Loading...
DSAC Minutes 01/03/2001 RJanuary 3, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 3, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION, at Conference Room "F", Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Tom Masters, P.E. Charles M. Abbott R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. Robert L. Duane, AICP Marco A. Espinar Blair A. Foley, P.E. Brian E. Jones Dino J. Longo C. Perry Peeples, Esq. Herbert R. Savage, AIA ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Attorney for the Board Robert Mulhere Page I DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA January 3, 2001 3:30 p.m. I. Approval of Agenda II. Approval of Minutes- December 3, 2000 Meeting III. Staff Announcements A. Summary of Ordinance Amendments B. Miscellaneous IV. Old Business A. Report -Impact Fee Ordinance B. Weed, Litter and Exotics Ordinance Update Subcommittee Reports A. Land Development Regulation (Bob Duane) B. Construction Code (Dino Longo) C. Utility Code (Tom Peek) D. Ad Hoc Committee on Fees Vl. New Business A. Development Services Advisory Committee Vacancies (7) VII. Committee Member Comments January 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We don't have a quorum. We can't approve the agenda or the minutes. Let's move right on to staff announcements. MR. MULHERE: No staff announcements. You have in your pocket -- in your packet here, the summary of ordinance amendments. I note on there, just looking at our own stuff, that it's up to date in terms of the LDC amendments, which were approved by the Board, and the Weed, Litter and Exotic Control Ordinance, which was approved by the Board, as well as the Citation Ordinance. And there really are no other issues to report on. I'm not sure what's happening with the Disaster Recovery Ordinance that's been pending since 7/99. We can talk to Ken Pineau and see what's up with that. MR. LONGO: That's tied into the FEMA. MR. MULHERE: That's all in the challenge. That's related to the -- MR. LONGO: Right. MR. WHITE: We are having a teleconference tomorrow with those folks. MR. LONGO: Yes, 10:00 a.m. at the Emergency Management Services Building. MR. SAVAGE: For which conference? MR. LONGO: Those are on the FEMA task force. MR. MULHERE: I don't have any other announcements. We do have Phil Tindall here, I assume to report on the Impact Fee Ordinance, so maybe we should move right into that update. MR. TINDALL: There is an executive summary in your package that addresses this that you may have had a chance to review before the meeting. In an attempt to get this project back on track and moving towards completion, we have had two meetings, which were pretty much day-long meetings, with a consultant in December with a group of people from staff, two of which are sitting on either side of me. And we've made some significant progress, in my opinion, towards getting the document closer towards completion. The consultant has committed to delivering the next draft of the document by 5:00 today via E-mail, in which case, for your review, we have a couple of options. Page 2 January 3, 2001 We could forward the updated document to your subcommittee, as was done previously for review, or we could -- when the subcommittee meets, which I believe is the first Thursday, if I remember correctly, we could prepare for them a presentation of information by exception rather than their having to go through the whole document, or we could do both, just to give them an idea of everything that is being done in terms of that because there are significant changes in addition to just the consolidation of all the various impact fee ordinances into one document. So we would like to make sure we're getting your group up to speed this month on the report because we're hoping the next draft that comes out will be the final draft and we'll be able to go to the board very soon to get this finished. So we will be looking for your inputs for hopefully the February Board meeting of the County Commission. MR. MULHERE: Will you then distribute final copies? MR. TINDALL: Like I was saying, what we could do is, when this draft comes, we could forward that for your subcommittee's review or we could just brief them at the subcommittee's meeting on what all the significant changes are and have some of the staff team members who were involved in this to answer specific questions if you'd like. Whatever your preference is. MR. MULHERE: Do you feel -- I mean, the question is, do you feel that you need that sometime in advance of your February meeting because at your February meeting you're looking for a recommendation. MR. TINDALL.' We can send the document out right away as soon as we get it. MR. MULHERE: Right. I assume that would be most preferable. MR. TINDALL: If you would rather us just brief you by exception rather than your having to go through the whole document, we can do it that way. It's a pretty cumbersome thing to have to go through. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I would want to see that at the LDC subcommittee meeting. MR. PEEK: Yes. I think the LDC is the one that looked at it before. MR. MULHERE: It is. MR. PEEK: And I think that, as a committee, a committee Page 3 January 3, 2001 member, I would like to have the changes identified. MR. TINDALL: Sure. We can definitely do that. If you would like to have the actual documents for your subcommittee members to read like you did before, you'll notice there are significant changes and improvements. But I'll ask you whether you want to do that or not. MR. MULHERE: Are they identified in that subsequent document in any way? Are they underlined, highlighted? MR. TINDALL: I won't know that until we actually get the draft today. I don't think that was our intention. He was going to give us an updated draft. But we will report to subcommittee by summary when we meet with them on what the changes are from the previous draft. MR. MULHERE: So what's the pleasure of the committee? Would you like to get a copy? And then those of you that want to read through it item by item can and those that want to hold on to it and bring it and get a summary at the meeting, you would have that option. MR. PEEK: Yes. I would like to get the document, at least have the changes identified so that we can look and see what has changed from the last time we read it. MR. TINDALL: We can do that and a written summary. Sure. MR. ANDERSON: Will we get that written summary of the changes in advance of our meeting? MR. TINDALL: Yes, I will make sure that happens. MR. ANDERSON: Have you decided -- on your executive summary you list eight different matters that you were taking a look at. MR. TINDALL: Right. And we wanted to see if anybody had any questions on any of those that needed any clarification. What we did is, we cited the areas that involved the most amount of discussion with the consultant and the things that we think are the most significant areas to be addressed. We're trying to give you an idea of what to expect, you know, to see, even though in a number of cases it's not been totally formulated yet. But these are the areas we're working on. MR. ANDERSON: Where are you at, Item Number 5? MR. TINDALL: Well, right now, if the consultant does what we direct them to do, they are going to give us basically the options in both extremes, which are going to be either not