Loading...
DSAC Minutes 02/07/2001 RFebruary 7, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, February 7, 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 in Conference Room E, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Tom Masters, P.E. R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. David Correa Dalas D. Disney, AIA Blair A. Foley, P.E. Brian E. Jones Thomas R. Peek, P.E. Herbert R. Savage, AIA Peter H. Van Arsdale ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Department Director Thomas E. Kuck, Engineering Review Services Manager Ed Perico, Building Review and Permitting Department Director Dawn Wolfe, Transportation Planning Department Director Judy Miller, Revenue Supervisor Page t DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA February 7, 2001 3:30 p.m. III. IV. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes - January 3, 2001 Meeting Staff Announcements A. Summary of Ordinance Amendments B. Miscellaneous Old Business A. Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance Presentation - oral/visual presentation B. Proposed Weed and Litter Ordinance Amendment Subcommittee Reports A. Land Development Regulation (Bob Duane) B. Construction Code (Dino Longo) C. Utility Code (Tom Peek) D. Ad Hoc Committee on Fees VI. New Business VII. Committee Member Comments February 7, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Let's take a pass on the minutes for a moment and go into staff announcements. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I really don't have anything to comment on. I thought we could get right into the presentations of the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance since we've got Tindale Oliver, kind of start talking about that, if we could. I want to, before we have taken this to the subcommittee, this has been kind of a little bit of moving target. We've been working with Transportation Utilities and on these impact fee issues we do need to make a few policy decisions, other than consolidating the Impact Fee Ordinances. What we feel would make it a little better, we are going to present some of these policy issues for you today. We're looking to bring this in full form to the March 13th Board agenda, bring back the ordinance before it goes to the Board. But there are some policy issues that are real important to the Transportation side of things and we'll walk you through them, also from the standpoint of accountability and making sure that we have a good handle on the staff side of Impact Fee Credits and develop a contribution agreement and kind of change some of those procedures. With that, I'll introduce Phil Tindall and Steve Tindale. MR. TINDALE-- I'm Steven Tindale of Tindale-Oliver who will talk a little bit more in a minute. MR. TINDALL: The purpose of this discussion is to give you some input to the main points having to do with the county's Impact Fee Consolidation Project. As you may be aware, we have, I believe, 24 different impact fee ordinances, if you count all the main ordinances and all the subsequent amendments that have occurred over the years. We're trying to get all that information codified into a single document so that we can make it more manageable from the administrative standpoint and get rid of some of the lack of standardization we have among the various impact fees, because of the fact they have all been developed and evolved under their own time schedule and direction. And we are trying to, as I said, implement a little more standardization and clarity in the process so that some of the problems that we've had that have been in the papers over the past month cannot be repeated. Page 2 February 7, 2001 So the things we are going to talk about today is, we are going to give some background on the ordinance consolidation project and our consultant contract. We'll talk about the high points of the policy issues which we think will affect the development community the most and are going to be the hottest topic in that. We'll touch on the implementation schedule for getting the project completed. And I'll start with the background. The original consultant contract, the original scope of this contract actually did not include the ordinance consolidation. It was the Transportation, Library and EMS Impact Fees Updates. Tindale and Associates completed the Transportation update first. As many of you may remember, that went to the Board for adoption in January of 2000 and the fee schedule was made effective April 1, 2000 with the new impact fee rate for Library and EMS. The completion of that project followed based upon our direction to the consultant, and that was finally adopted in July of 2000. So as result of this contract we have new Transportation, Library and EMS rate schedules in place. We have since amended the contract. The purpose was to consolidate all the Impact Fee Ordinances, which we'll talk about today, and all the things that go into that. Next, to develop a Manual for Administrative Procedures. We've been talking about doing this for a while. A lot of the procedural changes have already been implemented in our office, in our Financial and Records office management here in Community Development, but we are going to be codifying them into more formal procedures in our procedures manual. The date you have in your handout is not the same on this, because it's been changed as of a decision made today. We are actually going to plan on going to the Board on March 13th of this year for the consolidation. This will give us some time to deal with some of these policy issues we are going to talk about. MR. TINDALE: If you want to take a pen and mark that, change it. MR. TINDALL: We want to make sure we complete the ordinance first and our Administrative Procedures Manual will follow, and be directly related to that with more step by step detail procedures that we'll just use to improve our process. Page 3 February 7, 2001 Getting into the policy changes, the first area we want to talk about has to do with the Developer Contribution Agreements. The people in this group will be affected considerably where some of the most significant changes are going to occur. For starters we're making some significant changes to our policies having to do with Impact Fee Credits. In particular, some of the things include the credits that will be issued will be limited based upon the threshold established in the annual budget in an amount to be determined each year. That's a pretty significant change to the way things are done now. There is no limit and is directly tied to an accrual budget. MR. ANDERSON: Can you explain that, practically? MR. TINDALL: It's basically a budget line item amount that will be described as Impact Fee Credit that will be in our various impact fee funds with the total whatever number of million dollars that is determined by the county to be the threshold level. So that we can have some amount of control over the amount of credits that are issued in a given time period to be used. Not used for permits but available for use for issuing permits. MR. ANDERSON: And this would apply to whether you are dedicating road right-of-way or constructing? MR. TINDALL: yes. MR. ANDERSON: Am I correct to assume that if the county, in their exactions of developers for right-of-way credits, should have a value that would exceed the threshold amount, that that overage would be paid then to the property owner? MR. TINDALL: The right-of-way is going to be handled different than projects and it's going to do with the right-of-way. I think as we go into it, you'll see. But the intent of the budget is the county looks at their budget for the next five years, say keep this budget in control, not fund projects, in theory they could get sued. They are going to say we have X-number hundred thousands or millions of dollars we can use for credits. Beyond that, we're out of control, we are going to have to limit projects. So that's how the annual budget maximum for credits is going to be established. It's going to depend on how you can get it credited. But why they have had to take that maximum out Page 4 February 7, 2001 and have justification for it because you can't give 25 million credits in one year because all their projected revenues to build the projects that they have committed to are impossible. So that's the reason for the first bullet. They'll come up with the maximum amount of money that they can allocate to CDs and still keep control of their budgeting process or manage it. We're going to have discussions about accelerating projects and reimbursements and credits for right-of-way. It may be from Impact Fee Credits, may be from cash, may be from funds. So you've got to be careful reimbursements from gas tax and development agreements in terms of development agreements for other reasons and the impact fee program which has this revenue now that they are budgeting for and budget for that source. MR. ANDERSON: Will that be covered in today's presentation? MR. TINDALL: Yes. MR. TINDALE: Maybe all of that will come together. MR. TINDALL: We are really trying to focus on administration and predictability in terms of costing out what our overall financial picture is going to look like. MR. ANDERSON: Can I ask a philosophical question? Do you want to encourage private property owners to enter into agreements with the county or discourage that? MR. TINDALL: The answer's yes and no, I'm sure. MS. WOLFE: The answer is yes and no. The problem has been, as we've not been in control of our work program because of the issue of impact fee revenues, by giving them without considering what impact they have on the sustainability of a work program. That's been our problem. So this is kind of where do we need to hold back to. Our initial thought was we aren't going to do credits anymore. However, we realize that we have issues in regards to especially getting at right-of-way needs and preserving and protecting right-of-way. We can't do that without some type of compensation. If we have projects that come on line that is a matter of at least the ability within the threshold limit to do an Impact Fee Credit, then we will. However, we come to you and say we want to have this Page 5 February 7, 2001 right-of-way but we've already extended that limit, we'll have to look to other areas of funding, such as our advanced right-of-way acquisition, to recommend the cost of that property being set aside. That's the primary encouragement