Loading...
DSAC Minutes 06/06/2001 RJune 6, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 6, 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 1.'15 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at Conference Room E, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas Masters, P.E. Charles M. Abbott Dalas D. Disney, A.I.A. Robert L. Duane, A.I.C.P. Marco Espinar Blair Foley, P.E. Brian E. Jones Bryan Milk Thomas R. Peek, P.E. C. Perry Peeples, Esq. Herbert R. Savage, A.I.A. Peter H. Van Arsdale ABSENT: R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. David Correa Dino J. Longo Page I June 6, 2001 ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, County Attorney Office Susan Murray, Planning Services John Dunnuck, Community Development Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Page 2 June 6, 2001 (The following proceedings commenced, Misters Abbott, Disney, Jones, Peeples, VanArsdale, Kuck, and Ms. Arnold not present.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All right. Let's go ahead and call the meeting to order. It doesn't look like we're going to have a quorum, so I think we might as well start going through the items, and hopefully we'll have a quorum by 3:30 and we can catch up and make some motions at that time as far as forwarding things on the board meeting this evening. Since we're under a time frame, let's go. Any additions that anybody would like to make to the agenda? Tom recommended under new business we go ahead and -- and just discuss the next meeting time. MR. DUNNUCK: That makes sense. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And -- anybody else have anything to add? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Motion -- we don't even need to make motions do, we? We just proceed. Skip -- anybody have any comments on the minutes to make? Tom's usually our critique of minutes. MR. PEEK: No, the -- the only comment that I had was on the single page that came from development services that identified Dallas Disney as being absent, but the official transcript has him as present, which I think is correct. MR. FOLEY: He came in partway through the meeting. MR. PEEK: He came in after we started. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. With that let's move on to staff announcements. John? MR. DUNNUCK: There's nothing really to report on on the summary of the ordinance amendments since the last time we Page 3 June 6, 2001 met. So if we just want to keep moving, going on to old business, again, the LDC cycle, probably be the best way to go. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. Okay. Let's move on to LDC cycle. MR. NINO: Do you want to go to the end of the -- of all the staff side sheets to find the report by your land use subcommittee? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. NINO: I think that in the case that, you know, the DSAC has dealt with all items with the exception of those that are in the subcommittee's report and the disposition of the subcommittee is described in those -- in that report. So do you now want go to discussion, or, Skip, do you want to -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I have one question as far as the LDC subcommittee meeting on our motion. The all-encompassing motion regarding the vehicles on the beach -- MR. NINO: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: --we were unclear--you know, I was just discussing with Bryan Milk whether -- whether or not our final recommendation was to remove the -- in the penalty clauses the suspension of license except for the beach-raking section. I'm just wondering if maybe you could recollect that because it still has a 70-day suspension. I think we had talked about totally deleting that suspension. MR. NINO: I don't recall that, if that's -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Or we can hit that again when we discuss that item. MR. NINO: Yeah, right. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Are you going to go through these item by item then, Ron? MR. NINO: Well, let's do the vehicle on the beach. Then your -- with respect to the proposed changes to the Florida area Page 4 June 6, 2001 ratio, you-all agreed that those ratios should be changed. And you also agreed to provide a re -- to redefine destination resort hotel. You -- I don't see the residential hotel one in here. We talked about residential hotels? I thought we did. And that you -- the committee was comfortable with the proposed changes to the FAR, the redefinition, and to reintroduce the residential hotel at a FAR 1.15. And you-all agreed with the hearing examiner one. I don't see that down here. You-all agreed with the hearing examiner, supported that, instituting that process. You also agreed with the amendment to the landscape provisions, and I believe that was -- those were the only items that -- the only item that -- you know ... MR. DUNNUCK: I believe there may have been two things that have changed and probably need a little discussion from when the subcommittee met, and I wasn't in attendance at the subcommittee meeting, but one of the issues with respect to the vehicles on the beach was over the last couple of weeks -- you probably read it in the paper -- there's an issue that's arisen whereupon further review of the comprehensive plan there were two elements within the comprehensive plan that defined when a vehicle on the beach is an allowable use. One states for maintenance purposes, and one states for safety reasons. Upon discovering this -- and I apologize for being at the eleventh hour -- staff has opined that before any vehicle-on-the- beach amendments come forward we need to go back and amend the comprehensive plan in order to -- to clarify that because we don't feel at this time that the uses that the hotels are proposing for vehicles on the beach, i.e., putting chairs on and off the beach and picking up towels and taking commuters down and back, constitute maintenance of the beach. And so our recommendation is to the Board of County Page 5 June 6, 2001 Commissioners that -- that we go back and look at the comprehensive plan first and make any necessary adjustments they decide to before -- before they pass any Land Development Code that would potentially be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. MR. MILK: So you would, in essence, defer this to a time certain later on once that comprehensive plan has been looked at and -- MR. DUNNUCK'- Right. We're in the comprehensive plan cycle right now, and it would be October before, you know, the earliest possibility they could get the element in for the board's consideration. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Who determined that that didn't constitute maintenance? Was that staff or legal or -- MR. DUNNUCK: Both. And, Patrick, you can talk about it. You can actually give them the actual language and talk about it a little bit. I will tell you that the planning commission reviewed it, and they opined that, in fact, they believe it was consistent with the comprehensive plan. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: John, you know, it's great to sit here and talk about governmental processes and it will be October before you do this and do that. These people that live in this area and have a business of a hotel business have to have something for the winter season. Now, is it something going to be about two or three years from now before we have this accomplished if we do? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I -- I think staff's approach right now is that -- you mentioned winter season. Right now our Land Development Code per an amendment that was made last year allowed them to use vehicles on the beach outside of sea turtle Page 6 June 6, 2001 nesting season. MR. SAVAGE: Right. MR. DUNNUCK: I think what we're recommending as a -- as a risk management type thing -- and it's a decision on staff's part and the board may overturn it -- is that we keep that Land Development Code in place until -- you know, that we don't go back and revoke that amendment but that we not allow this new one until we can go back and amend the comprehensive plan. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So I think right now we have some -- some items in front -- before us that we need to make a recommendation on, and I'd prefer to go ahead and make a recommendation on them and let the board decide whether or not they need to go back and make some other revisions to enact that -- other revisions to the growth management plan. MR. DUNNUCK: Correct. MR. SAVAGE: Let me finish that remark in that what you're saying, that they will be able to use their vehicles on the beach for their businesses this winter based on the old present Land Development Code. MR. DUNNUCK: That's the way we're addressing this issue right now. MR. SAVAGE: Thank you. MR. FOLEY: Blair Foley for the record. I agree, Tom. I think we have this before us. We should move on. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: They can do whatever they want with the recommendation. MR. DUNNUCK: That's fine. I just wanted to point it out for the record. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Another follow-up issue -- and I -- and I think Ron alluded to it, and I'm not sure if the subcommittee got to tackle it, but some of these RT district amendments that, you Page 7 June 6, 2001 know, come forward, I think there were two additional amendments that were -- that were put in the package. One reverts back to the previous one of June of 2000 which says maximum of 26 units, hotel rooms in the RT district and -- and takes out floor area ratio. That's one of the elements that was put out there. And it's kind of one of these issues where you throw out a -- throw it out on the wall and see which ones end up sticking with the Board of County Commissioners. That issue was presented, and I think the issue of the extended-stay hotel was brought back. That was rejected by the Board of County Commissioners last December and brought back into the mix as a -- as an amendment proposal as well. And I think that Development Services Advisory Committee previously had recommended in favor of that amendment back in December, and I just wanted to make you-all aware of that. That's been added back into the package. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Basically if we had a quorum we could vote on whether or not to go in favor of the -- of the Land Development Code subcommittee recommendations. Since we don't, let's go ahead and have some discussion, if there is any, on the vehicles on the beach. This is the only one, unless someone has another easy one we want to get out of the way first. No? With -- with that in mind, anybody want to start off? MR. PEEK: I do. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. PEEK: Tom Peek for your record. I have a question, John, perhaps, whoever else on staff needs to respond to it. In a discussion about the interpretation of the land development or the -- I guess it's the Land Development Code decision, you can't do what we're proposing to do in your discussion, how did -- how is the beach defined? Is it defined as only that part of it below the mean high waterline, or is it defined in some other fashion? Page 8 June 6, 2001 MR. DUNNUCK: In respect to beach maintenance? MR. PEEK: Yes. MR. DUNNUCK: Patrick, do you want to answer that specifically where the definition comes from? MR. WHITE: It's everything -- MR. DUNNUCK: It's probably everything on the other side of the dune or the dune and below is what I would think the beach is defined as, and that includes the property that they actually own all the way up to where the state owns it. MR. PEEK: They own the mean high waterline -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Right. MR. PEEK: -- is where it's owned. MR. WHITE: In some instances that's true. In others there's actually some area between the mean high waterline and the private property line. But, generally, all of the areas that we're talking about are, quote, unquote, defined beach. So the provision in the comprehensive plan and in the vehicle-on-the- beach ordinance does apply to the geographic locations we're talking to. I don't know if you want me to address the interpretation of the comp. Plan policy or not. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: If-- if you have something to add, I'd like to hear it. But I don't know if it's relative to our making the recommendation on this. MR. WHITE: Well, it goes only -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I mean, they still need to decide it further down the road, I think; right? MR. WHITE: True. But it only goes to whether you're going to make recommendations about certain portions of what staff is proposing to move forward or not. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. WHITE: If you're going to make recommendations with respect to those things that staff deems to be consistent, then Page 9 June 6, 2001 we need to have a discussion. I'd be happy to do that. Basically, with respect to developed beaches, there's a -- an objective in a more specific policy, 10.4.10, that indicates that vehicle traffic or traffic is prohibited on the beach except for emergency or approved maintenance. And then in the second, last sentence, it indicates that it would be enforced and applied using the existing vehicle-on-the-beach ordinance. That would be existing as of 1989 when the comp. Plan provision went into effect. In that ordinance it defines what a vehicle is. It tells us, in essence, that if they put wheels on me and pushed or pulled me around the beach, I'd be a vehicle. It isn't just motorized vehicles, in the traditional sense of what the statutes define are vehicles. So with that as what we must consider to be vehicles, the only thing that's left to interpretation is traffic. And it seems a pretty simple conclusion to reach that if you are making repeated trips, you know, you -- ITE or whatever standard you want, but if you're making trips, that's traffic. And the idea that there's more than one event where you're moving an ATV or some other vehicle as defined by that ordinance up and down and across the beach, that's vehicle traffic. And what we've indicated to the CCPC and to the EAC this morning and will be indicating to the board this evening and to you-all now is that until that policy is amended and clarified with respect to what, quote, unquote, vehicle traffic is or otherwise is clarified and amended to maybe state, for example, that approved maintenance may include issuing a permit to one of the hotels to assist in some type of mechanical cleaning or whatever, that until that time proposed regulations, in particular in 3.14, a large percentage of them should not be moved forward until the comp. Plan is met. There are provisions that are unaffected by this, quote, inconsistency issue, and those are the ones that I think are ripe Page 10 June 6, 2001 for your consideration and staff would believe appropriate for you to make a recommendation on. And that would require probably a more detailed presentation today so we could draw that line for you between what's perceived to be consistent and what's not and then go from there. Just so you know, with respect to what the CCPC did do last week, it's the opinion of our office basically that although their charge is to make a determination as to whether the Land Development Code provisions that are brought to them are consistent with the comp. Plan, to some degree they -- they kind of look through the other end of the telescope and made a determination that the comprehensive plan, if you will, will be, as they were interpreting it, consistent with what the LDC proposal was. And certainly I -- I understand that folks in the hotel industry and others may view that differently. But that's what we're telling the board, and that's what we're telling you. And I don't know if there's any questions. I'll be happy to answer them. (Ms. Arnold entered the room.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Is -- is the discrepancy in what constitutes maintenance on the beach? I mean, I think we all agree that does constitute a vehicle -- vehicle-on-the-beach traffic. So is that the issue or-- MR. WHITE: The -- the policy provision prohibits vehicle traffic. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Other than for maintenance. MR. WHITE: Right. Approved maintenance. Now the approved maintenance is what was, quote, unquote, approved. The same way what's the definition of a vehicle, the standard you have to look to is the existing vehicle-on-the-beach ordinance, i.e., as it existed in 1989. The uses, if you will, propose for ATVs and other types of vehicles by this round of amendments were not quote, unquote, approved maintenance at Page 1t June 6, 2001 that point in time. So they -- they cannot, by definition, just by logic be considered to be approved maintenance. There's something new that's being contemplated. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: But would it be your opinion then that by that definition, using a ATV to monitor turtle nesting would also be breaking those rules or not? MR. WHITE: No. I believe that fell within the scope of what was, quote, unquote, either emergency, slash, safety or what was otherwise approved as part of a then-existing vehicle-on-the- beach ordinance. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. WHITE: If your enforcement flows from what the vehicle-on-the-beach ordinance said at that time, those things were -- were in there and contemplated. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes, sir. MR. SAVAGE: If we're talking about maintenance on the beach, we have a vehicle that goes up and down the beach every morning, the full length of the beach gathering the shells or whatever debris is on the beach. It -- how many feet on center does that vehicle cover on that beach? You talk about individual traffic of picking up a chair, tents with a vehicle, and we go up and down the beach every morning with that same kind of vehicle. We're compacting the beach through maintenance much worse than we are by some hotel having a vehicle pick up towels on the beach. And I hope to goodness we have somebody that is in knowledge of the maintenance use of those vehicles to make sure we're not -- we're so concerned because turtles can't dig a hole in the ground. Those maintenance vehicles do more compacting that beach than that hotel vehicle does than picking up towels on the beach. Is there some distinction between those? Page 12 June 6, 2001 (Mr. Kuck entered the room.). MR. SAVAGE: Anybody know? MS. BURGESON: Barbara Burgeson, planning services. If you're referring to the maintenance done by the beach raking, that type of maintenance where they're going up and down on the beach? MR. SAVAGE: Yes, with a vehicle. MS. BURGESON: Beach raking during sea turtle nesting season is prohibited above mean high water, has never been allowed above mean high water. And as we issue the permits to allow that and as we've been assured this year because it's been brought to our attention and we're being very careful to issue those permits, this year they're doing one or two lines along the rack line. And that's all they're doing this year during sea turtle nesting season. MR. SAVAGE: That's all they're doing? Two runs? MS. BURGESON: One or two. That's all I've been told to the people that we've issued the permits to. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. John, are we -- does staff have a presentation or something they want to walk us through what we can and can't, by the current interpretation, make a recommendation on, or-- MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I -- I think you have a right to make a recommendation on anything. I think Patrick's outlined the code and how it applies to vehicles on the beach from our interpretation. It may be more beneficial to have Mr. Grabinski or -- anything -- argue in fact of why he thinks it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and -- and then we can get into, you know, where it does and doesn't apply as far as these three amendments. But -- but I think it's pretty clear; it's when you're using a vehicle for anything other than maintenance. MR. NINO: Can I make a suggestion? I might cut through -- Page13 June 6, 2001 cut through the chase somewhat. The DSAC -- I -- the DSAC -- correct me if I'm wrong, Pat, but the DSAC's mission is not to interpret the comprehensive plan. I think DSAC's position here is one that says, "All else being equal, this is what we would like to see in the vehicle-on-the-beach ordinance" and the annual beach- events permits and leave the decision as to whether it can go forward now up to the board in their interpretive decision-making role. Wouldn't that be the most expeditious role? MR. FOLEY: That's what I thought we were talking about earlier, Tom. I think we could make a position and recommend on this text as it is presented to us and let the -- let the board decide what they want to do; otherwise we could -- we could pick what applies now, make a recommendation on that and wait until they resolve their issue and come back to us again. I don't see the point in that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think we're all pretty much in agreement here. Matt--. MR. GRABINSKI: Are we not going to debate the consistency issue at all then? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: No. We're really -- we're not going to make it. MR. GRABINSKI: You're not going to make a recommendation. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Because it's out of our hands. Our recommendation would be to vote on this amendment as it's proposed to us right now. MR. GRABINSKI: I guess assuming that it is consistent. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. Absolutely. MR. GRABINSKI: Okay. Because I just know that -- Patrick, the planning commission is charged with making a recommendation. So are you saying that DSAC does not have a duty to make a recommendation of this type of consistency? Page 14 June 6, 2001 MR. WHITE: That is absolutely correct, Matt. MR. GRABINSKI: Okay. MR. NINO: Well, DSAC is -- if we had our druthers, all else being equal, here's what we would like to see in the vehicles on the beach ordinances and in re, and the annual beach-events permit -- MR. GRABINSKI: Okay. MR. NINO: And the decision making as to whether that is a legal ordinance or not is up to the board. MR. GRABINSKI: Are we only going to discuss the vehicles on the beach ordinance, or are we going to do the beach-events permit and everything altogether? