.3 The district shall enforce required fire flow and pressure standards
for water facilities as contained in the Lee County Land Development Code
(LDC), and ensure that new construction is not permitted without an adequate
water supply as it relates to fire flow, and work with the appropriate entities to
increase water line size and water supply wherever needed.
Policy 5.4 The district shall enforce the Fire Sprinkler Code, adopted by Lee
County and the Town of Fort Myers Beach, to its highest standards.
Policy 5.5
The district shall be represented by the fire chief and/or his
designee as part of the zoning and development review process within the
Town of Fort Myers Beach and Lee County. The district will make comments
and provide recommendations on proposed developments to coordinate
growth development within the district and ensure the maximum amount of
safety measures.
-68-
Policy 5.6 In addition to enhancing program activity and plan review for
proactive performance in Code Enforcement, the district shall establish
accepted levels of service for the provision of prevention and identify areas
of needed improvement, continually updating the existing plan detailing
the methods and means to finance these improvements.
Policy 5.7 The district fire chief or his designee shall work with the Town
of Fort Myers Beach, Lee County, and/or any other community
redevelopment agency (CRA) to establish appropriate size water lines, fire
hydrants, roads and other applicable components ensuring adequate water
supply where new and redevelopment occurs within the district.
Policy 5.8 The district may enforce parking laws relative to fire and
emergency vehicles throughout the district. Enforcement will require proper
training and participation in the overall Town Traffic Circulation Planning
efforts.
Policy 5.9 The district shall conduct arson investigations as required
throughout the district and coordinate with the appropriate federal, state, and
local officials.
Policy 5.10 The district shall ensure that all staff are trained and
knowledgeable with all aspects of the Lee County Fire Code.
Policy 5.11 The district shall maintain appropriate HAZMAT awareness and
work with the other designated HAZMAT teams.
-69-
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Objective 6 The district shall continually update the existing public education
and community relations programs to stay current with prevention techniques
and basic saving techniques for the health, safety and welfare of the
community, particularly with Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)
education and the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT).
Policy 6.1 Taking a pro-active approach to the community, the district shall
establish a public information officer (PIO) position to address public
education and relations issues, issue quarterly newsletters, update the web
site as needed, field questions, and ensure the public is familiar with CERT
and other fire district programs.
Policy 6.2 To better serve the public, the district shall establish an
informational Internet web site containing pertinent district information.
Policy 6.3 The district shall continue to foster a good working relationship
with the news media on issues of mutual interest and concern; especially with
respect to CERT, CPR training, and other district programs.
Policy 6.4 The PIO shall update the district’s website and develop and update
public education and
awareness programs for public participation and
information purposes.
Policy 6.5 The district shall continue to work with the community to educate
the citizens as to the current and future needs of the district. The activities
may include teaching CPR and informing the community of CERT.
-70-
Policy 6.6 The district shall continue providing the SAFEHOUSE program
and working with the public schools to provide safety and prevention
education, and youth outreach programs.
Policy 6.7 The district shall coordinate with CERT and hold workshops as
needed to encourage community interest and feedback.
COMMUNICATIONS
Objective 7
The district shall strive to obtain the most state-of-the-art
telecommunication system and innovations available, as a means of providing
the best response time possible.
Policy 7.1 The district shall continue to operate under the 911 system as part
of Lee County’s Emergency Management program, while exploring homebased communications and MDCs.
Policy 7.2 The district shall maximize the use of the existing communication
system with additional equipment and techniques such as, but not exclusive
to, pagers and cell phones.
Standard 7.2.1 The district shall standardize their equipment by 2011.
Policy 7.3 The district shall ensure that adequate training occurs on all
communications equipment.
TRAINING
Objective 8 The district shall maintain and continually seek to improve an
educational training program for all firefighting, rescue, and related personnel
consistent with the standards set forth by local, state and nationally recognized
-71-
training and learning institutions. The district will improve employee safety to
the highest acceptable standards according to the State of Florida Standards,
the National Fire Protection Association, and the National Fire Academy.
Policy 8.1 The district shall follow accepted standards of training to bring all
personnel up to recognized state levels and compose a career development
guide providing entry level personnel with preparation and goals for higher
levels of responsibility.
Policy 8.2 The district shall update, maintain and create specialty areas, in
both fire-fighting and rescue/EMS fields, with
personnel exhibiting
the
potential for advancement. Training will be delivered in-house and outside
the district, and will include live fire training.
Policy 8.3 The district shall motivate personnel to seek the highest level
possible in their field and help them establish career goals using the career
development guide.
Policy 8.4 The district shall develop plans and specifications as part of its
new capital improvement plan for larger and more advanced classroom and
training facilities, at one or more of the district stations, to maintain firefighting, rescue, EMS and other skills over the duration of the comprehensive
plan.
Policy 8.5
The district may work with any future county-wide training
associations and cooperate on larger training programs offered regionally
or county-wide.
Policy 8.6 The district shall maintain an adequate record keeping system to
ensure proper planning and resource management.
-72-
Policy 8.7 The district shall schedule and conduct in-service training on an
on-going basis, establishing and using an annual training model.