Page 4 January 3, 2001 allowing assignability at all or pretty much free assignability within the -- And we'll probably put that just up to the Board for their final decision as to how they want to go. There are going to be a number of areas. Another example of that has to do with -- let's see -- Exemption Number 6. We're going ask the Board to readdress some of the exemptions we think are somewhat -- that need to be addressed. Like, for example, there is one that only applies to the Road Impact Fee Ordinance that has to do with not-for-profit stuff in the medical facilities. For some reason that only applies to road impact fees. I'm going to ask the Board, do you really want to keep that as a matter of policy? So these are the types of things we're just going to be giving to them as, you know-- make a decision on which direction you want to go on that in terms of the policy. MR. ANDERSON: Without making the recommendations, then, just giving -- MR. TINDALL: We would, of course, ask you guys to make recommendations, and I'm sure the transportation administrator has input and some of the others will make recommendations and will have an opportunity. Staff was trying -- is just trying to present it as, these are the policy issues and what's your pleasure? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Anybody else have any other questions? MR. MULHERE: I just have one question. I think I heard that the Board was going to -- not directly related, but certainly -- I think I heard the Board wanted to reconsider the issue of not charging impact fees for ALFs. MR. TINDALL: That only applies to school impact fees. MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. TINDALL: And I have heard that they intend to -- I have not seen anything official about it. I did have a discussion with some staff members at the county attorney's office today because the chairman had some questions for the county attorney about it and they asked me a few things. MR. MULHERE: So it might or might not be reconsidered? Page 5 January 3, 2001 MR. TINDALL: I think it may be reconsidered next -- or bring it up for reconsideration on Tuesday and then we can cover it at the subsequent Board meeting. MR. MULHERE: I think the concern was that -- it was understood that there was no nexus or impact in an adult-only community. But what if it changed? MR. TINDALL: Right. Nothing has changed in terms of the ordinance except for formulating by adding the exemption where an existing practice and procedure has been all along. MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. TINDALL: Which is that, based upon the previous case law having to do with adult-only communities, our practice has been not to assess school impact fees on those types of communities. And some of the Board members apparently want to readdress that since that was -- MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Savage. MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. I look at number 7 here. And it's a little late now, the year 2001. How is it possible that golf courses which are built for a profit or reason never had to have a building permit? I think that's absolutely ridiculous. MR. TINDALL: It really has to do with the building codes, which only address buildings, and our procedures were kind of -- MR. SAVAGE: You mean if I build a driveway onto a golf course, I don't have to have a permit for that driveway? MR. PEEK: It's not considered a building. MR. SAVAGE: It's the building of something. Whether it's a structure with a roof on it or a paved area or a sidewalk, you're building something. MR. MULHERE: That's the way it reads now. MR. TINDALL: That's the way it reads now because we fixed the ordinance. That was not the case before and that's what caused the problem that was in the paper so frequently a few months ago. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thanks for your update. For those of you that just stepped in, we skipped over a couple items and went to old business for a report on Impact Fee Ordinances while we were waiting for a quorum. We now have a quorum. Let's drop back to approval of the agenda. Do we have any items to add? Page 6 January 3, 2001 MR. MULHERE: I think we do. I know Dawn Wolfe, the transportation planning manager, is here. MS. WOLFE: Director. MR. MULHERE: The transportation planning director is here. And I think she wants to talk about transportation reorganization or something along those lines. If you want to add that under new business, Item B, transportation reorganization, is that what we're talking about, or organization? MS. WOLFE: Additional positions. MR. MULHERE: Transportation division, additional positions. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any other amendments? MR. SAVAGE: One other item. This is the first meeting of the new year, correct? We should elect officers for the new year, correct? It's not listed here anywhere on the agenda. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Is that annual? MR. MULHERE: It's done, but I don't know that you have to do it this time. You might want to wait. I think by your next meeting you'd have new members. I know last year we didn't do it at the first meeting. It's up to you. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, my point is, we're not going to elect a new member as chairman nor vice chairman, if I can help it. And I would like to do it today. MR. PEEK: I would like to put it on the agenda. MR. ABBOTT: New members might not know you, Herb. MR. MULHERE: We can add it to the agenda. I guess that would also be under-- MR. SAVAGE: Put it on the agenda, if you will, please, as Item Number 1. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR.ANDERSON: The LDC -- I'm sorry. The Code Laws and Ordinances has a provision regarding officers and it just says: Annually the membership shall elect the chairman and vice chairman from among the members who will serve for one year, with eligibility for reelection. So whatever the date was that last year officers were elected, they have a year calendar, if you will, from that date. So Page 7 January 3, 2001 if you want to have them sooner, I believe if there's enough votes to do that, you can go right ahead and do it; otherwise you can wait the full year. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I don't know when our last election was. Does anybody recollect that? MR. SAVAGE: First month of the last year. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. ABBOTT: I have something to add. I'm Charlie Abbott. Dallas told me that he had trouble applying. He missed it by a day or something. He still wants to serve on this committee. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Right. We're not to that item yet. MR. ABBOTT: I understand that, but I'm putting that in since he is our current chairman, correct? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That is correct. Thank you. We'll add election of officers, unless there is any objection to that, as Item C under new business. MR. PEEK: I move the agenda be approved. MR. SAVAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: note by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion seconded. And all in favor MR. ESPINAR: Motion passes. Agenda passes. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. This says And approval December 3rd. It should be December 6th. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. We move on to approval of the minutes. Does anybody have any comments regarding the minutes? Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: I have one correction on Page 11, near the bottom of the page where I'm speaking, it says: Don't you have an announcement to make about the outcome of the comprehensive planning zoning? It should be -- it's not planning zoning. It should be plan challenge. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any others? Mr. Peek. MR. PEEK: Question on Page 22. Up near the top there is a Freudian slip or is that some sort of identification for Rich Yovanovich as "Mr. Yapping"? MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Yapping? Page 8 January 3, 2001 MR. PEEK: In several places he's identified as "Mr. Yapping". Maybe that's appropriate. MR. SAVAGE: Who listens to yapping? You're not talking about Savage, are you? MR. PEEK: That's a more appropriate identification. I'm recommending no change. MR. JONES: Second. MR. MULHERE: So everywhere -- just to reflect for the reporter -- in the minutes that everywhere where it refers to "Mr. Yapping" should actually be Mr. Yovanovich. MR. ABBOTT: Who is going to point it out? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any other comments regarding the minutes? Motion to approve? MR. PEEK: I move for approval. MR. SAVAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion made by Mr. Peek, second by Mr. Savage. MR. MULHERE: With those corrections noted? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: As noted. All in favor?. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion carries. And we've finished the staff announcements. Moving on to the second item old business, Weed, Litter and Exotics Ordinance Update. MR. MULHERE: That's Michelle. I mentioned it was approved already, but-- MS. ARNOLD: The weed and litter? MR. MULHERE: I don't know. The little summary thing says it was. MS. ARNOLD: It was previously approved in the year 2000 and we modified some of the notification process. And now we're -- we found a problem in that previous amendment, so we're proposing the amendment of it again. And then we're doing some other cleanup items, with the help of Patrick here. The ordinance was provided to you at the last meeting, right? Was that November or -- no, December, for your review and comments. I don't know if anybody had a chance to look at it. And perhaps we should be really looking at it at the Page 9 January 3, 2001 subcommittee level to discuss the changes that are being recommended. I don't know -- I wasn't here when you guys got the actual ordinance and discussed it. I don't know if, Patrick, you went through for them what the changes were. MR. WHITE: Patrick White. There was no question with regard to what the changes were. But I can tell you that I was just informing Michelle that one of the things that I would like to be able to change and bring back for the official approval of this committee, either via the subcommittee route or otherwise, is to change the format of it so that it would be an amendment to the actual code itself rather than an amendment to the prior ordinances as amended. And that's the reason for the policy change that our office has gone ahead and implemented, plus some of the minor tweaking of the preexisting language to try and make sure that we have something that's a defensible process. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We do have an LDC subcommittee meeting coming up in a couple weeks. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Seems like that might be the right place to introduce that to us again. MS. ARNOLD: What's the date of that next meeting; do we know? MR. that? MR. MR. MS. MR. MR. NINO: The third Thursday of the month. Which day is PEEK: Eighteenth. NINO: We have an agenda for that. ARNOLD: Okay. WHITE: When do the agendas go out, Ron? NINO: The week before. MR. MULHERE: About a week. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That will work with your schedule? MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. PEEK: That's a 3:00 meeting? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Uh-huh. MR. NINO.- Right. MR. MULHERE: Eighteenth. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We look forward to seeing that. Any other things you want to discuss? MS. ARNOLD: No. Page 10 January 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Takes care of the Weed, Litter and Exotics Ordinance Update. Moving on to the subcommittee reports. We have the Land Development Regulation meeting. MR. DUANE: We have not met since our last meeting. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And construction code, Dino? MR. LONGO: We have not met since our last meeting. But I will inform the committee again that there is a conference call tomorrow morning, 10:00 a.m., at the Emergency Management Services Building on the FEMA related issues. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And your committee is going to meet this month at its regular time? MR. LONGO: No. Actually, we have no agenda items at this moment. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. Utility code. MR. PEEK: Tom Peek. The utility code committee did meet on the 28th of December. There are copies of the minutes of that meeting being distributed. If anyone still needs a copy, I have them here. There were no items discussed at that meeting that need action by this group today. This is an information distribution to you. There are still some questions being discussed that will come up again at the next meeting. The second page of the handout is the agenda for the January 25th meeting. Any and all of you are invited to attend. If you have any questions, we'll entertain those at this time. If not, that concludes the report. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I would just add to that, I was in attendance at that meeting, Tom Masters, and there were a number of frequently asked questions that we were trying to resolve at that meeting. And Steve Weiner will be putting all those on the web page too. So if anybody has questions on some ongoing issues, you can look on the web page and hopefully find answers to some of your questions there. And any information on the ad hoc committee on fees? MR. MULHERE: I had some comments on that. There really wasn't any meeting because it culminated in the final recommendation for approval from this committee for the fee Page 11 January 3, 2001 increases. Fee increases are in effect. They were in effect as of January. They were in effect when the Board approved them, but it took us until January 1st to change the computers and everything. So they are being collected now. As part of that, we agreed to work with really that ad hoc committee, or anybody who was interested, really, not just those that were part of that ad hoc committee, to basically review our performance standards for the planning department and the building department. And I've been working with Tom Kelly, sitting over against the wall back there, our business manager. He's been interviewing some of my staff members in the planning department, conducting an audit, a procedural and management audit of the department, which will be part of this performance standard evaluation. And, frankly, I'll