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We can wrap them all into one discussion -- MR. GRABINSKI: Wrap them all into -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: -- I think. Do you guys agree? MR. GRABINSKI: I have some extra handouts here. MR. MILK: Can I -- can I interrupt a minute -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead. MR. MILK: -- Mr. Chairman? If -- if there's certain areas of that ordinance that's not consistent deemed by the attorney's office or staff, I mean, why would we want to hear -- why wouldn't we just want to vote on a consistent part -- I guess my position is, if staff's deemed it inconsistent with the future land use element or comp. Plan, then that's -- that's it. We ought to lay and rest with that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I'm not so sure the committee's not inclined to approve what we recommend as a whole and then let the board pick and choose what we want out of that. MR. NINO: It's really -- it's really the board that makes that ultimate decision. MR. MILK: Is that your recommendation, Ron? Page 15 June 6, 2001 MR. NINO: I'm not making rec -- I'm just telling you that's one way you can go. The -- the board has -- is charged with the ultimate role -- decision making with respect to interpretation of the growth management plan. MR. FOLEY: It's not the staff's position to do that. MR. WHITE: To address Mr. Milk's comment, if I may, Mr. Chairman, what I was suggesting, the only reason that I injected the issue was because certainly you could do both. You could say if you find it to be consistent, this is our set of recommendations. If, like staff is suggesting to you, you deem it inconsistent and these are the things that's left for our consideration, we make this recommendation. It's going to take longer -- I understand that you're trying with the -- the philosophy you're choosing to adopt, to make it a little more expeditious and easy on yourself. But you run the risk of making a recommendation about a body of provisions that may ultimately, because the board determines them to be, quote, unquote, inconsistent, have really no effect because you'll only have talked about the wheat and the chaff and no way to dis -- discern what your recommendation was after the, quote, chaff's been thrown out. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I guess where I'm coming from is, just for simplicity sake, say there's ten things that we're looking at and four of them are deemed inconsistent. If we make a recommendation that we want to approve all ten things, it would seem that you could jump to the conclusion that if the four are inconsistent, that they would fall out of that package and the six that we were happy with would move forward. Is that incorrect? MR. WHITE: It sounds logical. I hope it works out that way. I'm just trying to give you the benefit of the number of options I see you having. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Well, let's get through the Page 16 June 6, 2001 discussion, and then we can come back and see if there is maybe one of the ten items that would waver based on whether or not the other ones were consistent. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Matt. MR. GRABINSKI: If I could begin, I'd like to read a quote from a letter that I received May 10th of 2000, over a year ago, from Robert Mulhere when he assembled our ad hoc committee to start this amendment process. He said -- and I quote -- It is not our intent to develop a process that is burdensome or one which negatively impacts your client's business functions or the expectations of their guests. And after 14 months of negotiating and trying to cooperate and trying to work with the environmental community to address the specific and legitimate concerns, we are basically here today to ask for two things: one, to ask you to find some -- to insert some reasonness into this process and find that turning the ATV around that you see on that picture, to find that that does not constitute vehicle traffic, and to pass an amendment that would allow the hotel to get that ATV turned around; and, two, with respect to all of our -- all of the other comments that we have pertaining to these amendments -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Let me interrupt just for one second. Did you get a chance to read the piece that Ron handed out based on the development -- the advisory committee's recommendations? MR. GRABINSKI: No. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Because in order to shorten things, it might be worth just taking a moment to read that and then maybe address issues that run contrary to our recommendation. MR. GRABINSKI: Well, as I -- as I recall from the subcommittee, you voted to approve everything on this piece of paper, including removing any reference to the suspension of the Page 17 June 6, 2001 annual beach-events permit. Okay. Recommendation No. I I agree with. Number 2 I agree with. Number 3 I agree with. Number 4 I agree with. Number 5 I also agree with. And the only thing that I disagree with, like I said, is this fails to reflect the fact that we did discuss -- because it is the most important issue with respect to all these amendments -- the concept -- and -- and Mr. Staros is going to speak to you briefly about it as well -- that prior to December there was no beach-events permit. Prior to December for the past 16 years the hotels have been able to operate knowing that they have a vested right to use their property and that they can guarantee years in advance to guests that are going to come and spend millions of dollars at the hotel on conventions that they will be able to have beach events and beach parties. If they cannot make this unconditional guarantee, they lose that business. And that was also agreed to by the subcommittee. MR. MILK: Could I have you repeat that one more time? What was that sentence that vested your special event did you say up until now? MR. GRABINSKI: The right to have beach parties and use our beach. Prior to December it was not regulated by the Collier County Land Development Code. There was an issue as to whether or not the temporary use permit section applied. We argue that it didn't because the hotel was performing an incidental function on property that it owned. In Bob Mulhere's letter -- again, this is dated May 10th, 2000. This was after the issue of the temp -- whether or not the temporary use permit section in the county code applied. We had a meeting. We argued that it didn't. MR. MILK: Okay. What was the response for the conclusion? MR. GRABINSKI: After reviewing Section 2.6.33, I do not Page 18 June 6, 2001 believe that the 28-day limitation imposed on most types of temporary uses was intended to apply to functions on the beach primarily located on privately owned beachfront rose -- resort and hotel property. Having stated this, however, I concur with staff that a temporary use permit process is necessary to address issues of concern and to monitor compliance with the conditions attached to such a permit. MR. MILK: So your 28 days didn't apply, but the application did or the --. MR. GRABINSKI: Well, they felt that they needed -- they felt that there was a need to develop some type of new permitting and monitoring-- MR. MILK: I guess my -- my point was, is that they still need to monitor the event from a event standpoint. MR. GRABINSKI: Exactly. The county expressed a concern and a legitimate one and one that we agreed with, that they wanted to know when these activities were occurring on the beach so that they could monitor it and make sure that the beach was cleared at the end of the day so they could monitor it and make sure that equipment wasn't being placed in the dunes, etc. But prior to that they didn't have a right to monitor that. They didn't have a right to require the hotels to apply for a temporary use permit or any other permit every time the hotel wanted to have a cocktail party or a wedding reception or a dinner out on the beach. MS. ARNOLD: I think that that was -- Michelle Arnold. The whole reason why we got to the annual beach event permit was because it was deemed that there needed to be clarification with respect to the 28-day temporary use permits. We had always applied it that way. We have always brought it to the issue of-- of the hotels that they needed to get a temporary use permit. And because the board had this item brought before them and Page 19 June 6, 2001 Bob Mulhere brought it to the attention that maybe we want to expand the ability for the hotels to have additional events more than the 28 days that were limited under the temporary use program is why we came up with the annual beach event section, because it was Bob Mulhere's opinion -- and the board supported it -- that we have the ability to regulate those types of activities to ensure the protection of the public. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Let me interrupt here quickly one more time. I just asked Blair and Brian, both of which were at the subcommittee meeting and that it's our recollection that we would have an Item No. 6 on here that included deleting the suspension altogether as well, to try that out and to see how it worked. We could always come back and add a suspension in the future, but I think that was our recommendation, and -- and we're all in concurrence on that. If that item was in there, where would that place you? MR. GRABINSKI: I would be in total agreement. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. So then that would -- so then you wouldn't have issue with that going forward? MR. GRABINSKI: No. And -- and the planning commission voted unanimously for all of these changes as well. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Herb. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. You're saying now -- in your subcommittee meeting, you said that No. 6 would be we would eliminate the provision for suspension; is that correct? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Keep the fines in place and see -- because this year apparently, I believe our discussion was that they had two -- two infractions or something like that, and it seemed like they would probably be able to get through without having their activities suspended and have fines in place. If that wasn't -- if that couldn't create the kind of enforcement that they Page 20 June 6, 2001 needed, then perhaps we would have to revisit it and give them something stronger to come back and try to create the enforcement that they need. MR. STAROS: May I make a comment? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. STAROS: I'm Ed Staros. We haven't had any infractions so that -- just for clarity of that on this sea turtle season. The issue here -- and I'm in total agreement with the recommendation of eliminating the suspension -- this is a very key issue. And I just want to set the stage so you understand. I sign contracts years in advance. I signed one yesterday with Ford Motor Company for -- for a group coming in 2005. I guarantee at the time of the signing of the contract, yesterday, that they will have a beach party. I guarantee that. Now, the only reason I got the contract and the -- to come here to Collier County to spend their million dollars and the Greenbriar didn't get the contract is because in their RFP, their request for proposal, required a beach party. So I'm just -- this is a very sensitive issue to me. You know, fines are one thing but -- but any revocation of a -- let it be temporary or permit of a beach party that may have happened 24 hours before Ford Motor Company comes in the year 2005, it revokes the -- you know, it -- it revokes the contract that I signed five years earlier. And so I -- I just wanted to make that clear. There was discussion of that last time. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah, and I think this committee fully understands that. MR. STAROS: I just wanted to add clarity to it; that's all. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: At the same time, I don't think there's any way we can guarantee that you will have the ability to have a beach party if for any unforeseen reason there is some huge infraction or something that causes you to lose the ability Page 21 June 6, 2001 to do that. MR. STAROS: Sure. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: There is always something that could happen. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. Your beach parties, are they above -- are they on your property? MR. STAROS: A hundred percent of the time. MR. SAVAGE: Do you hear that? They're on their privately owned property above the mean high water line. MR. STAROS: A hundred percent of the time. MR. SAVAGE: I can't imagine us being so damned dictora -- dick -- anyhow, firm --. MR. STAROS: Dictatorial. MR. SAVAGE: Dictatorial -- that we would tell this private owner on their private land that they can't have a party of their own. Obviously there could be some controls for helping other elements, but this is private property. And I'm so glad that you -- you, in your subcommittee, did just that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you, Herb. MR. STAROS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Tom. MR. PEEK: Would you clarify what Item No. 6 should say in the recommendation sheet? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: It should say something along the lines of -- in Section 3.14.7.2, Item No. 2, that the suspensions of 70 days be deleted at this point. MR. GRABINSKI: We had requested -- it's item -- on the handout, No. 1. That's what we want. All applicable penalty provisions, whether it's for use of vehicles, beach events, whatever, any reference to a suspension or revocation of the beach-events permit be leaf-- be deleted and express language added to the code basically saying that the permit shall not be Page 22 June 6, 2001 subject to suspension or revocation. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think the exception to that was that if there were refractions involving the beach cleaning, the fact that --. MR. GRABINSKI: Right. If there were infractions entailing beach cleaning, then the permit could be suspended for the beach cleaning, wouldn't be able to clean the beach for 70 days. We didn't object to the -- we didn't object to the revocation or suspension of a vehicle permit or a cleaning permit if -- if major infractions occurred, only the suspension or revocation of the beach-events permit. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Is that clear? MR. PEEK: I think it is. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Does anybody else have any comments that they'd like to put in at this time? MS. KOELSCH: Yeah, I do. I'm Jessica Koelsch with the Center for Marine Conservation. And Monday -- MR. SAVAGE: My hearing isn't quite as good as yours. Would you mind standing up, and then I could hear you a little bit better? MS. KOELSCH: I'm Jessica Koelsch with the Center for Marine Conservation. And on -- I had previously submitted some comments on this proposed amendment. And then on Monday when the whole county code issue started to come to head, I sent additional comments. And I asked you-all to be forwarded a copy. Did -- does anyone -- did anyone receive comments from us, Center for Marine Conservation? I do have -- I do have a copy here, and I can make additional copies and distribute them. But it outlines our position, which I had stated in the past. Essentially Center for Marine Conservation and other environmental organizations are concerned with additional use of ATVs on the beach for several reasons. One is -- is it potentially Page 23 June 6, 2001 violates state law and county law. This is an issue which has come up before, and it's tried to be dismissed. But, actually, the state Department of Environmental Protection is meeting today to discuss whether or not this proposed amendment would violate the state law and, again, the county code. I understand that you want to move ahead with it, but I -- I strongly support Mr. White's suggestion that you do come up with a set of recommendations saying, you know, if this does not violate state and county law, then X. If it does, then Y. I strongly support that recommendation. AT -- beach activity such as ATV driving does have a potential to negatively impact sea turtles. If beach activities occurs before a nest is monitored, I'm sure -- I hope that you heard from county staff previously, that there's a risk that a nest might not be marked and then might not be protected. In addition, in using ATVs on the beach where there are nests -- marked nests, there is a -- there is a risk of accidentally running over a nest. I know of a case in another county where a county employee driving an ATV ran over a marked nest, destroyed the marking. And, luckily, someone else noticed it and they were able to go and remark the nest. But when nests are not marked, there is a potential risk to them. In fact, I just had lunch with Maura Kraus from the -- from the county, and she was actually telling me about a study that documents negative impacts to a sea turtle nest from beach raking over the nest. So in reviewing your recommendations, I'm pretty much opposed to most of them. Let me just quickly go through some of the other points that I wanted to make. Again, the -- the legality of beach driving with reference to the state law and also with the county comprehensive plan, I think both of those things are currently being evaluated and it's just something that you need Page 24 June 6, 2001 to keep in the back of your mind. Something else is liability to the county, as well as the hotels or ATV operators. If a nest or hatchlings or eggs or a turtle are harmed or damaged in any way, under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Endangered Species Act, the county would be liable, and it is a -- a criminal penalty. That's something else that you need to consider. I also pointed out -- I also supported several of the recommendations that the staff has put forth in their current version of the plan and actually suggested some additional safeguards such as limiting -- limiting the vehicle use to a set number of trips. I think originally it said something like one trip per day. I don't think it needs to be limited that much, but I definitely think there does need to be some quantifiable limits to the number of trips because then you do start to get into the issue of traffic. When Matt started speaking, he said what's wrong with allowing the ATV to come down on the beach and turn around. I don't have a problem with that. The Center for Marine Center Conservation doesn't have a problem with that. But I think we're talking about more than one ATV coming down off the boardwalk and then turning around. MR. STAROS: No, we're not, never. MS. KOELSCH: Well, it's not just you, though. It's other -- there are going to be other uses as well. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Carry on. MR. STAROS: I'm sorry. MS. KOELSCH: The penalties, I think that leniency for the first violation is certainly reasonable. That was one of the things we keep hear -- themes that we keep hearing over and over again: common sense and reason. And, again, that's why I think leniency for a first violation is certainly fair. But with additional infractions, I think you need to have stiff Page 25 June 6, 2001 penalties and monetary -- monetary penalties are really not going to carry much bite to -- to some of the larger organizations that are -- are seeking the permits to use ATVs. I think that the suspension or revocation of permits is really the only real teeth. So we strongly support the -- the strong penalties. Again, if there is a strong enough motivation, I'm sure that the operators of these ATVs will make certain that there are no violations. It's definitely in their best interests. So, you know, what's the harm of having these very strict penalties? It's just more encouragement to -- to comply. One of the other recommendations or -- that -- some of the other recommendations that we supported, the 30-foot radius, that is actually a state standard. The -- Collier County didn't just pull it out of a hat. It's actually a state standard. So is the -- the time for having all the items removed for the beach. It says that one hour following sunset. So, again, that's a state standard. And, granted, the state could change that, but that's the basis. That's what they consider common sense and reason. Additionally, I -- I think that adding these ordinances or adding these additional provisions is going to require extra effort from the county enforcement staff. This is probably more of a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners but to try to make sure that there is enough resources in place for the code enforcement to adequately do their job. Anyhow, I can provide a copy of this letter. But, just, again, going through -- going through your recommendations, No. 1, I'm not in favor -- I oppose that because the 30-foot diameter is based on the state standard. Number 2, the CCI. penalties eliminate those. I don't know if it's relevant at all, but the EAC this -- this morning passed an amendment, and they just said up to $500 penalty. So that way it gives them some margin of -- of -- Page 26 June 6, 2001 of some play room to take -- you know, take the common sense -- keep the common sense and reasoning in consideration. Number 3, allow raking above the mean high water line, there are documented cases of the impacts that beach raking causes on sea turtle nests. If a nest is marked, if a turtle comes up, and by no fault of -- of anyone but just the county staff happened to miss it, there will be a lower hatchling success rate from that -- from that nest. Motorized vehicles, hand carts, delis, I mean, then we're splitting hairs over there. The -- number 5, the 9 p.m. Deadline, again, that one hour following sunset is a state standard. So we would be in favor of changing that from 9 p.m. To one hour following sunset. But just for your information Volusia -- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended to Volusia County when they were reviewing vehicle-on-the-beach rules, they recommended actually terminating beach activities one-half hour prior to sunset because turtle emergence is not based on, you know, a watch or when an activity is going on on the beach. It's based on temperatures and daylight. And even before sunset the turtles are out there aggregating off the beach getting ready to come up, and they're not going to say ding, ding, ding -- their little watch doesn't beep and say it's time to come up. So that one hour after sunset is -- it's -- it really goes far to the conservative end. And then, finally, what you folks are talking about now, deleting the suspension or revocation penalties, again, it's the only real teeth for enforcement, and I strongly recommend that you support staff's recommendations rather than the hotel's proposed amendments. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. MS. KOELSCH: Questions? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Anybody else? MR. FOLEY: Go ahead, Blair. For the record, Blair Foley. A couple of things Page 27 June 6, 2001 that you went over, Jessica -- thank you for that summary, first of all. And I appreciate that. We talked -- we didn't talk about this yet, but last -- last meeting -- or maybe it was our subcommittee meeting -- you were discussing on this penalty issue that we were hoping to move forward with a trial period of one year to see how the hoteliers would -- would do basically because there -- there really isn't -- this is the genesis of this enforcement type of activity. And, you know, it's -- it's a big issue. It's a big issue from everybody's viewpoint, from their viewpoint, from your viewpoint, from everyone's viewpoint. I think that we need to try to focus on that, and then we could monitor it real specifically over this one period -- one-year period to see how they're doing. And hopefully at the end of the year we could analyze have they been good stewards of the beach or have they not and have a way to really check that. I think that's important. We haven't talked about that yet at this meeting. One thing about the sunset issue, our recommendation of 5 said change 9 -- 9 p.m. To 9:30 p.m. At our subcommittee meeting there was a statement that 8:24 is the latest sunset schedule. But this year, that would be approximately 9:24 so that recommendation that we're making is fairly consistent there MS. KOELSCH: Well, that -- that's the latest. What about, you know, other times in the year where it goes back to 8 and then 7:34 ? MR. FOLEY: Right. Right. MR. GRABINSKI: Can I please comment on that? MR. FOLEY: I just have one more thing, and then go -- go right ahead. The last thing really was -- was the 15 feet to the 30 feet, the DEP. That was the one item that I was -- I -- I wanted to stick with the state statute on that. But, again, what scientific Page 28 June 6, 2001 basis was the 30 feet chosen by? I mean, I don't know. Is 30 feet sufficient? Is 157 I don't have the answer. MS. KOELSCH: I don't either. MR. FOLEY: I think maybe there's a new -- but I think the important thing is that everybody is still discussing this openly and that we hope over a period of a year that we can analyze what we need to do. Maybe -- maybe we do have to be more stringent with the penalty phase; I don't know. But I think that, you know, if we have new -- new people that are running the hotels in the -- in the town, then I think we probably ought to give them an opportunity to perform according to their word. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Herb, did you have another comment? MR. SAVAGE: John wanted to say something. MR. DUNNUCK: I was just going to ask for a clarification on the 30 feet, because I think one of my confusions is the language that -- that Matt's submitted here states that an area of not less than 30 feet in diameter seems acceptable around sea turtle nests. I wanted to get a clarification because, you know, we had a recommendation for 15 feet and -- MR. GRABINSKI: You have a 15-foot radius. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Radius versus diameter. MR. DUNNUCK: Okay. Well, then--. MR. GRABINSKI: You have a 30-foot radius. MR. DUNNUCK: A 30-foot radius, right. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And in our previous discussions in the subcommittee, I don't think it was ever determined whether the statute or whether it was actual law -- whether it was 15 or 30. MR. GRABINSKI: There's no statute regarding the distance. There's no statute or law regarding the time frame. There are Page 29 June 6, 2001 state standards that they start out with on their field permits, the DEP. The DEP field office, Jennifer Coward, she issues the permits. She's given the express authority on a case-by-case basis to modify, amend, waive, all of those conditions on a case- by-case basis. And the packet that I handed you, Mr. Chairman, I submitted to you several copies of higher field permits that Jennifer Coward gave us last year giving us until 9:30 to get the beach clear. We asked for that extra half hour until ten because there still might be objects -- as we discussed at the subcommittee meeting, you know, what is clearing the beach? What's reasonable? The hotel can get everything either pulled off the beach or at the fit -- at the foot of that boardwalk by 9:30, which is what the DEP and their handwritten conditions have done. Listen, an hour after sunset is a state guideline. It's not a state law. By making it a law here, you're tying the hotel's hands. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We're not. MR. GRABINSKI: And the same goes for the 30-foot radius. It's a -- it's a state guideline. They have been known to reduce it down do 15 feet on a case-by-case basis. That's why we asked for the lower distance unless the state in their permits wanted to require it. We have to go get a field permit from the DEP and they say, "No, it's 30 feet and we're not going to give you an exception," then we have to live with that. But why tie our hands at the most restrictive when, you know, the state is willing and has demonstrated in the past it's willing to cooperate and work with us and be reasonable? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Herb, do you have a comment? MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. I would like to ask anyone in this room how many lineal miles are there along the beach in the State of Florida. Anybody know? MR. STAROS: Like 1,400 and some odd miles. Page 30 June 6, 2001 MR. SAVAGE: How many? MR. STAROS: Some 1,400-plus miles. MR. SAVAGE: Minimum. Minimum. And I'm asking your group, has anybody ever made a count on how many turtle nests are in those 1400 miles? We've counted manatees, you know, by airplane. Have we ever counted turtle nests? What my point is how much time we're spending on this kind of a matter, you know, where we have 1500 miles of beach whereby there are hundreds and hundreds of turtle nests and how many hours we spend on this and how much we talk about this and what effect we're having on the total population of the turtle. I grew up in Miami, Miami Beach. I've eaten turtle eggs from the nests in the beach, and they're still there, not the same ones, but other ones. You know, I just don't know what it is. We think that we're causing the death of the world of turtles. I get -- anyhow, has anybody ever counted the turtle nests that you know of? MS. KOELSCH: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: How many in the State of Florida? MS. KOELSCH: Thousands. There's-- MR. SAVAGE: See. MR. DUNNUCK: The simple answer to that is the federal government has listed it as endangered species, and that kind of ties our hands a great deal from the local level. MR. SAVAGE: The federal government's never even counted the turtle nests, you see. You just -- that somebody said, "Turtles, we hurt a turtle egg, you see.". CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay, Herb. Thanks. MR. SAVAGE: You got my point. MR. PEEK: It is the recommendation that the subcommittee had made, I think, No. 1, it's misstated in a term that it identities revised to 30-foot diameter around the nest. I think it should read revised a 30-foot radius. Page 31 June 6, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. PEEK: Be consistent with the -- MR. SAVAGE: What's wrong with the diameter, 30 feet of diameter around a turtle nest? Do you know how long 15 feet is? How long is this table? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think Tom's correction is good. Let's move on. That's correct. Do you have anything else to add, Tom? Can we take any action on this at all, John, without a quorum? MR. DUNNUCK: Not any official action. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. I can tell them what the thoughts of the subcommittee we're in and what the thoughts of this committee were. I don't know if you want to hear from The Conservancy also. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Certainly. MS. RYAN'. Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Ryan here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And, first of all, I think as everyone knows The Conservancy has been working with county staff and with the hoteliers to try to get some language in place that would not only protect nesting sea turtles but also would allow the hotels to conduct business in an appropriate manner. We agreed on some points of the language. We disagreed on other points. However, since that time we have found out that Collier County's award-winning comprehensive land use plan does not allow vehicle traffic on the beach unless it's for maintenance or emergency purposes. And just common sense tells you vehicle traffic and ATV is a vehicle -- I don't think anyone is arguing that - - and maintenance is beach maintenance, not taking towels down or chairs or table down. Therefore, the vehicle-on-the- beach language that is in front of you today is not even in compliance with the comp. Plan. So we believe that no action Page 32 June 6, 2001 should be taken on that. It's out of compliance, and the comprehensive land use plan is the overall governing document for the county. Secondly, we agreed that the 30-foot radius is appropriate around the turtle nests during the -- the beach events. That's the state standard, and we believe that that should be followed. We also think that the sunset curfew with the possible extension by one hour is also reasonable. Again, it's the state standard, and we support that. We think that the fines and penalties -- first of all, the suspensions should remain in place. It will kind of add some extra teeth to -- to the penalty section, and we believe that the fines, the monetary fines should also be very sturdy in order that these fines are not just a cost of doing business. So we believe that the fines should be increased and the suspensions should remain. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Thank you. Does anybody else have any comments on this before we move forward? MS. KOELSCH: Just one -- one more little thing. Mr. Foley, I just wanted to comment on a couple of the comments that he and Mr. Grabinski made. As far as talking about changing the 30- foot radius and changing the time that the beach must be cleared, you know, as far as clearing the beach and then having a stage area at the foot of the boardwalk, I don't see that as a problem. It's mainly getting things off the beach where the turtles are going to be doing the bulk of their nesting. That is -- that's what we're concerned about. Those decisions, they're based on -- on the biology of the turtles, not on -- on when folks are doing things. And, again, they are endangered species, and we do have an obligation to protect them. But we're not really -- you know, made the point that these permits are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But in amending the LDC, we're not talking Page 33 June 6, 200t about case by case anymore. We're talking about making a blanket amendment, so, again, I think that's another -- another point that you need to consider in making your decision. Also, as far as doing a trial period as far as the -- the compliance goes, I'm just concerned that if there is going to be some kind of trial period where the penalties will be relaxed that there won't be suspensions, if the county is prepared to provide the additional resources that would be necessary to thoroughly monitor the enforcement because, I mean, we've heard again and again and in meetings with the county staff and hoteliers that the enforcement staff really don't have the resources to adequately patrol. If you are going to do this -- this case by -- or this trial period, then I think the resources to do the enforcement need to be increased. I'm wondering if it's -- if it's easier to -- or if it's more likely if you had the penalties in place, including the strict penalties, and if you did say, well, it's the first year, if you could waive a part, I don't know the legality of it. But if part of it -- if you could keep the suspensions and revocations in place and then just, you know, have an agreement with the county code that if it can be explained to waive that -- that part of it, again, I just feel strongly that necessary safeguards need to be in place. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Thank you. MS. KOELSCH: Thank you. MR. STAROS: Mr. Chairman, one last comment, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. STAROS: I want to address the curfew issue when -- since I didn't talk about that earlier. Right now it's -- I think tonight sunset's at 8:17. So that means one hour after that would be 9:17. That's a very reasonable time. However, come October 15th-ish, October 20th, sunset's around 6:30-ish. And to Page 34 June 6, 2001 think that we could get a group off the beach by 7:30 means you'd have to ask the group to start sitting down to dinner at 5:30-ish and so forth. The arrivals haven't even arrived yet. I just would -- the DEP has always used the -- a set time. I think it's 9:30. I -- I just think it would be easier for all concerned if we had a set time, not a changing time that literally changes every single day of the year as far as the -- when people can and can get off the beach. And I think that's a very important point in order for us to do business on our own property. Thank you very much. MR. SAVAGE: May I ask him a question? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes, you may. MR. SAVAGE: How wide is your property on the beach? MR. STAROS: How wide is our property? I want to say it's 800 feet-ish long by 60 feet. MR. SAVAGE: Along the beach it's probably 800. MR. STAROS: Eight-ish -- 800 feet-ish. MR. SAVAGE: How many turtle nests that have been identified in that 800 feet in your property? MR. STAROS: Well, I was told today that last year there was three. MR. SAVAGE: Three. Listen to that. MR. STAROS: This year there's one. MR. SAVAGE: Isn't that amazing? Here we're talking about all in one turtle nest -- 3 turtle nests and 800 feet in one hotel location. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. This will be the last and final entry, and then we're going to move on to the next item on the agenda. MS. BARNETT: Eileen Barnett. I'm an environmental consultant. I'm representing The Registry. I wasn't going to comment, but just for clarification's sake, because I heard some Page 35 June 6, 2001 comments that I feel are a bit misleading as far as the time of hatching and nesting and all of that, the sea turtles nesting has already occurred by August, mid-August, September. The hatching occurs from about July 1st to October 31st. And then there was just a table inserted in a packet of information we got this morning that tabulates the time of sea turtle hatching versus basically the percentage. Sea turtle hatching occurs mostly in the middle of the night, because that's when the temperature is coolest and they can avoid predation. This records -- out of 157 loggerhead hatchling emergences, one hatched at 8 p.m. Out of the 157. Four hatched by 9 p.m. Out of 157. We don't know what time of year it is. I suspect that it's later in the year when sunset is earlier, but that information that the county provided doesn't include that. So just to clarify, I think you could be very comfortable with that 9:30 deadline. The DEP uses guidelines, and that's not law. Also the county right now marks a nest with about a 3-foot radius for normal purposes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. Okay. Let's move on to the budget review item. John. MR. DUNNUCK: I don't know if they a second to clear out or not. MR. SAVAGE: I can't believe we don't have a quorum. that something? -- we want to give them Isn't MR. WHITE: Well, just a point that there may be, quote, unquote, formal action at some point in time subsequent to this. So if you folks are thinking of leaving, we understand a quorum may constitute at some point in time from now until whenever the meeting concludes. A formal action would take place then. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We may anticipate since the meeting was regularly scheduled at 3:30 that we may acquire a quorum at 3:30. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I am correct, am I not, that we Page 36 June 6, 2001 all received the notice about I p.m. Meeting; is that correct? I received it. I can't believe we couldn't have gotten eight people together. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Well, we don't. Let's move on to the budget. MR. DUNNUCK: One of the things, you know, I wanted to do is to bring through, you know, our expanded budget requests for this division prior to going to the Board of County Commissioners to get your thoughts. I know last year you-all went through a major ordeal raising a 15 percent increase on permit fees and with the hopes that, you know, we wouldn't have to raise fees again and wouldn't have to look at this for a while. And I wanted to look -- kind of share with you what -- I think you-all have this expanded positions and -- and things that we're asking for in this next year's budget. And I kind of want to go down the list and give you an explanation of why we're asking for them and get your thoughts and your feedback so we can take it back to the Board of County Commissioners. Under Fund 113, one of the things we're asking for are three new building inspectors. We're basically asking for those because under the new state building codes we're going to be expected to be reviewing schools, and we're going to have some additional responsibilities. And frankly, we're doing a ratio of 1 to 20 -- we do about 20 to 25 inspections a day per inspector, and that's about almost 7 to 10 inspections more than what we found in doing kind of a straw poll with other jurisdictions. You know, putting it in a time frame, we're basically spending 15 to 20 minutes on an inspection a day. In order to do a more quality job, we're looking for these three positions. Now, of that 192,000, we expect we will recover all those fees, all the funds through the permit fees. So that's kind of a one-to-one wash, you know, what we're looking for because we would be Page 37 June 6, 2001 charging the schools to do their inspections. MR. PEEK: You will or will not be charging? MR. DUNNUCK: We will. We will be. Senior customer service rep and customer service rep 2, we recognize and I think we've been working through the subcommittee talking about better customer service up front, breaking out so that we can do a little bit better ]ob of responding so people aren't spending an hour to two hours out front waiting to submit their documents. Right now under the current process, we submit -- you know, they go and submit a document, and then staff right there up front works through all the issues to make sure they have everything in their -- in their plan, you know, in compliance so that we don't take it and turn it back as a reject a day later because we haven't had the opportunity to review it. I think clearly we need to beef up the customer service side up there and be a little more responsive to the general public walking in, both on your small -- you know -- the way I look at it is, we've got really three types of permits that are coming through the door. We have your permit runners who are, you know, trying to get as many as they can in. We've got your Joe general public. And then if you even want to separate it out even more, you've got your large-scale permits coming through, your big condos and so forth, and then you've got your smaller time. This allows us to separate that out in the process so that we can get the Joe general public through without putting them behind the big condo owner. And I think from that perspective it's very, very good. But I want to add to you that with these type of positions, we don't have the fees right now to pay for them, so any increased service we would have to increase the fees. In the planning services side -- and Tom can talk a little bit more about, but there's a couple of areas in the engineering side Page 38 June 6, 2001 that I -- that I have some concern over. One I think is doing some utility inspection on the -- you know, from engineering and then also having a support staff. We don't have any redundancy -- I don't know if you're familiar with the Sherry Longs and the Shirley Nixes of that area. But we don't have much redundancy. If they're out, they're it, you know, because we just don't have the backup support. And I think that's real critical; especially we know Shirley's going to be retiring early. And, in fact, I'm asking for this position because I know it's something that I've heard from feedback that, you know, Shirley's doing all she can. She's working probably on average 10-hour days, and, you know, development community is looking for this turnaround on those utilities. And -- and Sherry Long's basically the only support staff to pull together, you know, all the plan documents. So I think those are two important positions. MR. FOLEY: May I interrupt you for a moment? MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. MR. FOLEY: Blair Foley for the record. I was wondering, in those positions -- and Sherry -- I understand Shirley Nix is planning on leaving soon. Is there any reason why there's no engineering position as opposed to a planner and, like, a planning technician? Is there some reason why you don't have an Engineer II or maybe a senior engineer slotted for those positions or at least for -- like, for the utility review and turnover? MR. DUNNUCK: I'll turn that directly -- MR. KUCK: Tom Kuck. With Sherry's position we're looking at upgrading that to a higher level. And the additional person we're asking for will really provide support for what Sherry does, what Shirley does, and also our secretary. We just have one secretary with 22 or 23 people on staff. So it's going to be -- the new position will be kind of a -- lack of a better term, a jack of all trades and helping all of them. And with vacations that where, Page 39 June 6, 2001 you know, people are entitled to more and more vacations and -- so we don't go through a period of time where we're not manned in some of those positions. MR. FOLEY: I think it's great that these positions -- this is what I do, and I'm real familiar with this. And I think, boy, they're sorely needed, and, I mean, I know that -- that Shirley Nix is out now. And it's difficult over the last few days for this very reason. So I think that's certainly key and important. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, and -- and I think that's one of the things is that I've looked at. Obviously my first goal is to look at redundancy from what we have, see where we can cross train people and make them aware. In certain areas we're spread so thin that we have to have a second person to keep up. And -- and when those people are out on sick -- you know, are sick, you know, we're in -- we're in trouble. MR. FOLEY: Right. MR. DUNNUCK: We can't keep up. Along those lines, in the planning services side, environmental specialist, you know, we looked through -- we've kind of done that analysis of looking vertically through how the plan review process is working and what areas we've seen a little bit of a slowdown is environmental specialists. It's not because of the people we have; it's they're being pulled away to do so many things and they're losing focus. We just need another position so we can concentrate on that so we can make sure we have a good, solid review. And then the Planner I position is really a support position to keep up with, you know, we -- we've created this Perconti system, this computer system. In order to ensure that from the monitoring standpoint and to make sure that it runs smoothly, from our standpoint, you need to have somebody coordinating it. And you had Susan Murray coordinating it. Frankly, we need to make sure that the current planning people are doing current Page 40 June 6, 2001 planning stuff. And then this plan along a lower level will be able to do lot of that technical stuff and bridge that gap on the planning side, and that's -- that's why we're asking for that position. Financial and records management, I think I mentioned to you previously that we were looking to do a credit card program. That 143,000, you know, I've been meeting with Denny Baker, our business manager. I believe that's kind of a wash cost. I think that's going to be -- we're not going to have that as an expanded. I think we're going to eliminate that. I think we can do it in- house without bearing $143,000 additional cost on division. One -- one of the things I would, you know, tell you, though, is that, you know, we have to play -- pay a small percentage. If we go forward with it, we would have to pay a small percentage to the credit card company. That would be built into the permit fee a little bit, and it would go into this increase as an overall whole. But I think we're talking about I percent. And I think, frankly, from the business community-- it may be a larger benefit to you -- is a corporate credit card, save your money, you know, because I think investing your -- your money elsewhere would -- would be a better -- would be a better deal for you. And I think we'd keep a close eye on that program so that we could report back to you after six months or a year of -- of operation, you know, how much money is expended towards -- I actually think it's a good thing. I don't think it's a matter of doing it; I think it's a matter of when we would do it. I think it's a convenience thing, especially for the general public who walks in and wants a $50 permit to put a fence up and they want to use their debit card as opposed to writing a check. Imaging systems, we're looking to beef up in the records room going to, you know, more digital imaging and eliminating a lot of that paper trail. What's a $65,000 cost now, you know, I Page 41 June 6, 2001 think the long run is it's going to end up saving us a lot of time and money. We spend -- I spend approximately I want to say 150, 200 hours getting the records room back up to complete being caught up. We were six months behind in our records keeping. And part of that is for every single document that we go through, we have 12 pieces of paper. MR. SAVAGE: Twelve. MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah. And we're trying to eliminate that paper trail. A lot of it can be done by getting in scanning, and from a convenience standpoint the next level step would be then to being able to make that available electronically through the internet to the development community. If they need to review something or put a request in as opposed to paper trail, having to come down here and review it, we can set it all up on an electronic process. And I think it just makes more sense, but we have to invest in that, in some of the capital equipment now. And even though that cost is on this sheet, one of the things I had discussions with with the office of management and budget, it's an actual one-time cost not building that into any kind of fee increase, but what we're actually doing is a one-time take it out of reserves. So it wouldn't actually impact year after year $65,000. It would only be the one-time cost. Administration: the IT direct client support for GIS and E- government, that's another one of those, you know, there's been a big push over the last couple of years. We've been kinda of behind the curve on GIS. And, frankly, we need to get caught up. And this is -- this is what the information technology department sees what they're going to need for support to make sure this program gets off the ground. We had -- you know, we had $270,000 budget in this year's budget to start putting the program together. And we've got another $400,000 for next year that we have in the proposed budget to start doing all the Page 42 June 6, 2001 background data collection so that we can get this thing up and running as quickly as possible. The property appraiser's office, it looks like they'll have their system up by later this summer which is going to be our base maps for GIS, and then we'll build all the overlays in. But I think this is a huge benefit to the development community overall when it comes to zoning maps and -- and everything else. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Is this basically an advance on money we've already budgeted to implement the GIS system or -- MR. DUNNUCK: This is actually the support side of it. This is -- once you get GIS -- you know, in order to get GIS up and running, you need to have the staff who's going to put it all together and who's going to coordinate it. You really have three components to GIS as far as getting it up and running. You've got to do the data collection process. Then you've got to buy the hardware, and then you have the actual staff to -- who will work it. This is the staff who will work it, and this is what the IT department -- since GIS isn't just the development review process, what we've looked at is the total cost of GIS. I think it's an estimate of around $3 million. They've broke it out by who's going to be doing what, you know, as far as a percentage, because utilities and, obviously, transportation have an interest in GIS as well for their overlay maps. And this is just a percentage of, you know, what the IT department estimates it will cost for us because we have a large percentage at stake in the fact that most of the maps will actually -- are planning and community development driven. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So these are -- this is staff or hardware or both? MR. DUNNUCK-' This is staff. This is pretty much staff. Another thing under administration is a human resources analyst. We don't have an HR person over in this division. We Page 43 June 6, 200t have 230 people over here, and we have very limited support from our HR department. And -- the analogy I'll use is I'm spending my time as the administrator picking and choosing which magazines and stuff we're going to be advertising the administrator position for and doing disciplinary actions when in reality we should have an HR person doing it. And I think a -- one HR analyst for 230 people isn't a bad thing. MR. SAVAGE: Do you mind repeating -- you're reviewing what? Advertising? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, right now, you know, we're -- we've posted the division administrator position. MR. SAVAGE: Oh, I see. MR. DUNNUCK: But I'm actually the one who is sitting down and picking out which magazines I want it to be advertised in in a national publication. And -- and I need some stronger support from that, and I think the division needs it too because we do deal with personnel issues, and we need to make sure we're on the up and up while we do that. And so we're asking for that. Combination of funds -- and these are mostly -- and the reason I -- I show these to you-all is because, you know, the board took direction a couple of years ago or maybe a year ago to decide that a percentage of general fund uses would actually be paid for by development services, that they thought they had made a link between the code enforcement and natural resources that certain percentages is -- should be a contribution from the development community because they're -- they're related. So I wanted to go over to you also some of the things we're putting in the general fund county-wide that indirectly impact development services fund. In the Immokalee housing initiative, which is an initiative taken on by the board to clean up Immokalee, we're asking for a Page 44 June 6, 2001 senior planner who can work with the community to ensure that when we have site plans come through, that they come through and we can fast track them. We have a lot of substandard housing out there, and we have a lot of houses that are built and mobiles that are built out there that act as duplexes that have never been platted or anything along those lines. And recognizing that we can't just simply remove them because there's a need to have housing out there, we're looking at alternative plans, and the board took this direction a year ago to put together this -- this Immokalee initiative, and this is a planner who can work exclusively with the Immokalee community. Along with that is a laptop computer for the person out there. Code enforcement, we're looking for an environmental specialist out there. One of the things we see -- we spend a long time in the code enforcement side -- and Michelle can answer this too -- dealing with the responsive-type issues on environmental -- you know, whether it's exotics that were in a PUD that were never removed or have grown back and there's a requirement there, we want to have an environmental specialist who can spend their time looking at the bigger picture item, not worrying about the nickel and dime, you know, Joe house person who's got one exotic on the property but really spend the time looking at the big -- the big projects who, you know, have made commitments to the county and haven't followed through on them, frankly. And we -- we need a person to be able to do that. Right now I think we're limited to one or two environmental specialists, and -- and there's just so much work going on that we need something on the code side. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. In reference to an environmental specialist or code enforcement persons, in our code enforcement, do we act only on persons who may have called about some code violation, or do we actually go out and Page 45 June 6, 2001 seek them in our county operations? MR. DUNNUCK: That -- that's a great question. For the most part -- and, Michelle, feel free to elaborate. For the most part, we respond to calls. Well, no, I -- I won't say that. A lot of them in certain areas are initiated by our staff going around and seeing the bigger issues, you know, while we do have a commitment through the board to respond to all calls. And, Michelle, feel free to kind of elaborate on what your percentage is. I know we did it in Immokalee, and I don't know if we have a county-wide one. MS. ARNOLD: With respect to the department, I would say 55 percent are -- right now, just looking at the numbers recently, 55 percent are proactive, and 45 percent are response -- MR. SAVAGE: Responsive calls? MS. ARNOLD: Right. So right now we're in a more proactive mode than we are responsive. But it changes, just depending on the time of the year, and, you know, when all the up northerners come back, we get more --. MR. SAVAGE: Most of the -- MS. ARNOLD: -- more active. MR. SAVAGE: It has to do with land or activity? MS. ARNOLD: Activity. And -- and with respect to the environmentalists, they're -- it's definitely land because we're looking at the improvements that are being made on the property without getting appropriate permits. MR. SAVAGE: There's more than 3 in 800 feet; right? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes, Blair. MR. FOLEY: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I had a question on the environmental specialist under code enforcement. The dollar amount you triggered there, seven four three, the environmental Page 46 June 6, 2001 specialist under planning is only forty-five seven. Can you explain the difference? MS. ARNOLD: Because we have vehicle and equipment that those other departments do not have. MR. FOLEY: That's a significant difference; that's $30,000. MS. ARNOLD: Our vehicles alone cost $22,000. MR. FOLEY: What type of equipment do they use? MS. ARNOLD: Well, we -- it's a one-time cost. It -- it goes down after that first -- when you purchase the vehicle, and then we get charged on a monthly basis, recovery costs. MR. FOLEY: Each one of them have their own vehicle? MS. ARNOLD: Yup. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to go out in the field. MR. FOLEY: I understand. MR. DUNNUCK: The next issue -- the next thing under code enforcement is a supervisor role. Right now I think we have about a one-to-ten ratio of supervisors to code enforcement investigators. And one of the things that clearly the board has asked us to do is get out in front of certain community issues and get involved with the community and do cleanups in what may be considered blighted areas, you know, before it becomes just an absolute nightmare. And having the supervisor position, we're breaking this out to more of a one-to-six ratio where we look at teams, where we can look in the community and say, okay, here's areas where we need to target. We just got done with one in Naples Manor recently that was very successful where we elicit getting free tipping fees from the solid waste department. And, you know, we go in there, and we just clean house that day. And we issue violations, and we get the community involved. And it's really a positive, you know, because you get a lot done in one day. You get all those old refrigerators sitting in the backyard -- you get a lot done. We're Page 47 June 6, 2001 also working one in the commercial district off 40th Terrace in Golden Gate. MR. SAVAGE: I like what you're saying very much, John, in that you are in the community making an effort -- everyone kind of understands the need for it. We have a fire chief now on Marco Island that has a great attitude about working with people in the community instead of going out, you know, just checking on somebody who did something wrong. MR. DUNNUCK: Right. MR. SAVAGE: I think that's a magnificent plan to do that. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, you know, give Michelle credit. I give the staff a lot of leeway to put the proposals together. MR. SAVAGE: That's great. MR. DUNNUCK.' And this is one she came up with, understanding where we as a community want to go. And along with that is a laptop computer, and that's a one-time cost. Under utility and franchise regulation, phase 3 of the I-net implementation, the I-net -- and this is one that has -- you know, has -- you know, it benefits the county in more ways, because what I-net is, we negotiated with one of the cable franchise companies to put in fiberoptic cables throughout the county. And what we're looking to do is implement a program where we can -- we can connect all of our outlying community, you know, government facilities, work with the schools and work with other agencies so that we all have fiberoptics and we're not relying so much on phone lines and dial-in connections and things like that. That again is a one-time cost. MR. SAVAGE: May I ask again, Mr. Chairman, is that the program we saw here one day? Was that before your time and they had the I-net program, Tom, about the fibernet? You-all were -- they showed us a tremendous presentation one day about -- about contacting and having available all sorts of information Page 48 June 6, 2001 in the whole county. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: No. That was GIS. MR. DUNNUCK.' That -- that's the GIS they talked about. MR. SAVAGE: That's right. MR. DUNNUCK.' The I -- I-net is more of, like, your infrastructure for your computer system. MR. SAVAGE: Yes. MR. DUNNUCK: And-- MR. SAVAGE: I'm not a computer man, you see -- MR. DUNNUCK: Right. And-- MR. SAVAGE: -- so I don't know about that. MR. DUNNUCK.' -- and this is something that, you know, I think from our perspective is a very, very good thing. And where the benefit's going to occur is, we're looking to go to a thing where we can do, like, computer kiosks in the community, where we can have government services to the people. That's part of what we consider E-government. This is part of the phasing in of the infrastructure for it and getting the technology support that we can make sure that we're getting it in the right locations and we're -- we're working that process. The other thing on there is a vehicle on video camera, you know. That's a one-time cost. And there again, that's out of the general fund. Moving to the next page, graphics and technological support: This is our own -- you know, before I talked to you about, you know, the IT department having support and -- and the percentage that we'd be paying for that. This is actually our own in graphics and technology who can actually work on maps and do subspecific to what we're going to need. You know, what is support looking at from a systems standpoint. This one is actually looking at it from -- he would work for us and not the IT department to be able to, you know, on an as-needed basis make Page 49 June 6, 2001 changes and -- and do those things, especially when it comes through on planning maps. And this came from a recommendation. You know, all these things really came from a recommendation from Wilson, Miller that we, you know, had a contract out with them, and they put together our plan for us. And -- and this is our implementation phase and what we need. Natural resources depart -- department, they're looking for an environmental specialist basically to keep up with the work. There again, we asked, you know, that department, it has about five or six people in it, and we require them to do an awful lot, including sitting in on numerous meetings that are being held at the state and local levels and participating in certain activities. We understand -- I'd like to think of our natural resources department as being reasonable in the policies that we come up with in understanding all the issues. This is -- this is -- this is a specialist to keep up with all that work. Boater's guide, this is a one for one. This is $30,000 cost and expense side. We anticipate getting $30,000 back on the revenue side. It's going to be paid for by corporate sponsorship. It's just a guide to show everybody where the -- to educate them on where the manatee zones are, where all of the speed zones are, and then put together a county-wide package for boaters that's boater friendly and they know where to go and what to do. As I said, this would be paid for by sponsorship. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I was told in recent times that in Dade County, I think there are one or two agencies that are boat patrol agencies. In this area we have seven different agencies with boat patrols. Are you familiar with that at all? MR. DUNNUCK: I'm familiar with a couple, but we don't have any on the county level. MR. SAVAGE: We don't. Not in the county employment? Page 50 June 6, 2001 MR. DUNNUCK: No. MR. SAVAGE: But there are seven different ones. MR. DUNNUCK: Sheriff's -- yeah, the sheriff's department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife. I don't know if Jessica is around. She can MR. SAVAGE: So you really don't know which one to answer to when you're in your boat? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, and I -- I -- MR. FOLEY: You answer to them all. MR. DUNNUCK: I -- I think that's part of it. You know, what the boater's guide is intended to do is kind of explain and educate boaters out there and -- and help them out. It's something that the boating community's wanted and something that the boating industry has -- has looked for, and -- and we're responding to that. Along those lines, natural resources is looking for a GPS unit to do that site-specific location, You know, that will help them anywhere from turtle monitoring to everything else they do in the community so they can go out and plot it as accurately as possible because they're actually the only department in the county that has a base level GIS in place already, and they do a lot of analysis to keep up. And the natural resources also there's a summer intern that they're asking for this year. And then they're asking for an additional radio that, you know, they can respond to. That's one of those 800-megahertz radios. MR. PEEK: A couple of questions. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Tom. MR. PEEK: John, define for us again the funds. 113 is the fund that we generate here by -- by fees. MR. DUNNUCK: Exactly. MR. PEEK: 111, is that the general fund? Page 51 June 6, 2001 MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. It's the county-wide. They broke up -- they really started breaking up General Fund 001 and General Fund 111 a couple years ago. One excludes cities, and one includes cities. And that's the easiest way to explain it. This is your county-wide. At the top of the page I mentioned that there may be -- we may be looking for a 10 percent increase in revenue. We've since gone back and adjusted those numbers and looked at ways where we can maybe take out a one-time reserve cost for capital project type stuff and looked at it. I will tell you we probably will be coming back. I think the final figure is going to be around 5 percent of what we'll be looking for. One of the things we've seen -- and Denny can touch upon this, and I think he has some graphs that touch upon it that we have in the package -- is that this year, we've seen really -- it's kind of been off technically around 10 to 11 percent of what we projected. We had a slow-down for about three months, I want to say December through February, where we were way behind. And that's even -- you know, January is where we implemented the new fees. We're starting to see a strong recovery in the last two months, I'll tell you. But from a budgeting standpoint, it's kind of very difficult to get out there and say -- you know, pull out the crystal ball and say what are we going to do for the next couple months and for the next year. You know, anticipating -- if you look at it from a broad perspective, over the last seven months, we're about the same place where we were last year, but that's with a fee increase that started in January, you know, with a 15 percent fee increase, anticipated fee increase. So, you know, we are -- while we are recovering, we are a little bit down plus it didn't help having a slow start, you know, with the revenue side of it. One of the things I would like to do -- and, you know, while I Page 52 June 6, 2001 hope I can get a blessing from the committee on where we're looking to beef up, you know, the development services area, one of the things I've asked Denny to do is really take a hard look at, you know, are we getting our bang for our buck in certain permit areas. I think we talked about how much does it really cost us like to do a single-family home process versus what we're charging and really get in there and, you know, use his CPA background, use his auditing background, and take a look at it. He's -- you know, on -- he's looked at certain areas and said, you know, we -- we actually have an expense side of four times what we're putting out there. And I think what I would like him to do in the next couple months, understanding that we may have a 5 percent area increase where we're trying to make up for these positions that we're looking for, have him take a hard look at that and bring something back to you-all and say here's the picture where we're at. You know, I know Bob kind of did that on a periphery last year, but -- you know, having a CPA kind of take a look at it and actually look at where the paper trail goes and see what our expenses are in certain areas, we may be able to identify things. You know, just like you have later on here with fire inspections and reinspection fees being beefed up on their side significantly, we may be looking at something like that, because, I'll tell you, from my experience out here like in the development community, it appears that there are situations where we are used as the inspection crew in certain areas where they say, okay, they call for an inspection and they have us come and tell them what's wrong. They pay their fee; it's cheaper for them to actually get it done right the first time, and then we go back and we do it. You know, there's instances where we're back doing inspections five, six times. And I think that's, what -- you know, on the fire code Page 53 June 6, 2001 side, that's -- what they've said is let's try to stop that. You know, we're here for a reason. That's to make sure people uphold our code. We're not necessarily here, you know -- MR. SAVAGE: To design it. MR. DUNNUCK: -- to design it and make sure everything is, you know, correct from -- from their standpoint. Exactly. And -- and it's a -- it's a fee that -- you know, it's a cost for those who abuse it to everybody. So, you know, that's -- that's what my recommendation would be to you-all. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Blair. MR. FOLEY: I -- I support this, and I think that in the areas that were presented there's a need for the positions that have been itemized here. I think you can go down in each category what John's gone over, and there's support there. I -- I know it in the work that I do and the people that I talk to. GIS is a good example. They've been behind the ball for many, many years. We need to get caught up on that. I think without any further comment I'd like to make a motion, if we could, at some point in time. MR. SAVAGE: I'd like to second it at a point in time. MR. NINO: You have -- you have three people on their way at least. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. SAVAGE: By 3:30. MR. NINO: No. They're on their way. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Tom. MR. PEEK: Well, you know, I think it all looks good. I don't believe, John, that you presented this to the ad hoc subcommittee yet. And I think that that's the one that's been looking at trying to -- to get a grip on what we're paying and how we're using people, in your terms how we're getting the bang for our buck, so to speak. So I think before the main committee Page 54 June 6, 2001 makes a motion on this, it would seem appropriate to me that this thing gets looked at by the subcommittee in context on everything that we've been working on for a year in that subcommittee. MR. DUNNUCK: I think it's a yes and no. I think -- when I looked at the subcommittee and said, you know, one of the things was customer service and -- and how we handle, this is more housekeeping-type stuff, frankly, and making sure we keep up with the attrition side of it. I will tell you that the customer service reps in the building review and permitting side, they have looked at it and said, "Yeah. We agree with having two positions there," you know, that -- in concept, in order to get what they're looking for done, this is -- this is a reaction to what they were looking for. The other areas I kind of looked at as we just need to do a better job from my housekeeping standpoint. I didn't necessarily -- you know, these aren't really going to be -- you know, with the exception of maybe Shirley Nix and some of the positions that Tom talk -- talked about, they're not going to be the -- here's where we're going to drop down, you know, your time frames of what you should expect out there I think they were -- they were looking at. And, frankly, I wanted to get it to the full committee knowing that the budget hearings are set to begin. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, who is the ad hoc committee? You are, MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. FOLEY: I'm on it. PEEK: I am. SAVAGE: You are. PEEK: It's basically the -- SAVAGE: There are three of you on it; correct? MR. PEEK: They're basically members of the building code committee, plus a few extras. They're actually -- at the last Page 55 June 6, 2001 meeting we had -- I think there were about eight or nine of the full committee that attended that meeting. MR. SAVAGE: Do -- what's the proposed -- the mandatory time to present this to someone for approval? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, the board's going to hear it later this month in the initial portion of the hearing. Certainly I'd be happy to bring it back to the subcommittee at your next meeting and we can discuss it then and bring it back. We will have initially presented it to the commission by that time, but they won't have their final hearings where they actually adopt the plan until -- until, I believe, September. So there would be time in there. I think what I really wanted to do was get out in front and start looking at -- you know, doing that audit of the fees and -- and getting some support from the Development Services Advisory Committee so we don't run into a situation where if we do end up, in fact, having to raise it 5 percent, that we're not waiting until January 1st to bring something forward'to you that we actually can enact on October 1st, which is when the new fiscal year would start. MR. PEEK: And I -- I don't mean to imply that the subcommittee would want to nit-pick what you're doing. I think the bottom line before you get to us, requesting a 5 percent increase in fee is a thing that's going to be key to the discussion by that particular group. And so I think it would be politically advantageous to go to them so that they understand the basis of why you are going to need if it is a 5 percent increase in fees. MR. FOLEY: Yeah, I think so, too, Tom. I mean, that's been - - the genesis of the discussions there have really focused on increases and focusing on what they paid last year as far as permit increases. I think it's prudent to at least start the discussion in this fashion. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah. I would go on the record, too, Page 56 June 6, 2001 along with -- MR. SAVAGE: I move we adjourn. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Blair's -- Blair's statement may have been a little premature in that he supports everything completely without discussion financially. But I think there's definitely a need in all these areas; I concur with that. But I'd just like to have -- you know, the other thing, I'd like to make sure we're optimizing the personnel that we have to the greatest degree possible as well. It's not, like I say, that we always add another whole person over here when maybe this person isn't be utilized to their fullest potential. (Mr. Espinar entered the room.) MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to relate something, and I hope the ad hoc committee would obviously agree with John, but it reminds me of many years ago at my yacht club in Miami. I was commodore and one of our treasurer -- a treasurer said we should increase the cost of the hamburgers in our little snack bar to $3.50. They were actually a dollar and a half because the cost of those -- presenting that hamburger was way up here, whereas the rest of the club was absorbing the cost of that little phase of it. When you're talk about issuing a permit for a one single-family resident, is your cost that kind of high that we're absorbing the cost of that in some other departments? MR. DUNNUCK: I think the single-family permit, you know, that's the stuff we need to take a look at. I know on the inspection fees we probably charge a lot less than what it takes us to actually do it. I think -- in certain areas it's going to be higher; in certain areas it's lower right now. That's why I want to take a look at it and present it to you-all in an accurate fashion by doing it by audit. And I think that's -- that's the reason why we got into this whole Perconte thing so we could actually look at turnaround times and how much -- you know, how much effort it Page 57 June 6, 2001 took to take from the minute it comes to our -- that desk to the minute it, you know, walks out this door, you know, what goes into it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Just -- just as a matter of how we're proceeding here, I think we're going to have to revisit each of these issues to some degree before we could possibly make a motion once we have a quorum here hopefully in a few minutes. So it might be good to just kind of push along and then come back to some additional discussion once we try to create a motion and then bring everybody else back up to speed. So it might be a good idea to just have -- what do you think? MR. PEEK: Well, I do too. But I also think that if we're going to pick up a quorum in the next 15 minutes, that maybe that 15 minutes would be well to recess and let the reporter have a break and let the rest of us have a break and reconvene at ten after or something and hopefully we've picked up a voting quorum. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That's an excellent thought. -- well, we started at a half -- three o'clock? MR. DUNNUCK: I think he mentioned that they're on their way now. MR. NINO: That's what I was told. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Let -- let's go ahead and take a break and reconvene at three o'clock. (Misters Disney and Duane are present.) (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Let's call the meeting back to order. We now have a quorum. Thank you, Bob. Let's drop quickly back, and we'll run right through the agen -- agenda. Let's start with -- can we get a motion to approve the agenda? MR. FOLEY: So moved. Let's re Page 58 June 6, 2001 MR. SAVAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion by Blair, second by Herb Savage. MR. DUNNUCK: Is that the agenda with the change -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That's the agenda -- MR. DUNNUCK: -- the amendments allowing -- are you talking about discussing the date for next month's meeting? MR. FOLEY: That was modified. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes, that's correct as discussed. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Not hearing any, the agenda is approved. We already went through the minutes, and we had one minor comment with a disparity between the attendance. Other than that ... MR. FOLEY: Motion for approval, please. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion by Blair-- MR. PEEK: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: --seconded by Tom Peek. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And the minutes are approved. We went through staff announcements, and we went through our -- since there's nothing -- nothing to act on there, was there? MR. PEEK: No. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. And that takes us up to the LDC amendments. Basically, we went through the amendments. Page 59 June 6, 2001 We discussed the amendments we went through in subcommittee, and I think we're pretty much in concurrence with the discussion that we had in subcommittee. Have you had a chance to read through that? MR. DUANE: I was not at our last subcommittee meeting. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: There -- there was a summary of the subcommittee at the back of the LDC amendments. Marco? You guys -- or, Dallas, have you had a chance to look at that yet, or did you not see that? MR. DISNEY: I did not see that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think the best thing to do would be to just have Ron run back through that quickly. (Misters VanArsdale and Jones entered the room.) MR. NINO: Well, the subcommittee -- as I said, the subcommittee met and recommended adoption of the hearing examiner amendments as proposed by staff relative to the -- the - - the collective amendments having to do with turtles on the beach during nesting season, the turtle -- the -- that -- that turtle nesting ordinance and the annual beach permit ordinance and the CCL variance ordinance. All -- with respect to all of those, you folks recommended approval with the exception that the -- the turtle nesting protection area be re -- be restated as 30 feet to 15 feet, unless required by Florida DEP permit or more. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That was a 30-foot diameter which -- MR. NINO: Thirty-foot-- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: -- changed the radius. MR. NINO: Yeah. You need -- be sure you got the radius. Ask you asked to eliminate the CCI. as penalties completely, allowing raking above the mean high -- high water mark, specify that only motorized vehicles be prohibited above the mean high water mark; dollies and cart -- hand carts should be able to move freely above the mean high water mark after turtle monitoring, Page 60 June 6, 2001 change the 9 p.m. Deadline for -- for beach -- removing beach furniture and other beach material to 9:30 and 10:00 from the staging area. And not on the list but which the subcommittee agreed that they discussed was that -- the notion of revocation of permits as a result of multiple fines be deleted, that there be no opportunity for a beach permit to be revoked with the exception of a beach cleaning permit. With respect to the floor area ratio issues and the hotel issues in the RT -- RT district, the committee recommended or supported staff's position that the FARs for regular hotels and destination resort hotels be lowered from point 6 to point 5 and point 8 to point 7, respectively. Not in this package and equally as important is a recommendation to restore the original provisions of the Land Development Code prior to June of the year 2000, which eliminates the FAR as a means of regulating the intensity of hotels and to go back to the 26 units per acre. In addition, that's also in this amendment cycle, so there's a potpourri of items that the board can deal with. The third one is to reintroduce the notion of a residential hotel, but you folks discussed about two cycles ago and which you agreed to that it was a good idea with an FAR 1.15, that as well is being introduced. So there are three issues being introduced. If the board, of course, adopts the 26 units per acre, then the other 2 issues go away. However, the board may very well take the position, particularly in view of the Beachcomber issue, because restoring the residential hotel with that FAR does offer a settlement proposition on the Beachcomber. So it may become -- it may become very attractive to them. MR. SAVAGE: To maintain 26? MR. NINO: To -- no. No. To -- to introd -- to have an FAR that Page 61 June 6, 2001 is unique to a residential hotel, a longer-stay hotel. MR. DUANE: With 26 units per acre. MR. NINO: With -- with -- nonetheless, with 26 units per acre as a cap, which is what the planning commission recommended as well. Then, finally, the amendment to the landscape requirements for larger trees, your subcommittee supported that. And the consolidated impact fee ordinance amendment, your subcommittee agreed to that. There are another couple of issues that are on the -- in the summary sheet where there -- your -- there's no action reflected by this committee or the subcommittee. They're two -- two minor definitions at the back of that package, at the -- on the back of your summary sheet. I don't think they're of a very substantive nature, and we would certainly urge you to support those amendments. Of course, all of the other amendments, this committee as a whole took action on those, so there's only those outstanding issues that need your attention. For those of you who weren't here earlier, there was an extensive discussion of the turtle issue and its timing to turtle nesting season. And perhaps the chairman will encapsulate that discussion. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah. A couple things came out of the discussion on the sea turtle issue. First of all, there was some discussion as to whether or not we were in conflict with the comp. Plan basically regarding vehicles on the beach and there only -- the only times that vehicles are on the beach are ever allowed are either -- I think it was emergency or taking care of people or maintenance and whether or not this could be considered maintenance is an issue that we all felt it pretty much out of our hands. We probably ought to act on the issues in front of us and let -- and let the board or the legal department decide whether or not they were in conflict with -- whether or not Page 62 June 6, 2001 it was, indeed, in conflict with the comp. Plan. Also, the hotels and their representatives seemed more or less in agreement with the direction of our recommendation here. The Conservancy and the representative from the marine sea turtle --. MS. KOELSCH: Center for Marine Conservation. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. MS. KOELSCH: Sorry, I moved on you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: -- were opposed to making changes, a number of turtle issues. But probably the most important one to them was us pulling the teeth to some degree out of the penalty phase of it and taking away the revocation of their permit for 70 days. And, instead, our discussion in the subcommittee was that we would take away that portion of the penalty phase, still keep the high dollar fines in there, and -- and see how that works for a period of a year with the new management of the hotels and try to give them the benefit of the doubt that that will all fall into place and work in that direction with the thought that we could always come back in a year if-- if it's not working and fix it then rather than trying to come up with a fix now not knowing whether it will be required in the future. Anyone else is free to add to that if they need to from the board if I missed a -- MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Herb. MR. SAVAGE: I think one of the most impressive things that I hear the subcommittee say is that they agreed that we should revoke -- to eliminate the cancellation of the permit; is that correct? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (Nodded head). MR. SAVAGE: So we're not going to encourage the revocation of their permits because they've had two or three fines. One of the points that I want to make short to everyone in Page 63 June 6, 2001 this board and I pointed it out, we have 1400, 1500 miles of sea coast in the State of Florida. And I asked the hotel that was here, I said, "How many feet do you have in the hotel width on the beach?". "Eight hundred.". "how many turtle nests did you have last year?" I think I heard the word "one," but then there has been as many as three in 800 feet in their hotel property, and we're spending all this time talking about this particular matter because of three nests in 800 feet. I cannot believe that but, nevertheless, I just wanted everybody to know that I'm appreciative of the fact that your subcommittee did agree that we should not revoke their license - - their license -- or permit. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: A motion? MR. PEEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Tom Peek. MR. PEEK: I'll make a motion that this committee recommend to the county commissioners the approval of the Land Development Code amendments with the recommendations contained in the May 18th, 2001, memorandum, as amended, read by Ron Nino a few minutes ago, which does include change of under vehicles on the beach section~ recommendation subarea No. I to change the word diameter to radius and add Section 6 which deletes any reference to the suspension of beach-events permits. MR. SAVAGE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Motion has a first and a second. Any -- anybody care to have any further discussion on the motions? Marco. MR. ESPINAR: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question. Do we have an update on whether or not this is consistent with our comp. Plan? Page 64 June 6, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: There seems to be some -- some debate still ongoing. Mr. White's recommendation was that we potentially do a number of -- of different scenarios where if it isn't consistent with the comp. Plan we would do X and if it is consistent we would do Y. We -- we had some discussion after the fact and -- and, basically, we felt that it really wasn't our position to determine whether or not it was consistent with the -- with the comp. Plan and that we would -- we would act on the -- you know, on the specific facts in front of us and -- and let the board or -- determine whether or not that -- that was, indeed, inconsistent. MR. ESPINAR: Well, I have a tough time in a way to vote for something that, in essence, can be in conflict with the comp. Plan. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Well, argument can be made that it is -- it is, indeed, a form of maintenance with regard to the beach and, therefore, it would be consistent. And argument can be made that that's not the case, and I don't know how -- how that would necessarily affect how we feel about -- MR. NINO: The issue, Marco, was really the Board of County Commissioners has the ultimate authority to determine what is and what is not consistent. It's not for this committee to make that determination. This committee deals with -- if we had our druthers, would we or would we not want this kind of regulation, irrespective of any encumbrances that may be in place as a result of the county's growth management plan. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I think John Dunnuck had a good explanation handling this. And if it is contrary to the development plan -- I mean to the comp. Plan, you might enumerate that.. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think what -- and this kind of elaborates on what Ron was saying, is that you make a Page 65 June 6, 2001 recommendation based on the policy before you. Staff's recommending that we go back and make an amendment to the comprehensive plan before we would enact this. We're not necessarily opposed to this per se. We do feel that there is a conflict with the comprehensive plan, and our recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners would be that they take a look at that first before we enact anything. But as far as this committee is concerned, I think what the balance of the committee was saying previously was, let's make a recommendation on this and either the planning commission, the Board of County Commissioners usually makes a determination on whether it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. MR. ESPINAR: Okay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any further comments? ' MR. JONES: John, are the hotels in agreement with essentially everything? There was a few details that you were kind of working on with them? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, they're in agreement with the subcommittee's recommendations. MR. JONES: What's in here? MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah. MR. JONES: There's a few details still to be worked out? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think--you know, I think what it-- you know, my gut reaction is tonight at -- at the first LDC, we'll get some board direction of working on some of those compromises. And do I think some of them are reasonable? Yes, I do. I think really what we'll come down to say is as far as beach raking, we're absolutely against above the mean high tide line, only from a standpoint it's a risk-management issue. Herb talked about, you know, how many turtles there are. But, you know, one of the things you can't lose site of this is a county- wide -- while it may affect, you know, the hotels for the most Page 66 June 6, 2001 part, special events, raking is a county-wide thing. And you really definitely increase your chances when you rake above the mean high tide line. And whether we've inspected or not, we inspected and it's on a rainy day and we have trouble seeing the tracks. And then we're allowing raking above the mean high tide during that season, you know, we're putting ourselves under exposure. And -- and -- and from the attorney's standpoint, the endangered species act, we may be liable as a county. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. With that, let's go ahead and call the motion. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, this may be a motion amendment -- you might want to consider this, perhaps, more favorable to the hotels. I believe the form of the motion was that -- with regards to the new 6, it deletes suspensions from the annual beach events. I believe there was also a request on their part to delete the suspensions from vehicle-on-the-beach permits as well. MR. GRABINSKI: No. MR. WHITE: No? MR. GRABINSKI: No. They didn't find that. We're trying to be reasonable. If -- you know, if we rake our beach. MR. WHITE: I'll withdraw my comments. I'll shut up. MR. GRABINSKI: If we rake our beach or if we use an ATV where we're not supposed to, then just don't let us use that beach -- or don't let us use that ATV for a week, but don't -- don't subject a penalty that equates to, you know, literally millions of dollars in lost business. MR. WHITE: I was wrong, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. MR. SAVAGE: You weren't wrong; you were just incorrect. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: With all that then, let's call the motion. All in favor? (Those in favor responded.} Page 67 June 6, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Opposed? MR. ESPINAR: Aye. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All right. Marco Espinar is opposed. All the rest are in favor. Thank you. And with that, we can move on to the budget. Do you want to give a quick summary on that again? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I went -- attached -- enclosed in your package is kind of what we're asking for in expanded positions. And I wanted to bring this to the committee because I know last year we'd asked for a 15 percent fee increase. And I was coming back and saying here's what my expanded positions are discussing it with the committee. And understanding that these are expanded positions and may -- may need a -- you know, what I would be guessing now would be about a 5 percent increase in fees just to pay for them. The balance of the committee previously said why don't we take them back; take it back to the subcommittee; we'll talk about it a little bit more. You know, rather than spending the time here discussing it today, maybe it's more prudent to take it to the subcommittee first, discuss it, and bring it back to you-all. I don't know if that's a recommendation from you or not. MR. VAN ARSDALE: When does this go to the board? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, the first set of hearings will go later this month. But in between that time the actual final hearings with the commission are, I believe, in September. MR. VAN ARSDALE: And do we have a meeting next month? The 4th is Wednesday. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: July 4th -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: Okay. I'm just wondering about the timing to --. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We will have --. MR. VAN ARSDALE: -- go over this. Page 68 June 6, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: What -- basically what the group here during our discussion felt was that John certainly made an argument and we all agreed that those positions are probably required. We felt that in the subcommittee it might be a better place to really discuss the -- the level of service that we're getting versus the dollars that we're spending in the departments and having a closer look at exactly what was going on. And that's kind of where we left it. And we thought we would kind of wrap up whether or not we can take action on it at this meeting or not once we had a quorum. So that's where we are now. MR. VAN ARSDALE: And which subcommittee reviews this? MR. PEEK: Ad hoc committee. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Oh, okay. Do we need a motion? MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we refer this to the ad hoc subcommittee for review at their next meeting. MR. DISNEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And second from Dallas. All in fay -- any discussion on that motion? MR. DUNNUCK: No. That's fine with me. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. Okay. Ron just brought to my attention that we did not wrap up the other issues in the LDC book. There are a number of other items in there. Does someone care to make a motion to picking up the other items discussed? MR. PEEK: Well, I think they all -- MR. FOLEY: You mean other than the -- MR. NINO: That's the hearing examiner and the -- Page 69 June 6, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: As reviewed by-- MR. VAN ARSDALE: Everything. MR. PEEK: Everything in there? MR. NINO: All right. Sorry. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. With that clarification, move on to -- do you want to discuss Item 3 or -- MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. At the last meeting we made an attempt to discuss, you know, building costs and savings analysis, and I think you-all wanted really a formal update too and we wanted to get some direction. I know we have been working with the subcommittee on level of service -- service standards. And, you know, I think this would be a good opportunity to introduce--you know, I know you've met Denny Baker but have Denny kind of make a presentation to you-all kind of on the stance of where we're at, talk about, you know, the building expansion and -- and where those $2 million savings -- I think there was an expectation previously, and it was on the record that the $2 million -- or the money that was going to be spent on the expanded building had to come from permit fees, and I think indirectly, you know, if you consider reserves permit fees, yes. But, you know, we anticipated putting $2 million back in the reserves and not spending it. But with that, I'm going to let Denny take over and kind of give you kind of a bird's eye view of where we are in our budget picture and go from there. MR. BAKER: The front chart is a summary, really, a presentation of the other charts that were in your package. This is a -- because of the differing denominators and the various drivers of what's happening within CDES, this is reflecting the percentage change of each of these chapters for the seven- month period October of last year through April of this year. If we can go left to right, we can look at the number of permits that were issued by CDES for this seven-month period. Compared to Page 70 June 6, 2001 the same period of last year, it was exactly at 14,000 permits. That's residential and commercial. The percentage of change for the number of inspections, as John talked about earlier, reflects the increase of 86,000 to 89,000 inspections by Ed Perico's area, which is a plus 3500 inspections. That's a 4.1 percent increase over the same period last fiscal year. In Tom Kuck's area, the number of engineering inspections increased from 13,008 to 14,002, 2.6 percent increase. As John Dunnuck spoke about, the value of those permits for the same period actually shows a very significant decline from seven -- from $703,000 down to $625,000. There are various reasons for that, obviously. The revenue generated by those permits you would expect to decline likewise because that revenue is based on the value of those permits, but the revenue held fast of fifty -- $5,400,000, but you've got to be mindful of the increase of 15 percent. That was effective 1/1 of this year, which is -- which is equal to $400,000. So without that $400,000 or 15 percent increase, you really would see a drop of five hundred -- or 400,000 down to $5 million or about an 8 percent decrease, which would be consistent with your 11 percent decrease on the value of those permits. The direct expenses associated with generating this permit in -- permit income held fast at $4 million. And most of that is -- 3 1/2 million of that $4 1/2 million is personnel costs. The head-count increased from 105 to 111 for the same periods in the 2 different years, which is a 5.7 percent increase. And that included two inspectors, two -- two customer service reps, as John spoke about, one plan reviewer and one engineer. The last column -- well, up to that point the message you have to take away here is that the head-count increase of the additional inspectors was required to keep the same turnaround time for the inspections, given that the inspections increased by Page 71 June 6, 2001 3500 in that -- in that 7-month period. The -- the permit income would have decreased had it not been for the 15 percent increase, and expenses were pretty well managed at $4 million for the same period, notwithstanding the fact that we had a 6- people or 6-person increase in head count. The last column we'll talk about on the second graph, which is probably the one that's most near and dear to your heart, showing that the turnaround time for commercial permits issued during the 7-month period decreased from 11.4 days to 16.4 days, 5 days. MR. PEEK: Decreased? MR. BAKER: Decreased. It took five days longer on average to turn around a commercial permit. MR. VAN ARSDALE.' So the time increased. MR. DUNNUCK: Correct. MR. BAKER: Five-day increase. Now, with that in mind, if we turn over to the next page, we'll look at the different functions within those processes that increased that from 11.4 to 16.4 beginning with customer service on the left-hand side. And right below those first two bars you'll see that customer service approved or got involved in or issued, if you will, a hundred permits for that same seven-month period compared to 113 in the prior period. There -- the time involved for those a hundred permits was actually a half day less or 7/10 of a day less than the prior period of last year, which obviously is an improvement in productivity. Conversely, electrical increased by 1.1 days on their turnaround time. Are you with me? MR. PEEK: Uh-huh. MR. BAKER: Planning -- and these are -- these are cold, card -- cold, hard statistics. Planning decreased by 6/10 of a day; structure, because it is more complex and more involved, takes a Page 72 June 6, 2001 longer period of time. They're up to eight point -- 8.4 days last year, dropping by half a day to 7.9; mechanical held fast at -- right at three days; engineering held fast right at two -- right at three days; environmental health which is outside our area, our purview, increased by one day, and I don't have a clue what's driving that, to be honest with you; fire -- now, I see our fire folks are here. We've dealt with some of these issues, I believe. They -- their turnaround time increased by 2.6 days and 3.9 to 6 1/2 days. And these are business days, mind you. These are not calendar days. And finally, the final pickup and permitting -- permitting pickup increased by 1.4 days from two seven to four one. So what this is is describing they're -- there are really two or three areas that we need to focus on. Electrical -- that was probably because a lack of inspectors have increased by two since last year. Fire I think we dealt with, and maybe the fire guys want to comment on that. Environmental health, I don't have a clue. And permit pickup was -- was an increase due to a vacancy. If Johnnie was here, she would talk about that, but that vacancy has been filled. So I really expect these stats to start coming down in most of these areas and see an improvement. But this is a good benchmark for us to start with, and we can measure these on a monthly basis going forward. I would be happy to answer any questions. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman--. MR. BAKER: Before -- before you do, the other major part that we're going to start reviewing quite closely is the SDP reviews, Tom Kuck's area. And we haven't looked at that yet. This is just the permitting side of it, so that's not bottom line. MR. SAVAGE: I'm looking at the graph. And as I add the days of each phase, I'm totaling all these up to the number of days that gets -- Page 73 June 6, 2001 MR. BAKER: They don't add across, Mr. Savage, because there are concurrent things going on. MR. SAVAGE: I understand. MR. BAKER: But I concur. MR. SAVAGE: I'm told that people wait a month for permits, you know, and --. MR. BAKER: Well, 16 business days is 3 -- 3 weeks plus. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Uh-huh. MR. DISNEY: A comment, Denny, if I may. Environmental health, you said that that's outside of the departments here. But, in fact, aren't those reviews largely done or aren't they funneled through an office that's right here in this building? MR. BAKER: They are funneled through this office. MR. PERICO: Ed Perico for the record. Yes, that's part of the review process, but we have no control over them. MR. DISNEY: I guess I just wanted to stress for our record here and our follow-up that it's not, in fact, going outside this building -- MR. BAKER: That's correct. MR. DISNEY: -- initially. It's in this building. MR. BAKER: Yes. MR. DISNEY: And it is a scheduling thing, and we could probably find out about that. MR. BAKER: It's not totally outside our involvement, but you're correct. MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Tom. MR. PEEK: Question for Denny: These are commercial permits. Are you going to do a similar analysis for residential? MR. BAKER: I need your input on that. My understanding -- correct me if I'm wrong -- there's not a problem perceived to be associated with residential permits. Page 74 June 6, 2001 MR. PERICO'. We have --. MR. BAKER: I was trying to get the -- trying to get the area with the most -- biggest problem. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, John. Oh, Peter. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I guess what I'm -- the thing I don't understand -- in other words, we're saying that the permit -- the number of permits that's been flat in this period, at least on the front sheets. MR. DUNNUCK: Uh-huh. MR. VAN ARSDALE: And then that doesn't necessarily bear out on the -- on the chart and behind it, does it? MR. BAKER: I can help you with that. If you look in the bottom right-hand corner of the chart on the front, the block on the right-hand side is for a four-month period of this year. The rest of the blocks on the front graph are seven months, October through April. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Right. But -- okay. So that's -- I guess what I'm trying to understand is, in other words, if permits are the same, revenues are down, expenses are the same, you'd have to say what -- why -- I guess why the dramatic increase in the -- in the turnaround time. I mean, that -- that's fairly alarming. I mean, that's what we need to zone in on. MR. DUNNUCK: I think that's why we're bringing it forward in this standpoint. This is kind of the beginning point because, you know, you're looking at a seven-month average. Now, certainly Ed has made a lot of significant improvements over on the fire plan side which accounts for two of those five days to improve that. And I would guess that from here you're going to start seeing a drop in the turnaround time. The environmental health side, you know, we'll take a look at, and -- and some of these other areas we'll look to improve. I think -- I think what I wanted to take out of this -- I know Page 75 June 6, 2001 we've been working with the subcommittee -- is getting an establishment of what you-all really do think is the number of days for turnaround that's acceptable, because one of the things this shows is it shows it individually broken out. If 12 days is your -- is your period that you-all established, 12 business days, and Ed Riley gets -- you know, if he gets his permits on day one and he has -- he takes 6.5 days of that 12 days to review it, it may not be an issue. He may be taking a couple more days, but, in fact, he's giving you a more quality review and still meeting within that 12-day time period. I think what we want to show you is this is where you were last year; here's where we are now. We -- we surely know that we need to make some improvements here, but what is that goal that we're targeting? You know, what is it -- what is that time frame? You know, do you want 12 days? Ten days? Five days? You know, because -- because we can deliver what you want. We may need more resources to do it, but I need to get an indication from the committee on what you feel is acceptable for turnaround time. MR. SAVAGE: Question, Mr. Chairman, to John: How many sets of drawings will it take to reduce the time element? In other words, one more set of drawings would -- from the applicant would be able to reduce the time fact -- factor or not? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think -- and I think Ed can explain this better than I can, but I think a lot of it is some of it can be done concurrently, and some of it can't. MR. SAVAGE: That's right. MR. DUNNUCK: You're dealing with some constraints there. But if you want to have us working 24-hour shifts, we can work 24-hour shifts I guess is my point. I would like to find out from you-all what you think is reasonable. You know, 11.4 -- you know, were the complaints at 11.4 last year, you know? Did you- all feel like that was acceptable in the community, or would you Page 76 June 6, 2001 like to see something better or, you know -- or is, you know, 12 days fine? MR. SAVAGE: Of course, I'm looking at Dino, and he's not here. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I think it would be useful because I think one of the things we talked about doing at the subcommittee level was to provide -- we talked at length about the standards that we thought were reasonable. I think that would be the -- the information you want to see and -- and that the group would want to analyze that and make comments on it. And then those are the standards that we would establish and then staff would give us a report as to how they were being met. And I think that's where we're -- and over time, I think we'll see -- we'll see the -- we'll see things improve as this -- I mean, I think things are better this year than last year. So I'm surprised to see that we're five days worse. I'm not kind of -- I don't know what all the detail is, but it's interesting. I know fire -- fire is doing a heck of a lot better. This time last year fire was going about six to eight weeks for turnaround plans, and now they're doing it in about five days, so got to do some kind of reconciliation to understand. MR. JONES: I have a question or kind of a comment. When there's a -- there's a column not shown, and that's -- the permit relates to the site development plan and there's a final check which takes quite a bit of time apparently when -- when the permit's done or the SDP may or may not be done where it's sitting waiting for the SDP to get done or this cross-checking apparently that's done, and that can be quite time consuming and is misleading because I guess it goes before the final pickup. There's another slot in here that's -- that's not represented that is MR. BAKER: These graphs do not deal with SDPs. Page 77 June 6, 2001 MR. JONES: But it deals with the time it takes to turn it around. And this -- if this thing is sitting somewhere not going anywhere because it's waiting for something else to be done, you're leaving out a very big -- that -- that's an important part of the equation, and it happens -- you don't get a permit without an SDP, so let's deal with it. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, I'll comment. There are two parts to this. This is the building permit side, and then we did the same work with the -- the planning side in terms of how -- what's a reasonable amount of time to turn around an SDP, an amendment or whatever. MR. JONES: But the turnaround is affected by that. We're dealing with turnaround. MR. FOLEY: I'm Blair Foley. I think that that's a good point because if you're talking about a simultaneous review, you can't - - you can't divorce the two and have them independent. You can't say this is your SDP review; this is your -- your building permit issue because there is -- there is another column that when there is a simultaneous review, there should be another -- really another charge in here. I'm not sure that information is readily available. It may take some digging to put that together, but that's a great point. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, you know, I'll tell you, from our perception and the direction I've given Tom from the current planning staff is it's time to suck it up and do what we did in the records room, and that's get the pizzas out at night and let's get caught up on all our SDPs. You know, let's get to a level where we can at least have a starting point. And I think what I would recommend is that we work the SDP process with the subcommittee next, bring back a combination so you see both pictures at the same time and kind of get that idea. The real reason I want to bring this forward is to show you Page 78 June 6, 2001 the analysis that we're doing and that we're working in subcommittee and we're going to get there. As Peter said, what their subcommittee -- what they're looking to do is establish those time frames, you know, and what their expectations are, and then we'll respond. So, you know, Peter, I -- I don't know what you think of that recommendation, but having that -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, I just think it's important that DSAC understands that we're sort of -- this is a work in process and that we're -- you know, the -- but that's the approach we're taking, and I think it would be good for the entire board to review the standards that we -- we came up with, that the staff's actually committed to -- that they say they can meet and just understand that -- and as we see these reports, it would be useful to see, okay, here's the -- here's the performance, and here's how it relates to the standard. And it's a good way to measure how we're doing. MR. JONES: Another comment on the -- the turnaround: In actuality, I -- I would suspect that probably single digits actually get processed without one or more revisions. And once you go through the revision process, I'd say 90 plus percent of the permits probably require some kind of revision from one of these reviews. That's important for us to be realistic. If 90 percent plus are being revised, let's reflect that as well. This is not realistic from that sense either. (Mr. Abbott entered the room.