we're going for. Otherwise, it's going to be an under capacity improvement. Either the development occurs where we have the capacity, or on hand or within a program, or you wait until the capacity is there to build, or you build it without ability to gain credit. MR. TINDALL: One thing is credit. I think when we hear the word "credit," we probably think about impact fees. When we talk about reimbursements, we talk about you getting money back, but not from impact fees. MS. WOLFE: Also talking about if there's a project within the 5-year work program and you need that in year one for these PUDs to go forward. There will be ability and opportunity to go forward with reimbursement of this project in the year we were originally going to fund it. Therefore, we maintain our program, you get your project when you need it and get cash direct back to you, but only in the year that we funded with the construction in our fifth year. But you need to have that construction within three years. So you commit to constructing it within that three-year time period as part of your rezoning, and there is developer agreement reached, not necessarily a contribution. We are talking more in terms of a participation agreement with the county any order to expedite and advance the construction that is such time as we would have funded it, you would receive the pay back for it. But those are only for projects and phases that are in our capital improvement element to which we are trying to maintain as stable and sustainable. There will be opportunity each year to introduce a either project into a new fifth year or to bring forward an argument as to why a project should be brought forward and another project that's been in the work program to be pushed out. Interest will be an annual process by which that can be done but other than that, we have to get a better grasp on how our funds are allocated and in order to keep a sustainable work program, and one that's stable and, in fact, can be relied upon for Page 6 February 7, 2001 purposes of concurrency. Because right now we don't really have that. MR. TINDALL: As we go through I think it's very important because I think it's a very positive thing. Whether they are willing to accelerate a project and not reimburse the county, doing both those things, I think, is going to make this proposal. MR. TINDALE: Obviously since we are talking about a limited amounts of credits available each year that allocation is going to be based upon what the overall needs for the county are and the transportation plan and future road building needs. MR. ANDERSON: Will be it divided up by districts or a county-wide threshold? MS. WOLFE: That's something on an annual basis we'll have to be determining, whether it's credits that will have to be used. It can be used anywhere and we'll have to mix and match between where, if that credit is from there, that means that whatever project we would have funded there, we'll either have to use gas taxes in lieu of impact fees. If we consume all the credits within one impact fee district versus spreading them out throughout several impact fee districts. The budget amount would be done on a year by year basis, depending where the projects are in father founding and where they are located. That's going to be riscally year by year. We have not said it's going to be in this district or this amount. It's primarily on a first come, first served basis. These are issues that we'll be discussing with the Board on our March 2 workshop once they get through. The presentation I have what is our draft working paper on the issue of a stable and sustainable work program that I think will give you some insight as to the direction we're trying to lead with this. A lot of this especially how much we could potentially be able to use as a threshold amount will be dependent upon the direction given to us by the Board in regards to additional funding sources. So a lot of it hinges on the direction we get from there. But one of the things we do have to do is the stable and sustainable program. But I'll hand these out once Phil is finished. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Can I ask one question? Because I see sort of the process is there to sort of level out the expense side to make it more consistent and predictable. What do you do Page 7 February 7, 2001 on the revenue side to make the same adjustment or did you consider that? MR. TINDALL: I think this is more of a revenue issue when they are used in lieu of impact fees. It probably does have more of a revenue issue from my standpoint of assessing and collecting fees. How would you look at that, Dawn? MS. WOLFE: It limits the amount we offset, like credits that are hanging out there. We have an expectation of revenue flow in when they are all in credit we can't say these are paper credits. They are not real dollars that we can apply for a roadway project because they have been given right-of-way for other facility construction that is not necessarily a project priority of the county. And that's where the revenue side of controlling the flow of those revenues and directing those revenues to the real priorities that are established form the basis of meeting concurrency. We need to have a greater control over them which we don't have today. MR. VAN ARSDALE.' What I'm saying is you can see the revenue side of it in terms of, let's say, you can have a windfall, for whatever reason, an unusual amount of permits. And is that an area that you adjust -- MR. TINDALE: That's annually. MR. TINDALI. -- update the allocation. MS. WOLFE: To a level to which we could. MR. TINDALL: If we are in a healthy cash situation, we would have the ability to increase the allocation. MR. TINDALE: One quick comment. The district's money has to be spent it can be spent in an adjacent district and the 5-year program has to consider that when they pick projects. So I think we got a really good question about the whole issue of justifying the numbers and then justifying it so they are going to have to do analysis. MS. WOLFE: If we ended up giving credits all in one area, it would then mean we would have to in lieu of spending impact fees that we would have received in on a capacity project, we would have to use instead gas tax that we may have spent throughout the entire county area. It's a bookkeeping process. We are not predetermining Page 8 February 7, 2001 where they are at, because the needs are not necessarily where the development is occurring. So we've a range over the entire area. That's going to be a budgeting process as we go through it. MR. TINDALL: Continuing on. Developer Contribution Agreements, no assigning of credits for new agreements. Our plan would be update the ordinance to do away with allowing assigning, meaning basically selling of credits by the developer to someone else. MR. TINDALE: Fill I will did you. MS. WOLFE: One when we look at Impact Fee Credits within that limited threshold, that would be for phases that are not programmed in the Capital Improvement Element, but anything that would be for a construction would have to be within the cost fee as a claim. Anything that was for right-of-way could go to the needs plan. If they are not contained within with either of those plans, they would not be eligible for those credits unless there was an amendment made. Again, a whole trickle down process, where you have to go through a comparison and provide that information to both the MPO, as well as to the Board of County Commissioners, as to what kind of changes are you going the make to your plan to include a project different than what's already been adopted in those plans. So this is one we're not just maintaining a sustainable Five Year Plan, but also a sustainable Cost Feasible Plan. So the construction components would be limited to what our Cost Feasible Plan is for right-of-way. We're always gearing up to make sure that we are trying to preserve for our ultimate need, so the need component that will allow for the right-of-way advance purchase donation or credits on that. MR. TINDALL: Getting back to Bruce's question having to do with this slide here, I wouldn't say there's an evil associated with that, but what it amounts to is there is kind of an administrative nightmare for staff to try to keep track of who's got credits and how much, and there is no benefit really derived by the county. I believe there's a cash flow issue benefitting developers being able to do this, but for losing track of this and giving credits when they are already used up because we can derive no Page 9 February 7, 2001 benefits from the practice. MR. ANDERSON: I suppose if you were going to be willing to reimburse people now that will make a difference, because a lot of times people want to be able to assign them because the value they were giving the property is more than they would use on the property for Impact Fee Credits. MR. TINDALL: Right. We are looking at giving notice of vesting of existing credits. Dawn, you may want to speak to that practice. MR. TINDALE: This is almost like when you first start your impact fee ordinance people want to vest all of those. The county's got these vested projects out there and you do not have a real clean log of what's out there. For everybody's benefit, the county is going to come up with a vesting procedure. It's going to give notice to come in and apply for it, make everybody come in and get vested, catalog it. The county benefits from doing that and I think the result, once the county establishes that, if they get more comfortable, then as they move forward with their budgeting, they'll have more flexibility. As long as they feel like they have this blank check out here, it's going to affect their whole next set of credits. So it's of great benefit of us going through this notice to make sure we document everybody out there that's not vested. Document people, they have got to come in, give them a certain period of time, and they are going to be vested. And we'll have a good handle on what's out there. MR. TINDALL: We're not really going to apply a retroactive rule because we don't think we legally can. However, we may see if it's possible to put some type of a time limit on that, so we are talking about new agreements. MR. ANDERSON: What kind of notice are you going to give? MR. TINDALL: We don't know yet. MR. TINDALE.' The same when we did the concurrency system. Every time you go through these, there's a specific set of procedures that have to do with vested rights and it's going to be a significant notice. But it's a major set of procedures in itself. MR. ANDERSON: I guess I'm asking are you going to publish a notice in the newspaper? Page 10 February 7, 2001 *MR. TINDALE: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Or just write people, like you were when you were attempting to collect? MR. TINDALE: It will be notice by mail, there will be -- there's a whole procedure. We'll have to set the procedure up and you'd appeal, so it's going to be a fairly significant process. MR. TINDALL: As we said earlier, we are looking at that, and Dawn spoke to that earlier. MR. TINDALE: It's in the Five Year Plan. MR. TINDALL.