Policy 8.8 The district may coordinate with the Public Information Officer to
establish a public information program and shall publish an annual status
report in both hard copy form and on the district’s web site. The public
information program will include such items as budgeting and finance.
Policy 8.9 The district shall share its Core Mission Statement with the
public, through actions, staff, signage in front of all district stations and the
district’s web site.
RECORDS MANAGEMENT
Objective 9 The district shall improve its records management systems to
decrease records storage space by increasing use of paperless systems.
Policy 9.1 The district shall develop a Comprehensive Management
Information System (CMIS) to produce more comprehensive performance
data, including, analysis of response records and expansion of GIS
capabilities.
The purpose of the CMIS system is to ensure that mobile
computer systems provide the capabilities of medical records, fire records and
reports, information exchange and financial information to staff in the field as
well as in-house.
Policy 9.2 The district shall invest in the appropriate equipment and programs,
considering an image scanner, to permit increased levels of record keeping,
analysis of data and to provide periodic assessment of performance. This
system may address issues related to workload, staffing, and records retention.
-73-
Policy 9.3 The district shall develop a comprehensive risk inventory
information system based upon the district’s ability to store records, age of
structure and building height.
Policy 9.4 The district shall provide personnel, fiscal, procurement,
maintenance, and clerical support for all departmental activities, including
standardizing equipment and ensuring standardized email for all district staff.
Policy 9.5 The district shall employ state of the art staff evaluation tools for
consistency and meaningful review.
Policy 9.6 The district shall be consistent with federal and state employment
regulations.
HURRICANE/DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
Objective
10
The
district
shall
maintain
industry
standards
for
hurricane/disaster preparedness planning and appropriate training relative to
the before, during, and after phases of a hurricane emergency.
Policy 10.1 The district shall coordinate with the Town of Fort Myers Beach,
FEMA, Iona–McGregor Fire District and the county on hurricane/disaster
planning and preparedness issues.
Policy 10.2 The district shall maintain a hurricane/disaster preparedness
action plan and ensure it is in place on or before June 1st of every year.
Policy 10.3 District Station #32 shall be equipped to serve as a “refuge of
last resort” and as an EOC for demographic district personnel and to become
a recovery center and/or staging area after a hurricane/disaster event, in
cooperation with appropriate agencies in the recovery service.
-74-
Policy 10.4 The district shall participate in annual county-wide disaster
preparedness exercises.
-75-
Appendix A: FMBFCD Boundary Map
- 76 -
Appendix B: Previous Fire District Chiefs
1949
June 22
1959
Earl Howie was appointed as the first chief
Nicholas Briuglia promoted to chief
1960
February 15
Joseph Busta promoted to chief
1962
January 13
Walter C. Thomas promoted to chief
1969
January 10
Eugene Goetze promoted to chief
1971
December 12
Chief Goetze resigns; Robert G Cornwell promoted to acting chief
May 12
Al Bradford promoted to probationary chief
1972
April 9
Chief Bradford resigns; Lowell Hill becomes chief
1978
June 13
Chief Hill resigns
June 27
John Duke promoted to chief
January 23
Chief Duke resigns; John McCarthy becomes acting chief
February 12
John McCarthy becomes chief
March 8
Chief John McCarthy suspended
April 12
Mulac promoted to acting chief
June 22
Mulac promoted to chief
July 12
Fire Marshal Weatherby promoted to assistant chief
1980
1983
Chief John McCarthy re-instated. Mulac moved back to assistant chief and
September 13
Weatherby moved back to fire marshal
Mulac and Weatherby accused of misappropriating funds by giving
November 2
themselves unapproved raises
November 15
James Bradford promoted to acting assistant chief
December 7
Mulac and Weatherby terminated
December 13
James Bradford promoted to assistant chief
June 29
Chief McCarthy placed on administrative leave with Bradford as acting chief
July 11
James Bradford is promoted to chief
March
Chief Bradford's last commission meeting
March
Doug Desmond promoted to acting chief
August 19
Stephen Markus hired as chief
2005
November
Chief Markus resigns
2006
April 1
Michael Becker promoted to chief
1995
1997
- 77 -
Appendix C: Census 2000 and FMBFCD Boundaries
-78-
Appendix D: Hurricane Evacuation Routes
-79-
Appendix E: Lee County Hurricane Shelters
-80-
Appendix F: FMBFCD Organization Chart
Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District
Board of Commissioners
Fire Chief
Assistant Chief
Community Resource
Development Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Medical Officer
Administrative Assistant
Fire Marshal
Receptionist
Fire Inspector
A Shift Commander
B Shift Commander
C Shift Commander
Company Officer
Station 31
Company Officer
Station 32
Company Officer
Station 33
Company Officer
Station 31
Company Officer
Station 32
Company Officer
Station 33
Company Officer
Station 31
Company Officer
Station 32
Company Officer
Station 33
Engine 31
Engine 32
Truck 33
Engine 31
Engine 32
Truck 33
Engine 31
Engine 32
Truck 33
Ambulance 31
Ambulance 32
Ambulance 33
Ambulance 31
Ambulance 32
Ambulance 33
Ambulance 31
Ambulance 32
Ambulance 33
Support 31
Support 32
Support 31
Support 32
Support 31
Support 32
- 81 -