be honest with you, in beginning to look at the scope and the skill of this project, we thought we were going to try to do both building and planning. We're going to start with just planning and complete that -- and I feel like that's going to take probably four months -- and then we'll move on to the building department. We would like to, with the endorsement of this committee, set up a regular meeting time -- perhaps at this point it could be every two weeks, but then maybe thereafter a little bit more often, or maybe even once a month to start -- but of this ad hoc committee to report to them on the progress that we make and what our findings are and to bounce some things off of them. My recollection was, it was Dallas, Dino, Tom Peek, Brian, you're on that fee ad hoc committee. I don't know if I missed anybody or if other people would want to be involved. Charlie? MR. ABBOTT: I would like to be on it. MR. MULHERE: So it's up to the committee, but maybe we could talk about a date and time right now for the first meeting. And we'll tell you what our plans are and where we are going as far as the subcommittee goes, as far as our work goes. And then we could set up further meetings or additional meetings at that sort of ad hoc committee meeting. Anybody have any thoughts? MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that I remember. Page 12 January 3, 2001 The standards committee is going to review the standards of the building department? MR. MULHERE: We're going to review the -- we, as staff, are going to look at basically all of our performance standards. When I say that, we will be looking at, for example, let's start with just planning. What do we do in reviewing a site development plan? How long does it take for that process? How long would you like to see it take for that process? And what does that mean from a resource implication? MR. SAVAGE: The thing that brought it to my mind was this -- whoever she is from Fort Myers that challenges our plan reviewer. Is that something that will be in the building department review, the qualifications of the plan reviewer? She said she was going to decertify them if they -- I mean, that's -- do you understand what I'm saying? We are supposed to have a meeting sometime in January when the legislators are going to be here, in which we ought to get up and say something about that woman who is in Fort Myers who came down here and knows nothing about the construction industry. And she is looking into the standards -- MR. ABBOTT: No, no, no. MR. SAVAGE: -- of this department? MR. ABBOTT: No. Let me explain that a little bit. It probably would be better to say -- it's the lady from DPBR that he's talking about. Why don't you enlighten us as to what -- MR. SAVAGE: Was that a part of this standard -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I don't think it's a part of this discussion. MR. ABBOTT: But that stuff is being worked out. Patrick is handling it. Her position is, she wants everything on the blueprints up front, even single-family residential. What the county building department's position is is that we do that. We do an adequate job of reviewing it in concept here and in detail in the field where the inspectors tell us there is more than one way to accomplish certain ends. And Patrick is riding herd on that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Getting back to where we were. Do you all want to try to pick a date for your meeting, then? MR. MULHERE: That's what I was thinking. And I know you Page 13 January 3, 2001 guys are volunteers here, so it's really your schedule. We'll be paid to be there. So Thursday afternoon -- you're meeting the third Thursday, right? MR. NINO: Yes. MR. MULHERE: And planning commission is first and third in the morning. MR. NINO: Right. MR. MULHERE: So maybe the second Thursday of the month, which is coming up, would be a good one. Is that good for'you, Tom, second Thursday? MR. KELLY: Fine. MR. LONGO: Or we can do it -- MR. MULHERE: The 11th. MR. LONGO: In lieu of construction code, which is open next Wednesday. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Since it's not a set time. Does that work for everybody? MR. MULHERE: That's Wednesday, you are saying? MR. LONGO: Yes. MR. MULHERE: You have that in your calendar already. That's fine by me. Wednesday is the 10th, right? MR. LONGO: Correct. MR. MULHERE: What time? MR. LONGO: 3:00. MR. ABBOTT: 3:00 sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Does that work for everybody? MR. JONES: That works. MR. ABBOTT: It gives us enough time to do it in the two hours and get out. MR. MULHERE: It would be less than that. MR. ABBOTT: I understand that. MR. MULHERE: We can talk about a time that's convenient for everybody, rather than take that time here. We can also talk about what our plans are. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. I think that takes care of the ad hoc committee. MR. MULHERE: By the way, Conference Room C. I'm taking a stab it's going to be open. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Moving along to new business, then. Page 14 January 3, 2001 MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask another question about that building department review? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: And our counselor of the county. The legislators are going to have a meeting, is that correct, in January here? MR. WHITE: I believe it's the 17th, the local legislative delegation. MR. SAVAGE: And I'm wondering, when I look over here at the Collier County Building Association and everybody else, those things which we talk about with reference to this woman in Fort Myers, whatever her name is, Karen or whatever it was, are we going to have somebody discussing that at that session, we, the building industry, with the legislators? MR. DUNNICK: I made the suggestion at the last meeting and it kind of fell on deaf ears. From the Board's perspective they wanted to. Is David here today? MR. ELLIS: Yes. MR. DUNNICK: David, are you planning on making a presentation in that regard to the local delegation? MR. ELLIS: We are meeting and speaking with members of the local delegation before that meeting about that issue. We hadn't -- I'm going to be at that meeting and that was one of the things on my list. If we're not further along, we will make that as a public presentation. MR. SAVAGE: I think it's very important to bring it up. And our construction industry ought to be facing that issue very strongly. Because we get pushed around so much by someone that knows nothing about the business. And I trust that your committee or subcommittee and you and everybody else on this whole board ought to be there. It's very important, whether you realize it or not. MR. ABBOTT: She got chewed on pretty hard at the last meeting. And, you know, I was there. So, I mean, I said a lot to her. It's -- Patrick, they are waiting to see if something more comes of it. If it does not -- because the new building code that's supposed to take effect July I of this year is going to negate a lot of that anyway. So we're looking into alternatives, so it's not Page 15 January 3, 2001 a dead issue. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not so concerned about her. It's her boss, the mission that her boss and her department has. And I think that's where we have to put our foot up, not down. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: It sounds like we'll have some representation there. MR. SAVAGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Moving on to new business. MR. MULHERE: Further comment? MR. ANDERSON: Can we take transportation planning out of order so she doesn't have to sit around here and can go do something productive? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Excellent thought. Let's move on to Item B, transportation additional positions. MS. WOLFE: I think Bruce has an ulterior motive, getting some of his stuff off of my desk. My name is Dawn Wolfe. I'm the new transportation planning director of the transportation planning department, which is actually a new department under the reorganized transportation services division. What I want to talk to you about today is that we are preparing an agenda item to go before the Board of County Commissioners to request additional positions. When they created the transportation planning department under the division, the only group of employees that was allocated to this was the current NPO planning staff. Their function is that mostly of long-range planning efforts. Although they have provided some support in the past for some levels of general transportation planning, the full gamut of the whole planning process has not been fully implemented. And, in a desire to do that, one of the positions that we've discussed with Mr. Dunnick and his staff in regards to how best to get that link between the land use side and the transportation planning side and make the process go better for all of you in your development plans is that we have a position within transportation planning that deals primarily with the development plan review from the transportation planning perspective; site access, right of way issues, circulation, transportation impact analysis from both concurrency (sic) levels as well as looking at impact fees and the like. Page 16 January 3, 2001 One of the things in asking for a new position is, we have to identify a funding source. As this position will be directly reviewing the same plans for which fees are being paid, and you are the committee that provides oversight as to the use and application of those fees, we were asked to come here and present to you our request to the Board that we're going to be asking for this position to be funded from that fee source. We believe it is a consistent and appropriate use. And we believe it will provide a benefit to both the staff as well as to the development community in providing a more timely and more precise evaluation and letting you know much ahead of time versus some of the current operations. We're short staffed and a lot of times things are coming forward at the last minute. We want to make sure we can get to you ahead of time, be there for the pre-application conferences. Right now I've got three people working in transportation planning including myself. And to say we're spread thin is putting it lightly. This is one of the reasons we're bringing it and we're hoping that we can get your support for the utilization of the application fees to support this decision. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: This position is a single review position, then, that would be located here? MS. WOLFE: At this point in time it is a single individual. We're looking at a principal planner level position, minimal. Because of the degree in nature, we're talking about the individual having a solid background in transportation planning or engineering as well as site development background and some roadway and the like, engineering capabilities. So we're going to be looking for someone who has a strong background in the support of those activities. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Duane. MR. DUANE: Enlighten me a little bit about what has been your perception of the problem of the reviews in the past in terms of timing or expertise of staff to review these kinds of petitions. I need a little background before we create a new position here. Robert Duane, for the record. MS. WOLFE: What's been happening in the past -- and we're not saying that the job has not been being done. What we're Page 17 January 3, 2001 doing operations. doing everything. MS. WOLFE: he can't do it all. I can't do it all. saying is the degree to which transportation planning, as it should fully be held accountable within, we haven't had the focus placed on it. And that's one of the reasons why the department was created separately. There just has not been staff on board either in community development or in transportation that was focusing specifically on those issues. Yes, there are positions that deal with it to a certain degree, but -- MR. MULHERE: Dawn, I was just going to say, probably a lot of you are familiar with -- Ed Kant actually was doing the transportation review for a long time. But Ed Kant was also What else was Ed Kant doing? Ed Kant was Ed Kant was transportation. Mr. Kant was transportation. The fact is, we -- And now that I have come on board, the fact is, The fact is, there had been plans to bring a position in to take care of those issues to provide a greater degree of coordination between things such as, where do we sit with our design plans on our major roadway improvements? Where do we sit with our active management plans? As your property development comes in, we don't want to have an approval going and saying, you can have a full median opening in there, and we go out and build a road that doesn't provide for it. Those are the kinds of things that this position will help coordinate and ensure, that we're meeting the criteria of the Land Development Code and trying to create the best public/private partnership from the transportation perspective that we feel we haven't been able to provide, the best level of service. That's one reason why this is here with you. We need a staff person to truly be assigned to that activity. MR. MULHERE: The only thing I would add is, as I see it -- and I think Dawn is right -- she is right in that things have been difficult currently because of the reorganization in terms of trying to meet your desired levels of service for reviews. And it's been hard on us. It's been hard on them. It's certainly been hard on the applicants that you represent when you cannot get a transportation component out in a timely Page 18 January 3, 2001 fashion. And I guess I have to say that we, you know -- this position, if I was sitting in your seat I would be saying, "Fine. Will you live within the review times for getting comments back to us?" That would be my question if I was sitting in your seat. And I'm sure that that's what the intent of this position is. We're not doing that right now. That's what we're trying to do. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Foley. MR. FOLEY: I would like just to make a comment on that. I have been involved in some of those reviews. And Ed did a great job of trying to make meetings here, pre-ap meetings, but he has been stretched so thin. As a consulting engineer, there have been a lot of times where there have been just breakdowns in the communication. And we would think that we would have all our reviews complete, including transportation, and much later in the game we would get a comment. It would be hard to work that into the design at the time. So I encourage it. I think it's a good idea. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Dino. MR. LONGO: Clarify it for me again. The funding for this position before used to come from where? MS. WOLFE: This position does not exist. It was never funded before. So one of the things we must identify to the Board in order to gain their approval is the source by which we are going to fund it. MR. LONGO: And that source is -- MS. WOLFE: Which is -- MR. MULHERE: 113. MR. LONGO: We want this to come out of the 113 funds on the planning side? MR. MULHERE: It would be -- yes. It would come out of the land use petition revenue. Of course, we're subsidized by building permit revenue too. But with the new fees, I think there is sufficient money. You're talking about, total, 70, $75,000. MS. WOLFE: That's inclusive of everything that is necessary; benefits, base salary, getting the equipment in to the individual to just start doing their job. MR. MULHERE: Just to give you a little more background, there were certain elements of sort of transportation-related functions that were occurring to a lesser degree within our Page 19 January 3, 2001 division. Ed Kant was basically coming over and reviewing rezones and site plans. Or, if he couldn't make the pre-ap, he was reviewing the application and then providing the comment. Spencer is reviewing commercial right-of-way permits. You use all the right-of-way permits. Plus he goes out and shoots the grade for right of way, you know, in the field. But about ten percent of his time is looking at commercial right-of-way permits. Russ Muller was reviewing vacation applications for ten or fifteen percent of his time. Frankly, all of these functions will now fall on the person that Dawn is talking about, so that twenty-five percent of the time that we're talking about actually that commercial right-of-way issuance, it would be seamless to you. You would still submit your right-of-way permit with your FTC application, but it would go out to this person who has been in the pre-ap, who has reviewed the access issues, and will also approve the right-of-way. You ask, "Well, what is Spencer doing?" Well, that's only ten percent of his time. Believe me, we have things for Bill Spencer to do in this building. Trust me. The other thing is that Russ Muller -- we're actually talking about, whether it's Russ or another individual, expanding some of our inspections because we're really desperately short in engineering inspection staff right now. We're doing increasingly more inspections. And Tom can talk to those details, but that's what we're talking about. MR. DUANE: I've nothing really directly to do with this position that didn't exist before, but I just wanted to give you a little more detail. I think it -- from my perspective, it is appropriate to be funded out of 113. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: We're talking about 75,000? MR. MULHERE: Plus or minus. MR. ANDERSON: Is that a sufficient amount to attract a competent individual and provide them with -- MR. MULHERE: I will tell you where I came up with that figure. I came up with it just a few seconds ago. Let me tell you how I came up with it. MS. WOLFE: He was really close because we've got the Page 20 January 3, 2001 financial component in our draft package. MR. MULHERE: It might be a little bit higher. But the reason I say that is because you're talking about an entry level salary for a principal planner of about 38. If you want to attract someone with experience, you will have to go higher. But even going thirty percent higher, you are still only at 50. MR. ANDERSON: That's for Planner I17 MR. MULHERE: No. Principal planner. MR. ANDERSON: You said Planner II. MS. WOLFE: He said principal planner. Like I said, one of the things -- we were looking at just drawing from that, since it is transportation planning. But in all likelihood we could also be seeking not only someone who -- with a planning degree, with an AICP, or perhaps even an engineer with a PE. MR. MULHERE: Still within that range. MS. WOLFE: Someone coming up on the curve who can provide that capability, but we want the flexibility of a principal planner level to allow this person to grow. And, as things move forward, we may be expanding that role of that individual to do more duties and the like. So we want to be able to attract them. We do believe that's an appropriate -- we do put it at that high of a positional level for that reason, to attract -- be able to have a salary range to attract an individual with those capabilities. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Anderson, do you have a motion? MR. ANDERSON: Move for approval. MR. FOLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Seconded by Mr. Foley. Comments? MR. JONES: Yes, a question. Currently Ed Kant is doing this -- performing this now at no cost to us? MR. MULHERE: He's not doing it now. He was doing it. MR. JONES: He was doing it. Is there some funding that could come from that department, since they have been footing it all along? Is there some cooperative funding or a share of that which we could apply towards this instead of putting the whole thing? There is an advantage for the transportation department -- MR. MULHERE: That's -- I mean -- Page 21 January 3, 2001 MR. LONGO: Another question is, how do the impact fees, how do they enter into all of this? MR. MULHERE: They cannot be used for that language, that type of review. What we're talking about is a role that's 100 percent. Every bit of that function is completely related to development. MR. LONGO: Here's the scary part. We just increased our building permit fees by fifteen percent. We're getting ready to do a new building. We're questioning the cost of the building and the construction and the methods. And plus you're reviewing your departments. And we're subsidizing the planning side of services out of building permits. And every time we go for a building permit fee increase, we also start adding. I'm not saying that we don't need them. I just want us to take a look at that. MR. MULHERE: I understand. MR. LONGO: Because we just increased our building permit fees and we're starting to add staff and add staff and add staff on that's being supplemented by building permit fees. MR. MULHERE: I fully understand. And, in my defense, or in the department's defense, when we increased the fees, when we did them activity specific, we did reduce the subsidy of the planning department to almost the tune of $400,000. So we are moving in the right direction. In other words, the degree to which building permit revenue is subsidizing planning was reduced by $400,000 as a result of that fee increase. They're still being subsidized. No question. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Savage. MR. SAVAGE: I don't know if Charlie had a question. His hand was up a while ago. I'm not talking about the money. I'm talking about your mission. Are you going to be planning roots of transportation in your work? My point is that I read in the paper about somebody that wants to carry a road east, north, west and south in order to get traffic moving in this community and yet all the gated communities are very upset because they come into their neighborhood. Are you getting into that? MS. WOLFE: If I said unfortunately yes, would you hold it against me? Page 22 January 3, 2001 No. That's one of the things that -- like you said, we have had a slight bit of a missing link in transportation planning here. We have had long-range regional transportation planning, the major roadway facilities. But the issues of connectivity between the local streets and the major roadway systems has been missing. We haven't had staff in place to be able to deal with those issues. That's one of the -- MR. SAVAGE: Nobody has been doing it, then, period? MS. WOLFE: No, it has not been done. That is correct. And that is one of the reasons why I was brought down here is because I have a background in the whole gamut and am going to be trying to bring forward a staff that can fulfill that void that we've been sorely lacking. MR. SAVAGE: I hope everybody understands that that's a very important item in this county, whether we can agree to it or not, to get the traffic moving. And if we have to go through gated communities, we have to go through gated communities. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: The point is taken. We have a motion on the floor. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? MR. JONES: Nay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion carries minus one. MS. WOLFE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I guess we can drop back to Item A, which was the development services committee to fill the vacancies. And apparently we are not sure exactly how many vacancies we have to fill. It's either five or seven. We did not have a definitive answer on that. MR. ABBOTT: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. ABBOTT: I would like to add Dallas' name back into it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So noted. Let's hold on for one moment and see if we cannot get a final answer on that and then we'll proceed. We'll take a five-minute recess. How about that? (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Call the meeting back to order. Apparently we are looking for five replacement -- or five Page 23 January 3, 2001 vacancies on the board. Four of those have expressed an interest in reupping for another term on the Board. They include Dallas, obviously, in that list. So if we add him to the end of the list, it will be so noted that his application was late. We'll open the floor to discussion of applicants. MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Marco. MR. ESPINAR: Could we separate the two? I would like to make a motion that we appoint some of the incumbents and then we could maybe vote separately for new members. And I can -- MR. SAVAGE: I'll second that. MR. ESPINAR: I would like to make a motion that we reappoint Bob Duane, Dallas Disney, Perry Peeples. I don't want no Russian interrogator after me. I would like to nominate those for reappointment. MR. ANDERSON: And Tom? MR. ESPINAR: And Tom. I'm sorry. Tom. MR. ANDERSON: What about Tom? MR. ABBOTT: Tom, do you want it? MR. PEEK: Well, I put my name in. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That's a motion that you second, Mr. Savage? MR. SAVAGE: I second it, yes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We have a motion on the floor. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion carries unanimously. Apparently we're looking for one more person, so feel free to nominate anyone and we'll have a discussion of that person. MR. ABBOTT: I have had dealings with Bryan Milk before and he has always been super cooperative and helpful. And I always appreciate professionalism out of others, so I would like to put in a good word for him. MR. SAVAGE: I would endorse that. I had mentioned that to Tom just now, Mr. Chairman, that he's been in the county staff. He's been an excellent person in his profession and I would like to endorse his recommendation. Page 24 January 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We have a motion to appoint Bryan Milk and a second. Any discussion on that? MR. SAVAGE: Well-- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I would like to make one comment on that too. I know the last time we had a lengthy discussion about the types of disciplines we were looking to fill seats on the Board. And unfortunately I don't have -- MR. DUNNICK: Here. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I have just been handed a list. We're looking for architects, attorneys, which are represented, land planners, which are represented to some degree, environmental activists, which -- we lost Sally's seat, but I don't believe any of these applicants are of an environmental background, and engineers, which are well represented. Actually planner probably is the smallest number of people on that list. MR. JONES: If I may, they have hired a gentleman here who is examining the planning department. We're starting there. And then we're going to go to the building side and reevaluate the way we're doing things and try to maybe streamline them and try to figure out what we're not doing as good as we should be and the strengths and weaknesses. I think Bryan Milk would be in a uniquely good position, having worked for the county, and could give us maybe some inside insights and some inside information into, you know-- he would be in a unique position, having been on both sides of the fence. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Peek, I believe you had a comment. MR. PEEK: You know, I know Bryan and I likewise feel highly about him. I was just going to identify that David Farmer, he is an engineer, but he was very active in our utility subcode subcommittee and was very faithful to be up to date and made a real contribution to that particular activity. But I likewise -- the nomination that's been made for Bryan, I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Let's go ahead and call the nomination of Bryan Milk, then, to a vote. All in favor say aye. All opposed? Page 25 January 3, 2001 (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Carries unanimously. MR. SAVAGE: This gentleman that was sitting in John's seat there last month -- MR. PEEPLES: Peter Van Arsdale. MR. SAVAGE: Peter Van Arsdale. He was appointed to replace someone, correct? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: Sally Lam resigned, didn't she? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Which is probably the position that we just filled. MR. SAVAGE: Okay. So it isn't -- Sally Lam's position has been taken care of? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I believe that Peter Van Arsdale is filling the rest of the term of whoever he replaced. Okay. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, just for the purpose of the record, I want to clarify that the first motion, if you will, under this topic was for the election of officers. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: No. That was the reappointment of -- MR. WHITE: For recommendations to the board for reappointment? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Right. MR. WHITE: And the second was for -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: A new appointment. MR. WHITE: Thank you. I was confused. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So we recommended reappointment of all the people whose terms were up, as well as the addition of Bryan Milk as a new appointee. MR. WHITE: And they are all at this point, I understand, four years. MR. ABBOTT: Everybody is four-year terms now. MR. PEEK: Question. That may not be true. From the standpoint of Sally Lam, I don't know if her term expired in December of 2000. I think Bryan Milk is to replace her. But again, if her term was not expired, I guess it would be for the balance of her term. MR. WHITE: This would be true. MR. SAVAGE: She probably has two years left. I think -- didn't she come on two years -- MR. DUNNICK: Sue Filson coordinates all of that. Page 26 January 3, 2001 MR. ABBOTT: Sally was on the committee early on and then she was gone for, like, two years, so that makes sense. MR. DUNNICK: I will bring back everybody's expiration date at the next meeting. MR. ABBOTT: I would like to know when I expire. MR. PEEPLES: It's always surprising when the letter comes from Sue. MR. DUNNICK: I'll let you all know. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That brings us to the election of officers at this point in time and we would -- go ahead, Mr. Peek. MR. PEEK: For chairman I would like to nominate Tom Masters to move from vice chairman to chairman. MR. FOLEY: Seconded. MR. SAVAGE: You don't require a second for a nomination, but we'll do it anyhow. MR. ABBOTT: I would go with that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We will call that to a vote. All in favor. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Moving on, we need to find a vice chairman. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Savage. MR. SAVAGE: I haven't talked to this person at all about this job, but he certainly deserves the position; and that is, Dino for vice chairman. MR. PEEK: I would support that, second it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We have a motion. MR. ABBOTT: Will you do it? MR. LONGO: Sure. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Willing to accept that? MR. LONGO: Absolutely. MR. ABBOTT: A reluctant volunteer. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any discussion? We have a motion, then, to place Dino as the vice chairman. All in favor say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Hearing none, motion carries Page 27 January 3, 2001 unanimously. MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Mr. Peek. MR. PEEK: An oversight. We need to back up to the minutes we approved from December the 6th. It shows Blair Foley being present and he was not. But Peter Van Arsdale was present and it doesn't identify him as being present, so we need to correct the list of who was here and who wasn't. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Very observant. Thank you. All in favor of that amendment -- oh, I guess we need a second, don't we? MR. ABBOTT: A revision. MR. FOLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. And the minutes will be so noted. Any final comments? MR. DUANE: Happy new year. MR. ELLIS: When you all are done, I would like to make a quick announcement. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Certainly. MR. SAVAGE: I'm sorry he's not here, but he will be here next month, but as chairman of this board, I think we should certainly thank Dallas Disney for the work he did last year. And the same thing for Tom Masters. I think you both have done a very nice job. And I hope we all understand that because I'm a quiet type and I don't seldom ever say much, but I say it loudly. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. Any other comments? MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman, I will be absent next month and I might be absent in March also. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. Go ahead, David. MR. ELLIS: I told you I would try to keep you updated on the progress of the statewide building code. Obviously it's going to have a big impact on this department as it becomes effective. We have been saying in the building industry, at least the association, if we get to the end of the year and the state had yet Page 28 January 3, 2001 to produce any educational materials for the -- to explain what the code really means to contractors and folks in the field, that we would have to start looking at moving back the effective date. Presently the effective date is July 1st of this year. And it's January and we don't have that information yet. It's become quite a concern. It particularly relates to one standard and some other things. There's been a lot of information produced, but no definitive guidelines about how it's actually going to be interpreted or seen in the field. Guys like Ed Perico don't know what they have got to deal with yet. And although it still seems like it's six months away, it's very soon. And I was on a conference call right before the holiday season and it's become apparent -- even many of the legislators are beginning to see the effective date will probably now be next January. So that's not -- as a matter of fact, at the meeting in a few weeks with our legislative delegation, that's one of the things we intend on talking about. Just keeping you all posted. I would have hoped by now we would had five classes on what the code means and so the contractors and different trades could be adjusting what they are going to be doing. There are some significant concerns in relation to the supplies and the particular materials we may have to adjust to and the availability of those materials. And for the -- it really starts with everything -- the engineers having to do a lot of -- maybe some calculations. We will keep you posted on what's being done. You all may or may not know, Charlie has been approved as one of the folks in Collier County that can actually teach this, so we may all have the great honor -- MR. SAVAGE: He was? MR. ABBOTT: I used you as a reference. MR. ELLIS: I'll keep you-all posted as we go into the session about what happens because it will have to be a legislative action that changes that effective date. But we're fairly confident the Building Code Commission will make some sort of recommendation for a delay. So we'll keep you posted. Page 29 January 3, 2001 MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman -- I would like to ask you a question. Have you heard that they have not even been able to print up the code? MR. ELLIS: Yes, sir. That's really -- as a matter of fact, I have a standard thing on my DayTimer. Every Monday morning I call the Building Code Commission and request a copy and they haven't been able to produce it. MR. ABBOTT: Their website doesn't change. It sits the same with "being developed". MR. ELLIS: We have the most recent draft. And I have got a lot of materials that relate to changes. But a final draft has never been produced. And they recognize the problem too. They have been in a series of legal challenges that they basically said, "Well, we're not going to try to finalize anything until we get through these legal challenges." MR. SAVAGE: Did they ever count the votes on the passing of the -- MR. ABBOTT: Just the dangling chads. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. I think that concludes our meeting, then. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:40 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE TOM MASTERS, CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES BY: ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR Page 30