- More things we are doing in terms of Developer Contribution Agreements, we are implementing a standard form and basically a template type of a document for Developer Contribution Agreements, to eliminate some of the opportunities for creative license. And it makes them more standard, to be able to justify in terms of variation from that. So I'm getting a good smile over there for that. Also, we're more clearly defining some terms so we can do a better job of getting our agreements, what the scope of contracts will include. In the ordinance, we are providing a more clear definition of what is meant by off-site improvement and access. I am also, in terms of the material of the actual valuation, another thing we are doing is basically, we are looking at using what is, in fact, a date. The day just prior to the date of the zoning change would be the date of valuation for appraisal purposes. Any questions on any of these? MR. ANDERSON: Do your attorneys think that's legally feasible, not only that our outside counsel thinks it is, as well? MR. VAN ARSDALE: That's what he's paid for. MR. TINDALL: Exemptions. Other areas, we're looking at some standardization and changes having to do with exemptions. One is, we have one kind of odd exemption sitting out there that only applies to medical facilities built by 501(c)(3) medical corporations. We are basically taking it out until we have direction to put it back in. It doesn't make much sense as it is by itself that way when we don't even provide that to other types of entities, such as nonprofit public service agencies like the American Red Cross. Page 11 February 7, 2001 MR. MR. exempt? So just for standardization purposes, we were planning on deleting it. MR. CORREA: When was it put in? MR. TINDALL: I don't know. Do you know MR. DUNNUCK: All these ordinances were done in a box; each individual department was doing it individually. So when they talked with a consultant, a consultant in each individual case would say, "1 think you should put it here or there." MS. WOLFE: As a whole, these are all inconsistent and that's why we actually did this consolidation, so we can get these definitions similar. MR. CORREA: Thank you. MR. TINDALL: There will still be exemptions for residential housing projects, but nonresidential exemption are going to be deleted so the government can pay its fair share, as well. The School Board is one, because they are going to start being permitted through the county here pretty soon. MR. ANDERSON: Does the School Board know about that? TINDALL.' Yes. They were in our meeting this morning. VAN ARSDALE: Any other buildings that are going to be MR. TINDALL: All through the county. MR. VAN ARSDALE.' Are there any that aren't permitted? MR. TINDALL.' Used to be the School Board, but that's changed. Federal buildings still will not be, but we won't have any jurisdiction over them. We never have. MR. VAN ARSDALE: They are exempt then? MR. TINDALL: Just de facto, simply because of the fact it's not something that's allowable by law. MR. SAVAGE: We have to follow their rules, they don't have to follow our rules; right. I'm thinking about exactly what I'm saying. It's amazing. MR. TINDALL: We didn't really have a standard before, if you had, say, a demolition, to determine a time after which there would be a requirement to pay impact fees again. So we came up with a standard. In our previous rap we got input from the Land Use subcommittee that our previous iteration had said the standard would be one year, but that seemed a little short. So we changed it to two. Page 12 February 7, 200t MR. DISNEY: Related to it is specific to projects that I have done in the past, that is, replacement buildings in, say, religious institutions where a church sanctuary is being enlarged in a new building, and you're moving from, say, what would have been used as a community hall for worship services, and into the new building. Essentially, it's a replacement. Would that fall under that category? MR. TINDALL'- It depends if you're increasing the total square footage of the facility. Because all the buildings, the meeting type buildings, not the sanctuary, would all be considered part of the church. So as long as it's a church, there would be no additional impact fee. MR. DISNEY: So if you knock down a building to replace it, you're looking at the net difference? MR. TINDALL: Yes. MR. VAN ARSDALE: What's the rationale for the two years? Why does someone give up that credit? Say they go out and paid for it five years ago; a fairly substantial amount. For whatever reason the building's torn down and sits vacant for three, four, five years. Why are they entitled to that credit? At least a credit for the value that was there. MR. TINDALL: I'm interested in your input. MR. PEEK: Right now, the way it's proposed it doesn't go away as long as the facility sits vacant. It's when you demolish it that the time clock starts to run. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I guess I don't understand the rationale. MR. TINDALL: Actually, demolishing is an example but the language is going to read if something was condemned, it would be basically the same policy. If it was sitting unused it would really have the same impact than someone who is going to basically make it useable again. That would have to be triggered by building permit, because that would be the only way we'd know. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Seems like you would vest those rights like any other rights you would vest. MR. FOLEY: I think also, you encourage buildings to be vacant eyesores. Like the downtown post office; he's not going to tear it down because the clock starts ticking and you have homeless and vagrants. It's an eyesore. Page 13 February 7, 2001 MR. TINDALL: One thing you could use as a standard to tie it to something when fees are collected, that they be spent on capital projects by one year following the sixth anniversary. So basically, we could make it seven years. That would be beyond the time period that it would be required to be spent. That might be a possibility. But we do need to set up some kind of a standard if it set there for 25 years but they never paid anything on it and suddenly they put up a new building because they renovated the building, it would seem to me we have an obligation to collect impact fees on it. MR. WHITE: Patrick White. As far as the idea of public policy concern about vagrants and whatever there is, the Unsafe Building Division Code Enforcement follows is that would be one mechanism to start the clock, if you would, more than two years, or whatever the period of time. You have to realize that the whole idea of vesting isn't permitted in all instances against subsequent government regulations. So if you abandon your use, at some point the vesting, if you will, goes away. MR. CUYLER: Ken Cuyler for the record. Are you trying to distinguish between owners that have paid impact fees and then abandoned the building some later time versus people that have never paid impact fees? MR. TINDALL'- I would say when you're -- again, an example. Someone never paid impact fees because the building was built so long ago there weren't any impact fees in place. From a practical standpoint, we would consider those pretty much the same because they are vested by the fact the building was vested at the time the fees were put in place. So the effect is the same in terms of our treatment of it. MR. CUYL. ER: The difference being your policy issue of something to protect in the one case, you've never collected impact fees from the start of impact fees, versus somebody that has paid for that impact fee, be it seven years ago or -- MR. TINDALL: Right. I guess the real issue is what's the appropriate amount of time to determine the vesting for whatever reason is no longer any good. MR. SAVAGE: If a building was built 25 years ago and they didn't have any impact fees, the building today is going to be demolished, it's appraised at today's value and cost of new Page 14 February 7, 2001 building costs so many dollars, the impact fee is going to be on the difference between the two; is that correct? Your answer is no, I'm sure. MR. TINDALL: Whatever the fee schedule is the day they permit it with the new renovation or the new construction. MR. TINDALE: The building up, if you put it up immediately, it's a differential. MR. TINDALL: That's considered part of the same project because two years has elapsed. If it's more than two years, we would consider it something that is new. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not sure I agree with all that. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I'm not sure, but I think it may be a bit longer, if nothing else, because sometimes it can take two years to even get a project to go from the time you purchase the property. You can demolish it very quickly and sometimes you may be more than two years just to replace that building. And think it desirable in many cases to remove the eyesore building, and maybe it should be four or five years. MR. JONES: Or not at all. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, you can't carry the credits. MR. ANDERSON: I think what you've got up there discourages redevelopment and also fails to account for a natural disaster that would occur, and if people couldn't rebuild in that time period. It also fails to take into account, God forbid, we should have a recession or something. MR. TINDALL: I understand. MR. VAN ARSDALE: If you stick with the time frame, I think it be important that you clearly define sort of a beginning or benchmarks, milestones, that you hit in terms of, you know, demolition or issuance of a new building permit of when the clock starts running. MR. TINDALE: We were doing that. We'll clearly identify the beginning point, and when the clock starts then you can have the two-year, three-year. I think we've heard you don't like the two years. It's almost impossible not to have something. We had people in some community take an 1862 sheet of paper, walk in, say we had a building on the site in 1882, I'm vested. Page 15 February 7, 2001 So there's got to be some time frame here. And we understand that the two years clearly in y'all's mind is too short, but I don't think it's going to go away. We've clearly got notes about you're concerned about the time frame. MR. DUNNUCK: We'll talk about it some more. MR. TINDALE: Get all the notes on all your. MR. TINDALL: Another area we are implementing changes in is changes in review hearings and alternative fee calculations in terms of the golf course issues. A lot of the procedural changes are already in place and we are codifying these into the new ordinance. We are really, in terms of review hearings, were not really implementing new changes in terms of the criteria of what can go before the Board. Not really so much anything like that. We are just clarifying such things as the time lines that need to be in place in terms of submitting the requests to make sure there is no doubt about that. Also, in terms of when the fees must be paid. It's going to say very clearly in the ordinance that the fees will be paid at the time the permit's issued, and that's not going to change even if you have an alternative fee calculation. If you're going to submit an alternative fee calculation, you still have to pay your impact fee if you want a permit. Even though the ordinance said that it was not properly administered, we are making it say that with double, underlined, bold print, and everything else, so there will be no doubt in anybody's minds. MR. WHITE: It's building permit, not just -- MR. TINDALL: Some development what used to be say road impact construction should occur if for some reason there is not an applicable permit for that but it would be something to be required impact fee for we have the right to consider the development plan as the permit. For example, or some other type of development order as long as it's related to siting, because the scope of the definition actually it did say that before but it says it with more emphasis IIOW. MR. ANDERSON: Are you moving the time line for when impact fees must be paid to any earlier?. MR. TINDALL: No. It's at the time the permit is issued, or as Page 16 February 7, 2001 a prerequisite to the permit being issued, which is essentially the same time. MR. ANDERSON: But you're not saying it's at site development plan time? MR. TINDALL: Only time we could go to the $DP is if we don't have an applicable permit for that particular construction. But at that time, that is considered the permit and that's more an exception than the rule. MR. ANDERSON: Have you coordinated these provisions with the county's Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, which does allow but does not require you to pay impact fees and get a Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy at the time of subdivision plats, or at the time of site development plans? MR. TINDALL: Well, except for the fact that we don't consider that as payment of the impact fees. Those monies are placed into an escrow account. They are not placed into the impact fees funds, per se. So that's basically a holding place for the impact fees until the time the permit is issued. MR. WHITE: It's also a holding place of the reservation of the capacity, so you are getting some benefit, if you will, for depositing those funds. And of course, the alternative is waiver and release. MR. ANDERSON: I'm not disagreeing with that. MR. TINDALL: That's still going to be available for them. They can serve in that capacity. That's not changing at all. On to the next slide. Issues having to do with affordable housing, clarifying some of the terms. For example, we're tying the term "affordable" to be related to what the applicable state and federal regulations say in terms of what that means, and kind of having our own special definition of that. I don't have it in terms of being able to read it to you directly what those guidelines say, but there are just a number of cases in which terms are being more clearly defined related to affordable housing. MR. ANDERSON: I hate to be piping up all the time. Some of the commissioners have talked about trying to encourage more home ownership of affordable housing. And as far as I know, there are no state or federal definitions for that. MR. TINDALL: For the term "affordable." MR. ANDERSON: Affordable for home ownership as Page 17 February 7, 2001 opposed to renting. MR. TINDALL: I don't know if that only applied to rental properties or not. MR. WHITE: Those definitions in existing ordinances apply both to single families that are owner occupied or rental. MR. ANDERSON: I know they do today, but he just said that you're going to get rid of those definitions and go to the state and federal ones, and my question was. Are there state and federal definitions for affordable home ownership. MR. WHITE: This is an emerging issue and we'll evaluate it. I'm pretty certain that ours are derived from those definitions. But I'm not certain of it. MR. JONES: In other words, thanks for pointing that out. MR. TINDALL: Some of the other things we're doing in terms of affordable housing are basically updating our ordinance so it's more reflective of what our up-to-date current practices are. Our current practices are correct in terms of state and federal law, but we're just getting our ordinance up to speed to reflect that. For example, subordination for -- MR. WHITE: For owner occupied single family and duplex. MR. TINDALL: Right. There is a provision, I guess, a right to use impact fee interest to fund waivers and deferrals but counsel and staff among our consultants felt that's not tenable and on shaky ground legally. So we are taking out that provision because it's never been used and are you saying it has been? MR. ANDERSON: I'm not saying anything. MR. TINDALL: Okay, it's coming. More miscellaneous type areas that are being addressed in terms of policy issues, we are going into all our definitions in the various impact fee ordinances and making sure they are all the same across the impact fees and in terms of day-to-day practice and administration, more useful, in terms that have to do with defining certain land uses and making sure we're assessing the correct fee based upon land use. We deleted any provision, vested rights provisions that were put in place back when the ordinances were first written. MR. WHITE: In other words, a little too late to come in and claim them now, so there is no need for-- MR. ANDERSON: You are going to have something, though, Page 18 February 7, 2001 for your new vested rights starting from scratch? MR. TINDALL: Another thing we do in terms of review schedule for updating all our impact fees, there was some variation that we have in place right now. For the most part they are three years, some are two years. The other impact fee had no mention about three years across the board, which means the school impact fee would be due to be updated right away. So that's something -- the school's not happy about it, but that's something we feel that is probably a certain amount of vulnerability right now simply because of the fact it hasn't been updated since 1992. So that's something we feel we need to jump on and deal with. We are also looking at tightening up our procedure for collecting delinquency fees. If for some reason fees aren't collected when they are supposed to be and we have to go after someone, as we have done recently, we feel that's somewhat lacking in some areas. So we are being a little bit more clear in terms of what step by step we are supposed to do, all the nuts and bolts associated with that. That's about all I have in terms of policy changes. The next thing we'll talk about is the implementation schedule. Obviously, we are briefing you today; we'll brief you again in March. Some of these are changed to what you have in your packet, so you may want to indicate by pen the things that are changing. We're going to actually go to the Board on March 13th, which you'll see in the second line means we'll have a new advertising date. We're committed to February 16th on your handout, looking at February 27th as final draft complete and available for public review, and also to brief the Productivity Committee. We are briefing you today and looking at March 13th as having the public hearing and adoption of the ordinance. That's all we have in terms of overview of where we are in terms of policy and in terms of consolidation of the project. Any general questions? Yes, sir. MR. DISNEY: Just because -- previously I know it's not available, it's probably in Development -- now would be a good time, I think, with this process to make a very useful tool Page 19 February 7, 2001 available to the general public, and that is a spreadsheet in the use of calculating and estimating things for our clients. MR. TINDALL: Sure. MR. DISNEY: Something, even if there's a small charge attached to it. I would be happy to see that to be able to estimate on the same schedule you guys are. MR. TINDALL: That's something we are planning on making part and parcel of our Administrative Procedures Manual, but we can save step one and see that it's made available earlier. MR. DUNNUCK: Part of the problem with the fact we didn't have a definition consistency and we had all these different impact fees, it was a case by case basis every time Phil had one submitted to him. So now, this will be much more consistent and we'll be able to publish something like that. MR. DISNEY: I certainly appreciate something like that but where you've been using the tool calculating for quite a few years now, and all I have asked for is access to that tool. So when a client comes into my office and says well, what's an estimate on the impact fees, I can sit down and write it all down on paper if I can plug into a spreadsheet. MR. TINDALL: I know what spreadsheet you're talking about, and we actually have not used that in our office because it needs to be updated. And we are basically coming up with our own spreadsheets to these different land uses. But we can get that up-to-date. MR. TINDALE: Talking about water and sewer and all that? MR. DISNEY: Everything. MR. DUNNUCK: I think that's a great idea. MR. ELLIS: I have a question, Phil. When y'all reevaluated the last set of fees, you tiered the impact fees based on the square footage of homes. Is this ordinance going to look to try to create a consistent pattern to that type of tiering, and as you review the subsequent fees are you going to try to establish that kind of a tiering system, as well? MR. TINDALL: As you know, we did that with Libraries, EMS and Roads because of the fees to be updated, fees such as parks, which is assessed on residential construction only. As for schools, when those come around to be updated it's something that makes sense to make it consistent with the other folks. So I Page 20 February 7, 2001 would say yes, we would plan on doing that. MR. ELLIS: But that will be part of the fee structure, more or less formalized? MR. TINDALL: It will be in the fee structure. MR. DUNNUCK: Just a consolidation of what we have out there. We have to come back and make effective more impact fees that are due for calculation. MR. ELLIS: I think we actually standardized the per square footage on the single family. I can't remember numbers. MR. TINDALL: We have three tiers, 2 to 1499 and 2 to 1200. MR. ELLIS: They were all the same so I guess what I'm trying to say is we all look forward to that. MR. TINDALE: I'll ask that question in the parks, which is a person-related issue. I'm sure they'll probably match up real well on the school system. It is actually based on students of the district. When you look at the data the data breaks out to where the logical breaks may be a little different. All of them that are based on population, six per household, parks, those types of things, we are going to make all those line up to the same measurement. The school impact fee is based on estimating students, so that they have a different break. But the answer is yes. We are going to try to match them. I think the only one we haven't been able to is the school system, because it's a really MR. VAN ARSDALE: I was wondering if you would consider to go over the schedule of fee reviews and implementation. Is there some way to phase those in so we don't get this sort of rush for building permits like we got last April? MR. TINDALL: That was -- actually, what created the rush in that case, it was really one impact fee, which was the roads, but it was a really large increase because it had not been done in a number of years. And since we are getting up to speed on that, I think we can take more incremental increases in the future. But it's going the depend upon all those variables. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I think any time you set a date it's going to bog down the department. We are eight, twelve weeks getting permits out, and I think any time when you say here's a deadline for a fee increase, you're going to do that, if it's county-wide for school or library or sheriff or whatever. Page 21 February 7, 2001 I don't have the answer, but maybe you can develop a process where you phase them in by districts or how you collect them. Just kind of spread out the load. If you did this and you went through a period of years, it would all even out. MR. TINDALL: What we did that did help some -- and it still was obviously a big turnout towards the end of March -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: A disaster. MR. TINDALL: -- try to give as much advance notice as we possibly could, learn what we could from the last time around and give not just more in advance, because that's not really the issue as far as getting the word out effectively. MR. VAN ARSDALE: The issue is the deadline, try to hit it. MR. DUNNUCK: I don't think that's a bad idea at all and I think we have some time to work out some of those details. We are talking next year on adoption that is not affected by this ordinance. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, I don't know if it is or not. If it's not even addressed and you can adopt it when you are addressing fees, that's fine. MR. TINDALE: We may be creating some policies that may create the same rush as the fee schedule. So we'll check if there are some policies that people can see a substantial benefit to move something and get permits, we'll try to be creative and minimize that. MR. VAN ARSDALE: For those of us in the business and certainly the building department, it's a huge impact. MR. DUNNUCK: What we have right now conceptually is yes, there is four of them that will be due at a maximum time of X-date, but what we can do is back off that date, because that's a maximum date of when they should be in. And we can start looking at phasing them in because of what you're saying so that you don't have them right on top of each other. MR. VAN ARSDALE: It's crazy because the department can't manage it from a workload standpoint. MR. DISNEY: Is it more a staggering of those? MR. TINDALE: One good one is Transportation. That's the one that's going to create the rush. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Anything. I mean, the Sheriff's huge; schools. MR. TINDALL: When the EMS and libraries are up there, that Page 22 February 7, 2001 was basically unnoticeable in the lobby. So it's really going to depend on what's going to create the large increases and the number of permit calls. MR. DUNNUCK: Looking up there, with the exception of schools, they all have updated within the last two or three years, so that a big hitch has occurred in the last three years in the Parks and Rec. We hadn't updated in six and a half years so had you a big hit. If you do it every two to three years that's worth a lesson in itself. And I think we could probably phase it in and make Ed's job easier. MR. JONES: There's another benefit to the schedule that Dalas was mentioning earlier. That is, that you and your staff that are doing this talk of square footage, toilet units and so forth, it would be if you had that information available either required or voluntarily submitted, you have now a check procedure because I'm sure there is things that can be missed. MR. TINDALL: Estimated. If so, why? MR. JONES: There is 10 toilets not 8, there is two on the second floor, whatever. And probably what happens, you get the same figure twice when you go through what areas, a porch or vestibule are under air, it's somewhat subjective. And if you had that, you could, it would be a tool. MR. TINDALL: Okay. We'll definitely make that happen. MR. ANDERSON: When will that initially be determined and begin to be applied, since we're in the middle of the fiscal year? MS. WOLFE: With the next budget. This is an issue that we are raising through our workshop right now. So it wouldn't be until our next budget cycle that there would actually be an allocation of it. And the amount under the inevitability of even having one at all is going to be subject to how much we have in revenues, how much the Board approves, either new resources or whatever, to produce that. MR. ANDERSON: But that threshold limitation then would not be applied until next fall. MR. TINDALE: I just asked the legal department can we have an ordinance that would take individual policies in an ordinance as they come in different points in time, and the Page 23 February 7, 2001 answer is yes. One is the whole timing issue of our budget and when something can or cannot happen, anyway. And we're trying to get things to where maybe we'll move things up very quickly, some things before the day we called for in that policy. So we actually have an ordinance that has each policy in variation in dates. MS. WOLFE: That doesn't mean come rushing in with DCs. MR. ANDERSON: You said it. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I compliment these folks for doing the tremendous job they did. It's fabulous and we owe them a great deal of gratitude for it. I just hope that some day we'll have a similar study about constructing buildings in code matters that are all coordinated. A good example is peanuts compared to what we're talking about. A building had to have a three-foot-six corridor. The fire department requires a three-feet-eight. See how simple it is, you know. Small little differences like that. And we're talking about big bucks here, impact fees. Think of how many times we have to face that little difference of two inches in a hallway, that we go through that all the time in your building department. Some day we'll have a study maybe, when I'm older and gray, that will talk about simply tying these things together, as we're trying to do here, and I compliment you for that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That would be good. We do have a quorum for our meeting, so let's drop back quickly and take care of a couple bookkeeping things. Do you have any additions to the agenda? MR. DUNNUCK: Peter, do you have any additions to the agenda? MR. VAN ARSDALE: I just want to talk about one thing. Actually, I've not some other things that I'm not prepared to talk about. I want to talk about the position that was voted on last meeting, the accounting aspect of that, under new business, or wherever we had that we add stuff. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All right. MR. PEEK: Tom Peek. Somewhere we need to talk about the subcommittee structure and who's on what subcommittee and that sort of thing for this year. Page 24 February 7, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: When we give our subcommittee reports maybe we can refresh who's on the committee and also look for new volunteers. MR. FOLEY: I move we approve the agenda. MR. PEEK: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. Moving on to approval of the minutes. Do we have any comments on the minutes from the last meeting? Tom. MR. PEEK: I have a couple on page I of the minutes under the people present. Please, please add my name, since I was here. Also on page 9, somewhere in the middle of a page, you identify somebody called "Steve Weiner." I think his name is Wander, W-a-n-d-e-r. On page 19, the eighth or tenth line down, under Mr. Espinar's motion for reappointment, he identifies a "Tom" and it should be Tom Peek, identified for clarity in the minutes. Tom Masters wasn't up for reappointment. Those are the only comments I have. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Additional? Dalas. MR. DISNEY: Page 13, about a third of the way down from the top, a notation there "NPO." I'm wondering whether that should be "MPO." That's all I have. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Any other comments? MR. FOLEY: Move approval of the minutes. MR. CORREA: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Have a motion and second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Staff announcements, we pretty much already covered. Anything else? So we are moving on to old business. We've already gone through the Impact Fee Ordinance. Now we can move on to our Weed Ordinance, Michelle. Thanks for waiting. MS. ARNOLD: Michelle Arnold. You all received this at the previous meeting and it went to the subcommittee meeting. Unfortunately, only Mr. Peek Was present at that subcommittee but he did provide his comments, and that was provided to you Page 25 February 7, 2001 on the memorandum that preceded the ordinance. Mr. Peek was concerned with the practice of posting properties as opposed to mailing at each occurrence of a violation, and then also he expressed a concern for placing repeat violators on the mandatory mowing program that was introduced in the ordinance. Basically, that's the amendment that we're proposing, with the exception of modifications in the notice requirements. That was for the first intent of addressing this particular ordinance amendment. I don't know if you all recall, the previous ordinance indicated we would have to put or print the entire ordinance in the newspaper eight consecutive Sundays, but that was the intent. So we are now including a brief notice that should be posted in the newspaper. Basically, that's it. Any questions? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Tom, do you want to maybe elaborate on your questions? MR. PEEK: Sure; be happy to. My objection to the method of posting is that many people be included on properties in Collier County that I don't travel past very frequently, maybe once a year. The only method of notice I have is the annual notification that appears in the newspaper. And the next thing I do is get a bill. I've had no opportunity for correction for what the violation is, and I don't think that's appropriate so that you don't have an opportunity to correct some violation. The second objection that I had about being placed on a repeat offenders mandatory mowing program is basically for the same reason. And my objection came about from a property that I owned for a number of years and the neighbors next door, I think, drove a stake in the ground and watched the grass grow, and when it reached 18 inches they would call up the county. And they would come and I'd get a notice and we'd go mow it and they would sit and watch the stake until the grass grew over it again. They also had a habit of collecting all their litter and throwing it on my property. MR. VAN ARSDALE: And the litter pushed down the weeds. MR. PEEK: Right. That's the objection I have to the posting Page 26 February 7, 2001 procedure, that you don't have an opportunity. So they go and post a notice, they post it on the property. I don't drive by that property every day, so I have no way of knowing there's a posting there. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Would we still try to get in touch with the property owner by mail? MS. ARNOLD: We would still be mailing out one notice of the posting to the owner. MR. FOLEY: The way I read it, I may, at the option of the county -- I would assume Michelle -- you would institute that procedure if you didn't get a response from the initial mailing. So I don't believe it's a big problem if you do get the mail out and Tom, you receive your letters and if you respond. And if you don't, the posted notice goes on MS. ARNOLD: Right. This option is being addressed to address some property owners that were repeat violators. We continually mail it and either they don't claim our mail or they get it and don't do anything about it. As a courtesy, we are going to be putting these notices in the newspaper on an annual basis providing notice to the property owners, so that they do have the opportunity to go out and correct the violation CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So in Mr. Peek's example of where he does get notice and he does mow it himself, would he become a repeat offender by mowing it himself? MS. ARNOLD: No. MR. PEEK: I'm not sure that's what the ordinance says. I thought you automatically became a repeat offender if you got notice three times MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PEEK: I got notified three times over the life of my ownership of this property that I need to go mow the grass. Even though I go and mow the grass when it says it, I still get put onto the repeat offender list. MS. ARNOLD: The way the mandatory program works is that we would provide the property owners a notice of this program and they can elect not to do it by responding to that notice. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you already addressed what kind of a notice. Is it by mail? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, by mail, to the property owner of record. Page 27 February 7, 2001 MR. DISNEY: Suggestion. I think that these are two very valid points that Mr. Peek brings up. Can we go to the particular point in here and see where they are? Then I guess there's a secondary question to that, Michelle. From your meeting on January 18 has this ordinance changed? Have you addressed the comments from Mr. Peek any further MS. ARNOLD: No. MR. WHITE: If I could interject as to the notion that the mandatory lot mowing program is without any discretion. If you've got your copy, look on page 13 at the top, small (a}. It indicates that at the discretion of the County Manager designated violator may be placed in the mandatory lot mowing program. It's mandatory once you're in, but there is discretion as to whether you are placed there or not. The other threshold matter is whether there is a determination that the public nuisance exists three or more times. Now there may be a legal issue as to whether you have to have had some type of a hearing in order for there to be a determination of three or more violations. So I don't believe under the circumstances you were describing that you would ever be placed in this program. MR. PEEK: I think I stand corrected. I think what I was thinking of was on top of page 6, number 2: If the same violator receives three or more during any pro are the in Collier County even though the violations may have been abated, an additional administrative fee of $50 for new violations may be charged. I see that the County Manager is going to tell you to put me on the bad guy's list. MS. ARNOLD: The standard that you've just read is currently in the ordinance. The page that you're reading is the amendment to the notification or the posting. So we're providing on the document that's posted on the property all the procedures, all the penalties that could be applied. So this is currently something that's in the ordinance where if you to have three or more violations, even if you mow it, we charge you administrative costs. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any other questions for Michelle? MR. VAN ARSDALE: I just have one in terms of does this mean every other developed or undeveloped lot, this applies? Page 28 February 7, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: For weeds, yes. MR. VAN ARSDALE.' I'm thinking like the parcel down there of three or four thousand acres, are they supposed to keep that whole thing under 18 inches? MS. ARNOLD: If it's completely vegetated and you can't put a lawnmower or bush hog; no, it doesn't apply to that. MR. VAN ARSDALE: So it's very inclusive and I think it's very hard to apply to the farthest reaches of Collier County. If you want to be a jerk about it you could go file a complaint; here's a lot. I don't know how you decide which ones are mowable or not. MS. ARNOLD: The way we decide is if it's a certain percentage that's mowable, that you can actually get a lawnmower out or a bush hog out to mow it, and it's not thickly vegetated or 50 percent of it is not. We would have to look at the particular lot. And most of this applies to our areas that are in our developed subdivisions. It doesn't really apply to a lot of the outlying areas and doesn't apply to the agricultural areas. There are other areas like in the Estates, it doesn't apply to the Estates area. It's mostly within the urban area. MR. WHITE: There's other provisions, that aren't part of this because they are not being modified, that do talk about what Michelle's saying; create geographic, if you will. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Okay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: There being no other questions may we have a motion? MR. VAN ARSDALE: What kind of motion? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think we are lacking for a recommendation prior to going to the Board. MR. VAN ARSDALE: So move. MR. FOLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion by Mr. Van Arsdale, second by Mr. Foley. All in favor? I better do a hand count. All in favor, raise your hand. MR. SAVAGE: In protest. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Six in favor. Those opposed? Motion carries with a motion for approval, six, to two Page 29 February 7, 2001 opposed. MR. SAVAGE: As long as we have a scientific approach as to the measurement of the 18 inches. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do have yardsticks that are 18 inches. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Let's move on to subcommittee records, then, and also discussion of who the membership is and if we have volunteers for those subcommittees. So let's start with Land Development Regulations. Bob Wayne's not here. I happen to be a member of that subcommittee, and we didn't have a meeting last month. MR. PEEK: Yes, we did. We had a meeting and there was only one person that attended. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Would you like to make that report? MR. PEEK: January 18. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Quick meeting, wasn't it? MR. PEEK: Yes, but very good. I got to say all I wanted to say. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: As Tom pointed out, he's on that committee, I'm on that committee, Blair was? Anybody else interested. MR. ANDERSON: I was out of town CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That one usually is fairly well attended for whatever circumstances. MR. SAVAGE: I'm on that committee also, and I apologize that I wasn't there. It just amazes me how many things I am doing for nothing, so it probably has a reasonable attendance list. I think probably construction code, Dino is not here and he usually prepares that report. MR. DISNEY: Actually, we didn't have a construction meeting as such. It ended up being the Ad Hoc Committee on Fees. So I can go back and comment on that at this point or later, however. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead. MR. DISNEY: The Ad Hoc Committee, we went through with Mr. Mulhere and staff on looking at how primarily the planning department was going to consolidate their approach and reduce, continue to reduce fees and become more efficient. We are looking at a flow of work and work effort and, as Mr. Page 30 February 7, 2001 Van Arsdale has been speaking about, trying to get to an appropriate level of service determination, and that is going to continue next Wednesday. That meeting will continue on a monthly basis and the next meeting is the 14th of February CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That is the Ad Hoc Committee on Fees? MR. DISNEY: That's correct. MR. BLAIR: We went over who was a member of that, so that should be pretty well recommended, as well. There were a lot of people on it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Utility Code Subcommittee? MR. PEEK: Did meet on January 25th. There is a two page addition that should be at your table. The second page of which are the minutes of that meeting. Brian Jones attended the meeting. I was unable to. The two of us are members and I think Tom Masters and Blair -- are you on the utility? MR. SAVAGE: I am, Tom, as well. MR. PEEK: Herb is on the Utility Committee. We do need more members and more attendance on that committee. We do have good representation that attends from the nonmembers of the Development Services Advisory Committee who are on that subcommittee, as well as the county Utilities staff that do attend. And there's a lot of good information that comes about through that. The minutes of the meeting will indicate to that you there are no items for action by this main body today. There are a lot of informational items stated there that would be of interest, so read that. If you have the first page of the handout is the agenda for the upcoming meeting on February 22nd, and all of you are invited. And I specifically encourage the members of this body and our subcommittee members to please attend. I have nothing further to report. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to respond. MR. JONES: At the meeting there are a couple of things that could very well affect us in a positive vein. The point system is being modified to include more use of men's urinals. Before you were penalized by I think an unfair flush gallons per minute or gallons per flush, and it kicked you to Page 31 February 7, 2001 the next size water meter. And if you didn't want to spend a couple thousand bucks more to put the urinal in, it was a waste of waterways, of resources. So we are doing something in a positive vein that I think will be very good. Also, the value for subsequent hose bibs, there is a value of 10 placed on a hose bib and it was pointed out to me that they may be a matter of convenience, so that you don't keep the price of the water meter at an acceptable standard, you are discouraging function and utility. So there would be a lesser impact on subsequent hose bibs. You need one for a residence and if you had three or four for that same residence within a manner of some kind of a constraint, you wouldn't be unduly penalized for having them. There's also, for those that prepare SDPs and site plans, they have a checklist of 46 items they are going to start looking for. It's kind of handy -- if I was preparing those documents it would be kind of a handy tool to make sure I had those things incorporated to minimize rejections and resubmittals. They also have a web site that has those kind of things on it but that checklist would be handy to have. That's it. MR. SAVAGE: May I revert back to the Construction Committee for a moment, as long as Mr. Jones is talking about it? And I think of Ed Perico having this problem and I think it's his department's responsibility that I brought up when we were going to have a session with the legislators last month. And I didn't attend and they are probably glad about it. This ridiculous requirement that some woman came down from Fort Myers says we're going to decertify our fine reviewers if we don't do those certain things. Did we ever go to that hearing? Anything beneficial about that hearing? You don't have time? MR. ELLIS: I'm sorry, David Ellis. The DBPR, the Florida Home Builders Association, met with the staff of the statewide Building Code Commission that's going to be administrator of the new code when it does become effective, whenever that may, be. And asked for their interpretation of what was happening. Their interpretation was what we had been previously doing, Page 32 February 7, 2001 which is schematics were not required. And I think I've got some copies with me, about a six or seven page memo that Florida Home Builders Association put together with backup into the law backing up their position. At 1:30 on Friday of this week, Dudley Goodlette is going to meet with the Secretary of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, with the leadership of the Florida Building Code Commission and leadership of the Florida Homeowners' Association in hopes of administratively resolving the issue. So at this point, that meeting is this Friday. I will be anxious to tell you about that. A memo comes out of DBPR. It's obviously up to them how they'll respond, but I'm very hopeful that it will be received that way. Otherwise, Florida Home Builders has committed to some sort of legal action. MR. SAVAGE: Do you have optimism about it or not? Because I think we ought to do something. MR. ELLIS: Personally, I do also, though you were talking a minute ago the kind of interaction you have with DBPR staff. What happens is it's not being done statewide. We have got a person down here in our state that thinks it's an issue and is pushing it. It's not happening in northeast Florida. It may eventually catch on all over. But right now, that interpretation is really just being pressed in Southwest Florida, and as a result, I'm not sure that the person they are going to meet with at 1:30 on Friday is even aware that it is. I'd like to think reasonable folks will have a reasonable discussion. MR. SAVAGE: I would be glad to attend. MR. WHITE: I would ask for a ticket to get there. MR. SAVAGE: You know, even the staff of Marco Island is getting whatever you want to call it because they have been pressuring them on the same matters. I don't know about you having been pressured additional times about this, Ed, or not. MR. PERICO: They approached my staff when I was on vacation about it. And what they had done, we implemented the action asking what we had to do, hoping that it's going to go away. It hasn't become as big a problem as was thought. Everybody's basically falling in line. The schematics that they are asking for is just a hand drawn Page 33 February 7, 2001 overlay; it doesn't have to be done by a design professional. We're not penalizing the builders in the field if it isn't exactly the way it was drawn, just so it meets the code. So we are trying to meet the intent of us looking at something and use a little common sense. It's never been an issue before it came up, and unfortunately, they and their attorneys feel that she's right in what she is doing right now. MR. SAVAGE: She is right? Has she ever laid a cement block or put an electric outlet in the wall or the person that said she is right? This is amazing to me, again, and we look here and we think that the construction industry, like law, is an exact science. I use that term just for fun, you know. It isn't an exact science; there is no way anybody is going to be able to put an air conditioning unit exactly where it shows three-dimensioned on the drawing. MR. PERICO: That was my exact argument to her when I sat in a meeting with her. Field conditions prevail; you have to do what you have to do. Somewhere down the line someone is giving us a design. Just give us what you did, a design. MR. ELLIS: To take that a step further, Mr. Savage, discussing that with the delegation of legislators, they are more than happy to run a bill in the session that would clarify the language if necessary. I would like again to think Friday it's clarified, but Goodlette and others have been made aware of it. It's probably just cleaning up a few sentences that would make it crystal clear. And again, when the new Building Code becomes effective, that group has already interpreted how they are going to enforce it and we'll be fine again. It's very unfortunate that the process has taken place, but in compliment to Ed's folks, they have been very flexible in how though tried to deal with it. Regardless of their flexibility, it's taken more time to get permits because you have to go through more hoops, and probably unnecessary hoops, but they are hoops that are not necessarily making the houses any safer or any better. The Building Code Commission did, the week before, recommend that the Building Code be delayed at least until October. There is still very much the buzz that it will be January, but we just won't know until the session starts. A small bill has been filed in the House, but nothing has Page 34 February 7, 2001 been put in it yet. So they have bill numbers, but no content. As those things continue to happen, we'll keep you up-to-date on it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Peter, go to your issue. MR. VAN ARSDALE: When I read through the minutes, I saw the part on, I guess the new staff member for the Transportation Department. And what I think is important that we do is that we ask for, I guess, a proper accounting of the expense of that individual in terms of, you know, how much of their work, whether it be all or none, would be related to the operation of the Building Department or Planning. In fact, one of the things I'd like to see in June, I think everybody that works for Building, clearly they are funded by Planning. In the Planning Department, it's a lot more gray. And I think it's important that we distinguish essentially the expenses that are for personnel and operations within Planning that shouldn't be funded by building permits or shouldn't even be funded by Planning fees, but are really the responsibility, let's say, of general funds, so that we can understand that. But as I read essentially the discussion on hiring this person, it was -- that issue wasn't brought out in terms of who, you know, where's the money come from, who do they work for really, and where does the money come from. And I just think we need to start identifying those budget issues so that we get a handle on relationship of permit fees to essentially the overall operation of the department. I'd even like to see if we could, like, the upcoming budget review, that within the Planning side of it or any other thing within all the departments, you know, what portions are essentially supported by fees and which ones are supported by general taxes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I would add, you know, in this particular instance that may have not been a pointed discussion, but most times we want to know exactly who they are going to be working with and who they are going to be involved with and we can allocate. MR. VAN ARSDALE: We need the budget to do that and we haven't done that, either, but it's a good starting point with this one individual. MR. DUNNUCK: We are working toward that so we can show you where the money's going. Page 35 February 7, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Dalas? MR. DISNEY: Actually, I had circled the same things in the meeting minutes from last month, because I was not here. And the fact that the 113 funds would pay for a transportation person in there, essentially to pick up Ed Kant's duties, just seemed to be going the wrong direction. Building Permits pay for this building and all sort of other things and you can build a rational nexus for all kinds of justification. This just seems to go an awfully long ways in a direction that could be challenged. MR. DUNNUCK: Not to rehash this whole thing, I'll preface it, too, by telling you that I have also cut out a position on this year's budget so that there won't be a fiscal impact to the 113. I saw a position that I didn't think we were going to see in this year's budget, so I cut it. Going back to the question at hand, you know that position specifically gets in the preapplication of Site Development Plan Review process. You are right. Ed Kant was kind of a liaison several years ago and worked in that capacity and maybe they didn't put up the funding then. But we did feel that there was enough justification because of what they were going to be doing on the Permit side and Planning side here, that it did justify it. This time it's also a level service issue. We needed these positions so that we could understand and take care of a couple of the issues and turn around times with the Transportation side from a Planning aspect. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Having that, let's move on then to community member comments. Any comments? MR. FOLEY: No. MR. ANDERSON: At the last meeting, we made recommendations for a new member for this committee, Bryan Milk. Bryan's no longer eligible; he went to work for the City of Marco Island. What have we done in that regard to replace him CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Do we default to the other applicant? MR. DUNNUCK: You could default to the other applicant because it hasn't come before the Board yet. It's scheduled to this month. What's the pleasure of the Board? MR. ANDERSON: There was one other applicant. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Peek? Page 36 February 7, 2001 MR. PEEK: I think at least one other, Dave Farmer. I had made comments about it at the last meeting as someone who has been very involved in our Utilities Subcommittee and very faithful to attend those meetings and do his homework, and has made a very good impression. I would support him to be named to this meeting. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we move Mr. Farmer for the new member. MR. VAN ARSDALE: So move. MR. PEEK: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you for your alertness. Anything else? MR. ANDERSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Peek? MR. PEEK: No. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Disney? MR. DISNEY: Just the last meeting there was something about expiration dates in here, bring that to the next meeting, and I didn't see that. MR. DUNNUCK: I'll make copies. MR. JONES: Are we sure Mr. Milk -- does he plan to pursue that position? MR. CUYLER: He's already started with the City of Marco Island. MR. JONES: That would preclude him from filling this position. MR. SAVAGE: Well, I assume so. He sort of inferred that. I don't know myself. Our Assistant County Attorney could probably answer that. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I suppose there is nothing official that would preclude him from doing so, but it certainly changes my feeling about whether I would recommend him for this committee. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Is he eligible to sit on this committee if he was working for the City? MR. WHITE: I was suggesting something, a follow-up motion to withdraw Mr. Milk's application, but after I gave it another thought that he was perhaps ineligible, I wasn't sure of what the Page 37 February 7, 2001 actual impact of his employment by another governmental entity would be, and whether that would preclude him from being a member of this committee. I don't have with me a copy of the code that pertains to DSAC, otherwise I would probably be able to give you a better answer. But I'll be happy to take a look at it. MR. ANDERSON: Make a motion to reconsider. MR. PEEK: So move. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I have a motion and a second. All in favor of tabling that? All in favor say aye. Opposed? MR JONES: No. We're basing stuff on hearsay. We heard he got a job and we approved him last month. Maybe he did; I don't know the accuracy of the information. And I hate to base it on that and then run into Bryan, what did you guys do? We heard you took this job and heard this and that. MR. CUYLER: If you like, I'm counsel to Marco Island. I'll talk to Bryan; I know that he's been hired by Marco Island. You might want to give him an opportunity to withdraw rather than just be replaced, so that he can tell you that he doesn't want to serve if he doesn't want to serve. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Doesn't the reconsideration mean it comes back and we can ask him some of those issues? MR. ANDERSON: We voted to reconsider our prior recommendation for a member of this committee. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Reconsider, means it will come back to us? MR. ANDERSON: No, it means that a new motion is in order. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I so move. MR. PEEK: I thought we had already passed that motion to nominate an alternate, assuming that he was going to be either with -- his nomination was going to be withdrawn either by him or by this committee. MR. SAVAGE: That's the way my motion read. MR. PEEK: I think we have an alternate recommendation in place and I guess at this point the reconsideration would be one to perhaps ask him if, in fact, he wants to withdraw his name because he now has employment with the City of Marco. That Page 38 February 7, 2001 would be my recommendation. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Why don't we find out if it's inappropriate or not? I mean, he's a county resident; right? MR. JONES: His qualifications that I thought were particularly advantageous were having worked inside as a planner. He's the only one that had that qualification. And we're going through this big transition, I thought he was uniquely qualified to give us some insights into things that he might like to see. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Did the Board already approve the new member, him as a new member? MR. FOLEY: No. MR. SAVAGE: Is it appropriate that our counselor for the City of Marco Island talk to Bryan and then come back to this committee? I don't know when the county's going to appoint the new members. John, do you know? MR. DUNNUCK: Probably at the second meeting in February CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Well, we have two motions that have been approved already. MR. PEEK: Let's get right directly to it. Why don't we ask John just to call him up and ask him does he still want to be considered? MR. SAVAGE: Simple. MR. DUNNUCK: If he withdraws, the Board's going to say I've got five applicant for five positions. They have never done anything in the past to say I'm kicking one off as opposed to the other. I think it's clear by this Board CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Let's complete our member comments. David do you have any comments? MR. CORREA: No. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Peter? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Maybe if-- we talked about the subcommittees, and could there be some kind of detail what they are and who's on them, what they do? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: For the next meeting. MR. VAN ARSDALE: So we know what we are volunteering for? MR. DUNNUCK.' Sure. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I would like to volunteer but I'd like to Page 39 February 7, 2001 know what I'm volunteering for CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. We'll have that then at our next meeting. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Are there set numbers for the committee or you can get on any one? MR. DUNNUCK.' I think they are more ad hoc. MR. JONES: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Before we do, I would like to thank Dalas for last year's service as chairman. MR. DISNEY: Thank you very much for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: With that, let's adjourn the meeting. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I protest. You didn't ask me for my comments. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes, we did. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Too late now. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:30 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE TOM MASTERS, CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES BY: KAYE GRAY, RPR Page 40