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Great. John, do you have anything to add about the building? Is that part of this discussion or not today? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think you-all wanted a better explanation, and -- and there's really no easy way to say, you know, about what we're saying about the building and savings there. You know, the way it was done in the budget office, I Page 79 June 6, 2001 think you-all looked at let's have a reduction in permit fees because we're saving $2 million on the construction. Well, the way the building was budgeted was a one-time cost, and it wasn't reflected in the permit fee -- fees, and I think it was stated as such on the record when actually they were going through the process and asking for a 15 percent increase and, in fact, it was. In reality it never was. And what we've done is with the estimated $2 million, we've said put it back in the community development reserve account and -- and save it, you know, as -- and you'll let it earn interest there and make us money as opposed to, you know, making sure that -- because we were depleting the reserve by building the building. And I think of the $9 million cost, all but a couple million dollars was going to be used out of reserves. I think somewhere along the lines of 3.5 was actually going to be a loan against future fees. So we were actually depleting the reserves significantly. And I think that's a difficult position to be in, especially when we have seen kind of these trends go up and down. And as Denny stated, you know, for the year we're down as far as revenues go. And I think it's important to make sure you have a -- you know, have a reserve account available. So that was my recommendation. I don't know if that suffices an explanation or not or if you have any follow-up questions. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any questions? All right. Let's-- MR. DUANE: So site plan reviews will come back. How would you do zoning reviews? Would that be something else that you would lump in with SDP reviews? MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely. You know, we can bring back PUD -- you know, we can look at zonings and then the time frames there as well. You know, I think it's -- we had to start from somewhere, and it was our understanding from the subcommittee that commercial permits was the top priority, and Page 80 June 6, 2001 then we'll work back based upon what you want. It does take us time obviously to pull these figures together, but I look at this as a process as a means to an end and ongoing so that we can set those benchmarks and try to meet them and give you an update on a monthly basis. MR. DUANE: And indirectly if -- if there was one department that was lagging behind others, then we could set performance standards for that department for their review whether an SDP or a zoning application or a site development plan review? MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely. You know, you can make a recommendation. You know, what's probably going to come out is in certain areas and departments, they may say we need more people to make sure we meet -- make that mark. Certainly that's something we can take a look at knowing that there are, you know, some expectations in the development community. I don't think we've ever said that this is all we're going to do. We've said if you're willing to pay for it, we'll do it. I think this is the first step in how we get there. MR. DUANE: Thank you. MR. FOLEY: This is excellent. I can see this being very helpful, because then we can make estimates with our clients as to what type of service we can provide. Right now we really -- it's a guess as to how long things will take. This is a great first -- I like how you separate -- this will be really evident what areas are problematic. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I might suggest at the next meeting we have a brief overview of the standards because we really have -- we looked at essentially every function and the different departments that it went through and the amount of days that we thought the task can reasonably be accomplished in, and we addressed increasing the amount of simultaneous reviews, and to just even have that handout of the standards that we set Page 81 June 6, 2001 would give you an understanding of the basis for the report which I think is what we should look at every month and just see, okay, how are we doing relative to what we've committed to do. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Can you make that available at the next meeting? MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Let's move on to the fire code inspection fees. It looks like everybody is here now. Do you want to introduce this one or -- MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. This is a request -- and I think it's been worked through your subcommittee with -- with approval, but this is a request to increase fire code inspection fees. You know, I think there -- there's some significant increases in there. I think it would probably be better if Mr. Riley explained it to you- all on the reason behind it and -- and what they're going to deliver as a -- as a follow-up to it. MR. RILEY: Okay. We did go to the subcommittee. First of all, this has been through CBIA. We spent about seven or eight months through CBIA working on the packet of information that you have today. There were some changes made subsequent to our last subcommittee meeting where we made some revisions and some minor tweaking of some of the language and some of the figures. This does represent a significant change in some of the fees and amounts for certain inspections. However, if you go through the packet of information that you had there for a little while, you'll see that we've been able to document time that was spent on those inspections, a number of inspections, what it actually cost us to do them. It's a similar analysis that was done from my office when we raised those particular fees. One thing that needs to be recognized is that on our inspection fees, the majority of the money that we receive to Page 82 June 6, 2001 provide that service for new construction is derived from ad valorem taxes. And it's not the construction industry paying for it. So this is a way to make -- make it more equitable that the taxpayers of the county are not paying for new construction inspections but the construction industry is. CBIA and -- and the contractors recognize that. They understood it up front that this was a problem and an issue. And, in fact, they encouraged us to -- to look into ways to -- to -- to offset that. Additionally, what this does is these particular monies that are derived from this fee schedule go exclusively for financing new construction inspections. In other words, this is not going to go over to help pay for annual inspections. Annual inspections, that will be separate. That will be covered under ad valorem taxes and any other fees that may come out of that. But the -- these fees that are derived from this will go to an account specifically to pay for the new construction inspectors, their education, and whatever equipment that they need to -- to do their work, and that was one thing that CBIA requested, and it is a part of that document. And, in fact, I believe it's a part of the ordinance itself that's written in there. The actual language is there. I can try to answer any questions if you have any specific questions, or I have the other fire marshals here that maybe can answer specific questions to their jurisdictions, if you -- if you have any. MR. ABBOTT: I'll speak for the construction code subcommittee. We reviewed this at length, and since most of the other members are also CBIA members, we did it as a dual responsibility. The whole intent was, like we say, to get it out of ad valorem and to get it into construction fees, and we were pretty happy with our final result. We had a -- we had to do a few bureaucratic changes as to how fees were collected, etc., etc., Page 83 June 6, 2001 but we think it's a workable product. MR. SAVAGE: You're recommending that -- MR. ABBOTT: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: -- what they're suggesting we approve? MR. ABBOTT: Exactly. It's had -- it's had an extraordinary amount of review, both at CBIA and our construction code subcommittee. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Brian. Charlie? MR. JONES: Did the committee look at how the fees were collected? There was an earlier issue that they were going to be paid directly to the fire official. MR. ABBOTT: I think it's -- MR. RILEY: We changed that. MR. ABBOTT: Where we -- it came back to be paid here so that we wouldn't be trooping after the fire people. MR. RILEY: What came out of the last one of our meetings was we needed a tracking mechanism from the building department to be able to verify where the -- the numbers that were coming out and so the -- that everything was being collected that was supposed to be collected. So we're in the process of working with the building department right now and IT department to provide us a -- you know, a monthly report on all the fees that are collected on behalf of the fire districts so that it's broken down, and then we can verify that the correct fees are being -- being collected and properly given to the right districts. So that's -- that is in the process now. MR. JONES: I have two comments on -- on the fire issues. On the occupational license, right now we're -- it would appear that we're subsidizing the cost of the fire inspection. It's a hundred and something dollars, $108 for inspection, the average cost of an inspection? We're charging seventy-five, and it costs over a hundred. We're -- we're losing money -- or we're not losing Page 84 June 6, 2001 money, but we're subsidizing the -- do we -- is that a -- is that a choice? MS. THACKER: Actually, Brian, if I could just explain, occupational license is applied to an existing building. It's not necessarily applied to a new construction situation. It's after you build the building and ABC Shoes moves in. When they apply for their occupational license, we come out and do an inspection. The average rate for inspection services is about a hundred dollars per inspection. We'd like to assume that part of -- your owner of the building has paid a portion of that in his ad valorem taxes. So we're only asking to collect 2/3 of what it costs from that actual tenant who is asking for the service. MR. JONES: Okay. So you're assuming it's prepaid bY virtue of building -- MS. THACKER: Exactly. Through ad valorem taxes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Do you have one more, Brian? MR. JONES: One other issue, and that's the -- the policing, fines, and so forth for red tags and so forth. I don't have a problem with the yellow tags and the increments for yellow tags and -- and related. I do have a little bit of a -- of a philosophical qualm with the red tags, safety violations, access to fire apparatus, that type of thing. I would -- I don't like my plumbing inspector telling me something about electrical framing, and I don't like my fire official telling me something about some other aspect. I think it should be focused on fire, not on quasipolice, policing of other aspects not related to the fire. MR. REYNOLDS: Carl Reynolds, North Naples. Which is which parts? MR. ABBOTT: Brian, when we -- when we did this talking with, I'm anti-red tag too. And the only thing that -- that I restricted them to -- and it was some notorious or very open fire violation like you stacked up material that was in the way of the Page 85 June 6, 2001 fire apparatus. But other than that, I restricted them big time on how they could dish out red tags, and that's because of my personal slant of it being a remodeling and being responsible for the whole job. MR. JONES: Is that in the -- I mean, what I'm seeing that we're being asked to vote on is these -- these penalties and amount of money going with each of these penalties. MR. ABBOTT: You're welcomed to protest that part. I've -- I've -- they've -- they've had fair warning that the red tags would be a political hot potato, and here it is. MR. DISNEY: Could we -- Dallas Disney. Could we maybe get a listing from the gentlemen that are here with the fire department what kind of safety violations these issues are? Maybe that would help Brian feel more comfortable with this. MR. REYNOLDS: Carl Reynolds, North Naples fire. Basically the type of situations we're talking about is accessibility into the job site. When you have a project to where you have employees and stuff working on it, we have no access for fire or EMS for medical, that we have to have access to be able to get into the buildings or into the project. And this is -- this happens all the time to where the roadways are not accessible, they're not passable by vehicles. We'll have vehicles down both sides of the roads; you can't get a vehicle in between them. I had a deputy the other day tell us that he couldn't get his patrol car down between the vehicles. And if you have somebody that has a heart attack, you have somebody that falls off a building, you have a building that catches on fire, that's a safety hazard, and that's -- that's something that's not supposed to be there. The accessibility is part of the requirements for construction in the first place. We're supposed to have accessibility per the codes to the buildings, and it's also for the safety of the employees, as well as the property itself. Page 86 June 6, 2001 Other parts of it is safety on site. Buildings, multi stories, should all have their rails and everything up. I don't think there's anybody in the field out there that's doing construction doesn't know that they're supposed to have the safety rails and stuff up at that point, and that would be a safety violation, I would think, as well. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Is that a fire code violation? MR. DISNEY: That's what I'm -- exactly where -- where we're -- I mean, we got -- we got two issues here then: Access and safety rails. Other -- other items that you're going to be looking for? MR. REYNOLDS: safety? Go ahead. MR. SYLVESTER: Are you talking about just general life Sylvester. One of the things we looked for is water accessibility on site. Once combustibles are brought on site, we have to ensure that we have adequate water supply for fighting fight -- firefighting purposes. That is an issue that we run into almost every project because the infrastructure is not in where we have hydrants installed. Usually that is done towards the middle or end of the project. And during the construction phase is when we get a lot of fires on these projects. When you use oil-covered woods and so forth, you have high fire loads. We have to have water. And the big issue is having this water on site during the most critical phase, which is the construction phase. MS. THACKER: Judy Thacker, again, with Naples fire. In addition to that, we also -- NFPA-1 requires that with each progression of each floor, each story, that they do secure a secure stairwell, ladder, OSHA-approved ladders, that kind of thing. So that would be a -- a safety violation as well. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Herb. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask each one of Page 87 June 6, 2001 these fire people, have you ever been in construction? In construction, not on a construction site. MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I have. MR. SAVAGE: Have you? MS. THACKER: No. MR. RILEY: I have been on a construction site. MR. SAVAGE: It's amazing to me, with all due respect to the very talented young people here in the fire world and the safety world, how many people have ever been on a construction site and done construction work. There's a building going up next to my condominium right now. Every reinforcing rod has a pink ribbon tied to it. You know, there's no way in the world we're going to make a building construction industry so perfect that everybody can have every possible facility during that phase of it. How the fire department expects that to happen, whoever wrote the damned code should have been in the construction business. You can't have everything -- if you had to carry a litter to a place where a man or a woman has been hurt on a ]ob, do it on foot. You can't have a vehicle run in there and sit right there and let the man down by a crane or woman by a crane. Do we have any practical application for these things? I get very upset. I understand right now that the fire department has a rule about something. And every fire district -- and tell me I'm wrong about this. Every fire district has a different interpretation of that one sentence. Do you-all understand this? MR. SYLVESTER: Yes, sir. MR. SAVAGE: You do? MR. TAYLOR: Yes, sir. MR. SAVAGE: And you-all have different interpretations. I'm not criticizing anyone particular, but somehow we have to start getting together on this and having one interpretation on a particular rule. Page 88 June 6, 2001 MR. SYLVESTER: If I might, sir, Bill Sylvester. We have been working closely as fire marshals. We meet on a weekly basis. We communicate with each other, we communicate with Ed, down at the fire code official's office. We work through issues. We are working together to come up with a standard interpretation, and you bring up valid points about safety on construction sites. There is no perfect answer. We are only enforcing the minimum codes, and that's all we are -- all we are allowed to enforce are the minimum codes on job sites, and we have to have minimum safety levels, and that is our responsibility. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Charlie. MR. ABBOTT: Herb, I have one thing in there. We do have an issue of reviewing this every year. For a while -- what's your arrangement, one year for this -- this very thing so that if it becomes too odious, we have a chance to review it? MR. SAVAGE: And I'm not criticizing the fire department only. This goes with everyone, you know, in the construction industry, architects even. Oh, my God. Did I say that? Engineers. MR. ABBOTT: I noticed you listed architects first. MR. SAVAGE: No. Seriously, we've got to do something about helping each other, and I appreciate so much the effort you-all are doing on it. MR. ABBOTT: The 2000 building code that came out, it was very interesting that all of the trades are united in the Florida code except for fire, just to give you an understanding. Instead of having six codes now, we're going to have two: Fire and building code. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Peter, do you have a comment? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Ed, I -- I noticed on the inspection times, I know we talked about it at subcommittee, but as one of Page 89 June 6, 2001 the things that -- you know, we're getting basically a tripling of rates. MR. RILEY: In some cases, yes. MR. VAN ARSDALE: And the overall budget is up from 300,000 to a million dollars, and -- is there any possibility that we could have inspection service at the same standard that's been established for building department? MR. RILEY: Such as? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Basically the call-in? I think the -- you know, call in after nine on a day and have it not the next day but the following day is -- just makes it that much more difficult for us to work with that --. MR. RILEY: Well, unfortunately, we have a limited number of people. If you've got 30 inspectors in the building department, it's easier to move -- add 5 or 6 inspections and -- and adjust your inspectors around. When you have the different fire districts where, for instance, in Golden Gate he has one inspector and himself, it's difficult if somebody calls in and he gets a run of inspections that call in after nine o'clock and they want it the next day and he doesn't have enough people to put out there. What we will not do and the districts will not do is add inspections to a number that they cannot do quality inspections. They're not just for the sake of trying to do a turnaround on -- timewise to jeopardize the type of inspections or the quality of inspections they do. It's very important that the inspections are done properly. They will make every effort to get out there. We did change the language from the last subcommittee meeting to address that item whereby -- I believe it was Greg -- Carl, do you know the exact times? MS. THACKER: Page 5. MR. TAYLOR: It was Herb Peter's request that we set Page 90 June 6, 2001 standards for all the districts. MR. RILEY: Right. MR. TAYLOR: And so we did what he requested us to do. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Not to my standard. You set standards. I asked for standards. MR. TAYLOR: It was out. MR. VAN ARSDALE.' But not these which is fine and -- so then now some districts that used to do it next day are now going to the two-day standards while -- MR. RILEY: Not necessarily. MR. ABBOTT: This is a worst-case scenario. MR. SAVAGE: One at a time. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Stop interrupting, Herb. MR. RILEY: What the districts have agreed to do is if somebody calls in and have the ability, whether it's after nine o'clock or not, they will do it as rapidly as they can. If they can fit it that day or the next day, they're going to do that, but not just arbitrarily going to put it two days down the road because it's after nine o'clock. That only makes sense. If they can fill their schedule up, that gives them other time to add additional inspections later. It's a standard, though, that -- that people can expect that -- you know, that level of service. So we didn't want to write a standard that -- that 50, 60 percent of the time we might not be able to provide without additional staffing. But we will do everything they can to -- which they do now to try and get the inspections as quickly as they can. MR. FOLEY: Does that one day make a big difference for you? MR. VAN ARSDALE: It certainly can. Let me just -- and -- let me just -- I'll make my last comment because I sort of raised some questions before and -- I mean, I was disturbed with the level of the rate increase, and to put it in perspective -- you Page 91 June 6, 2001 know, I guess I'm going to go along with this or I guess it's going to go through, but the City of Naples conducts 4,000 fire inspections a year, and they do -- and their entire building department budget is around a million and a half dollars a year. They're able to perform inspections generally if you call it -- they have one inspector doing 4,000 inspections a year. This plan calls for ten inspectors to do ten thousand inspections per year. So that's a -- I'm just having trouble reconciling these numbers, reconciling the expense. And when I've looked at the numbers, I -- I don't understand the lack of productivity. I think there's too much of that, but that's sort of hard to get your hands around. I think that we're very inefficient in that we have multiple districts each managing their own program. When we talked about this, we saw incompatibility with software. Just as we unified the plan review program for fire, I think we should be doing it for inspection. I don't know what the pitfalls are, what the roadblocks are. But I think we need to push for that, because this is hardly inefficient (sic). And certainly when -- and I'd love to see maybe the districts can -- one of the things we do in government oftentimes -- I can remember when we'd get rate increases, oftentimes our group rates would be compared to an outside group. In other words, City of Naples fire would be compared to the fire districts, and that's how they would get a rate increase. Well, to me, I see an example of here's a place where we're getting a lower cost in one district; why can't we get the lower cost or same service in another? I'd like to see us do that analysis. Hopefully between now and the next review that we can make some rational basis for these discrepancies. Like I said, 10,000 inspections for 10 guys, 4,000 inspections for I guy. I have a hard time reconciling that and fees and service and -- I know there's resistance to unifying elements of -- of the fire Page 92 June 6, 2001 districts. But I think, you know, we did it on plan review, because we had been -- have a horrible plan review function, I think, if it wasn't unified. It would be difficult. I think that's why it was done. I personally think it was the intent to do inspections too, certainly on the building side, when they did permitting. But I just -- that's hard for -- hard to justify the cost. MR. DUANE: That's an excellent point. And it's borne out by the average cost, I think, by district. It's $81 in North Naples. But in East Naples it's $t27, and it takes the average -- it lifts it up for everybody. MR. VAN ARSDALE: And I guess I support fully the concept of ad valorem tax shouldn't pay for review -- I mean inspection, and that's right. But I think we need to look hard at essentially the -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Cost. MR. VAN ARSDALE: -- organization and what we can do to -- to streamline it because there's a lot of room for -- there's a lot of redundancy in the current system and a lot of waste of money. I have a hard time with that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Charlie. MR. ABBOTT: Unifying the fire districts is a county-wide- type problem. And what? Have we tried it 6 or 7 times over the past 30 years? MR. TAYLOR: Eight. MR. ABBOTT: Not going to happen from a political standpoint. I agree with what you're saying on the efficiency. Some of the units -- some of the places cost more money because when -- we looked pretty thoroughly at this at the time, as East Naples has more leased properties than does Naples North and -- and when they were bought, etc., capitalization costs. That's why the discrepancies between the districts as to the overhead burden. Page 93 June 6, 2001 MR. VAN ARSDALE: I'm not talking about unifying districts. I'm talking about unifying this function just as we did the plan review function, and I'd like to maybe get support to look at that between now and the next 12 months and do something that make things more efficient because this is -- somebody explain to me why can the City of Naples do what it's doing and they have a more odious code. Every commercial building has to be sprinkled, and why is this so expensive? I don't understand it. I just look at the total dollars and the cost for inspection. It's scary. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Dallas. MR. DISNEY: I have a comment, actually a question and a comment. Question first: As a result of having looked at this two, at least three times prior, I have asked continually about the incorporation of continuing education in this -- this particular segment of -- of a revised ordinance. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see it in here. MR. RILEY: In the -- let's see what page it is. The last page of the -- of the proposal, the very last page of the proposal. What it was, it was just a -- if you want some -- there's where the money would go with the associated training and equipment and inspectors. The continuing education is something that we've already started and will continue to do. If you want to specify a certain amount of education, CEUs, etc., we can go that route. But the -- the intent is here, we -- in fact, we just had a class yesterday -- we brought people in -- on fire alarm systems. We do classes once a month now on specific issues that the fire districts or inspectors are requesting. We hope to do some additional education for contractors, not just the inspectors, to get them in line with what we look for and why we look for it and try to, you know, figure out those -- those problems on -- on that point. Page 94 June 6, 2001 Also, in the -- the ordinance itself that we had written up a portion of it, it sets the money aside from this function to pay strictly for new construction, inspectors, their education, and their equipment that it takes to -- to -- for them to function. And we're -- we're trying to cover it in that way without saying everybody's going to get 20 CEUs a year, because when you do that you rush and you go to classes that you don't need, you know, something that may not -- that may not hit us, you know. MR. DISNEY: I -- I appreciate you locating that. And I had found that, and that was the only thing that I had there that was - - that was possible. But this really doesn't address the -- the point that I made two or three times. And -- and so that I can get it as part of the record, please bear with me. As a architect on a project that comes in and is reviewed and approved through this department in plan review, both in building and in fire, I am beside myself. When we get to construction and there is an entirely different interpretation of exactly the same code by an inspector which asks for either an enclosure of a particular item that by code is not required and then that inspector cannot give me a code cite, I think that that type of a continuing education so that we get a correlation between the plan purview and the inspection is critically important. And I say that because, to an extent, being selfish, the only thing that I have to sell my client is my time. And when you waste my time to the tune that it has happened a number of times in this county, I am losing substantial money, and I don't like that. MR. SAVAGE: That's exactly what I was talking about. MR. RILEY: One thing that addresses that particular issue is -- is code references. The new edition of the code requires or will require -- when it becomes law or enacted, becomes active, Page 95 June 6, 2001 the code requires when a fire inspector does an inspection and he fails that inspection, he is to give a written documentation as to what the code references and the problems are and why he's -- he's turning it down. That's no longer because I said so or because it's always been that way. They have to be able to give you a code reference. We -- we -- several of those issues, Dallas, have come up. We have stressed and the fire marshals have stressed to their inspectors that they need to research and -- and look at the code book and not just, "It's always been that way" or just "because I think so," but to fall back and look at the book. If they don't know or they've got a question or if anybody asks them or the contractor says, "Are you sure? I don't think that's the right interpretation. That's not the way we did it in the past," they should go to the book and look at it and then take the book out and say, "Well, here it is," when at all possible because therein lies a lot of the question in the time it takes to do inspections. There are -- there are a number of times when fire inspectors especially go out on a site and they're questioned or they're -- they're training subcontractors, drywall contractors on fire separation and penetrations and that and they see the same things are wrong all the time and they sit down with that guy and they spend a lot of time with him trying to show him and telling him how it's supposed to be done right so they don't fail again. They go out there the next time; that guy doesn't work for them anymore or he's somewhere else; they got another guy there. So a lot of it's trying to educate the -- you know, the construction industry and some of the subcontractors because we all know they're difficult to get, you know, help out there. So that creates a time problem for us, you know, with trying to get things done and get on to the next inspection. Another time, anyone that drives up and down Airport Road Page 96 June 6, 200t or -- or Immokalee Road at the right time of day, you can't get from Point A to Point B anytime quick. And some of these districts encompass a lot of distance. You don't control who calls in. Maybe one end of the district and the other end of the district and you're trying to drive -- what they try to do daily in the morning when they get their inspections together is to set up their most economical route, you know, travel timewise, but that doesn't always work, you know. Somebody needs you to come back. Well, you're trying to get back there and hustle, but, you know, those are some of the issues on -- on some of the time it takes to do some of those inspections. It's not drive in and out you go. Your point is well taken. We're definitely working on code interpretations and -- and uniform interpretations. As Bill said, we're meeting weekly now, the fire marshals. We're trying to go through our policies and procedures book to get that updated because it's antiquated with regards to what the new code is now going to be; since we've got to know what it's going to be now, take these policies and procedures and take and apply that to the new code. And then we're going to publish that on the web. We've already started or about to start a web page, Hope to link it to the county page so our interpretations and policies and procedures will be available on the internet. Another thing is -- we're doing is we do a sprinkler newsletter out of my office, and we're going to try and do more of those types of things. When we do that, we send it to CBIA so they can publish it in their newsletter that they send out. So we're trying to find different ways to get information out to not only our people but to the industry also. There's just a -- you know, a whole lot of stuff to try and cover there, but we are working on it daily to try to make some of those things happen. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, the only problem with if Page 97 June 6, 2001 someone disagrees they're going to make a written report of it, you see the construction industry -- and we all understand this, you know -- you can't sit there and wait for some written report to go back to this office and all these things take place. Construction has to continue. MR. RILEY: We're working on that with the different technologies, if we can get everything worked out, to try and be able when you're out there you'll have a written report either before he leaves or pretty quickly. We're trying -- we're working on Palm Pilots with -- that have printing capability with the proper software, things that were mentioned by Peter that we have inequities in our software. We are looking at that. We are looking at the softwares that we're using and the availability of or the possibility of joining into a common software, and we're -- we're trying to standardize everything we can standardize. MR. SAVAGE: I've heard of hardware. What's software? MR. RILEY: Software is the programs itself. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Is anybody prepared to make a motion on this? MR. JONES: I would like to make a modification to this. I propose a motion, and that would be to eliminate the monetary fines associate -- associated with the red tags. I think the red tagging itself gets your full and complete attention and gives them the authority to make the correction or stop the -- stop the progress. I have philosophical difference on where the money should go and what the duties of the fire department should be, so I would make that motion. Other than that, I -- I think they need the money to -- it would be nice to have consolidation and lower fees, but I don't see it politically being a possibility. MR. ABBOTT: CBIA would support that, and I'll second it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Page 98 June 6, 2001 MS. THACKER: Clarification? Is the motion to leave the red tags but eliminate the fee? MR. JONES: Eliminate the monetary penalties. You still have the red tag. MR. ABBOTT: The same thing we talked about before, Judy. You remember where I said red tag stops the job regardless until you correct it. That's a plenty sufficient penalty. MR. RILEY: There's only one red tag that I dispute that with, and that's working without a permit. MR. DISNEY: Since you brought that up -- but that's already - - that's already against county ordinance to do that. Why should you get another 500 bucks for doing that on fire -- . MR. ABBOTT: The punishment currently is quadruple the fee, is it, Ed Perico? MR. PERICO: Yes, it is. MR. ABBOTT: That's a sufficient bite. You remember when with talked all these fire code stuff. I told you this red tag business goes right in the craw of the builders. A red tag by itself stops your ]ob; everybody goes home. It's a big hassle. It's sufficient. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any further discussion? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Just one. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Is there any interest in sort of pursuing the idea of consolidating this inspection process, I mean, at least see if we can try and do it? I mean, I've never tried to do it. I don't think anybody else has here. I think the last time it was addressed was 1992. MR. JONES: If you could pull the inspectors where North Naples they're sitting on a void and East Naples is crying, is there some way to --. MS. THACKER: Judy Thacker. I think that you have -- from Page 99 June 6, 2001 everyone participating in the request for the fee increase and that are productively participating and training and what not, you have our commitment that we are doing everything that we can think of and seeking advice and input from you as professionals for us to consolidate our mission. We're coordinating our inspection requests, everything the same; we're generating some forms that will be the same. We are doing everything. You have our commitment as fire marshals to do that. I think that -- I will just ask that you give us the opportunity to solve your problems. You brought them forward. Give us the opportunity to respond. Give us the chance to fix what we see the problems and what you guys have brought forward. And if you're still not satisfied, I think that would be the time to perhaps initiate that movement if you so desire. But I don't think now is the time. I think we've come too far at this point with the commitment to change. MR. PEEPLES: On the following up on Brian's comment on the findings for the red tags, is there a currently a fine if a project is red tagged, or is the fining provision new? MR. RILEY: There is -- currently as -- there is four times or Other than that, there are no fees for red two times the fees. tags currently. MR. PEEPLES: Currently. MR. RILEY: It's just a stop work. And there has been a problem with getting some contractors to stop work because then there's no teeth available there that, in fact, if I recall correctly, somebody was going to have to get the sheriff out to stop them to work on a project because they refused to leave, refused to stop. It's easy to say that there's enough punitive damage there to stop work, but they don't always do that. It's very difficult to try to police that, too. You tell them to stop work; they all start off the job. You go to do your inspections; they'll tell you go to lunch and come back. That's happened, Page 100 June 6, 2001 double back by to see them working again, '1 thought I told you to stop." there's nothing there to hold their feet to the fire, if you will, so -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Call the question. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I ask the fire marshals, based on the motion made here, would you be willing to accept his motion? And your reaction, you'd rather not have it, but would you be willing to accept it if we said yes to his motion? MR. RILEY: I have no problem with Mr. Jones' motion. If they want -- if you want to do away with the fines associated with the red tags, we'll accept that. MR. SYLVESTER: I would be happy to accept that also. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Let's call the question. All in favor of the motion on -- on the table. (Multiple responses.) MASTERS: And opposed? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Aye. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: One opposed. Mr. Van Arsdale. MR. ABBOTT: Real quick, if you could get Ed Perico to say what a red tag really is, I think other people in the room would know that it's major disaster. MR. PERICO: It works. MR. ABBOTT: It works. MR. VAN ARSDALE: It's effective. MR. TAYLOR: One thing, Carl Reynolds again with fire North Naples. One of the things we do try to do in the field is normally I have my people only red tag the contractor that is doing the work the wrong way and not the entire job. I do not send everybody home, except for inaccessibility to buildings. MS. THACKER: That's East Naples also. MR. SYLVESTER: Since when? MR. TAYLOR: I don't send everybody home unless it's a Page 101 June 6, 2001 MR. ABBOTT: Unless it's Catholic Charities. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Why don't they go home? They don't know the difference between a partial or a full, so everybody leaves because they say if we don't leave the sheriff's going to be here. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: You can remind them next time. Let's move on. Subcommittee reports. MR. VAN ARSDALE.' I'm going to leave. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. I think we've already gone through the LDC subcommittee report in our review and final recommendations to approve on this board. Construction code, Dino's not here. MR. ABBOTT: What we did was what we just covered, so that's -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. And utility code, Tom has a report. MR. KUCK: Tom, I think you were at the whole meeting, and I was just there at the beginning of it. So if you've got any questions, I probably would ask you to refer them to Tom. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I haven't had a chance to review this either. The biggest item out of it I'll try and find is that we selected a chairperson. It wasn't myself. The only person that's regularly in attendance is David Farmer, and so he's going to be attending those meetings and helping to make sure that the updates and everything are clear. I would also add to the point that he was applying to this board and that I'll have some direction next time he comes up for recognition again. MR. FOLEY: He will provide minutes as well. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Uh-huh. Yes. Yeah, he took these minutes. MR. KUCK: Yeah. He took those particular minutes. Page 102 June 6, 2001 MR. FOLEY: Again. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Again, push for anybody else who would like to attend. If we can kind of rotate through and keep at least one person from the board there, that would be great. Tom. MR. PEEK: Only for administrative purposes, my name continues to be carried beside the utility code subcommittee for the liaison, and this year I am not, so -- MR. KUCK: We keep trying to keep you on. MR. PEEK: If you'd keep my name off of that list, I'd appreciate it. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, quite interesting, I was at that meeting. MR. PEEK: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes, he was. MR. SAVAGE: I even spoke at that meeting. MR. ABBOTT: You speak at every meeting. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: With that, I believe the ad hoc committee on fees was more or less addressed during our meeting as well. Under new business, the 4th of July meeting, any recommendations on alternate times? Should we bump it back a week, or any suggestions as to what works for your schedules? MR. ABBOTT: That's usually -- if it's the week after, that's usually our construction code subcommittee, and we could vacate that, and let's just do it a week later. MR. DISNEY: Do it on the 11th? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Uh-huh. Let's reset that for July 11th, next meeting. Herb, why don't you lead us off with final comments. MR. KUCK: Phil Tindall is here. He's got handout he's liked to give to you-all. Page 103 June 6, 2001 MR. TINDALL: Gentlemen. MR. SAVAGE: You just got here; right? MR. TINDALL: It's been very interesting. My name's Phil Tindall, and I'm the county coordinator, and I've learned a whole lot this afternoon. I know it's been a long afternoon. I'm not going to take up a lot of your time with a long discussion about impact fees, but I do have a handout for you. MR. SAVAGE: For each one of us? MR. TINDALL: For each one of the committee members. This is our new administrative procedures manual for the consolidated impact fee ordinance. That ordinance, as you know, was adopted by the county commission on March 13th of this year. An item that's referenced in the ordinance and incorporated therein is this procedures manual which is in the -- in the wake of the last year's golf course audit and then other issues that have proven to be problematic of the administration of impact fees. We're working on improving our processes and procedures and such and our consultant and various staff agencies that have been working very close with us to -- to come up with some formal procedures and things like that to be documented in an instrument such as this. Some of the things I would like to point out, this is to be referenced by county staff, as well as people in the development community. We're in -- one of the things we're going to be doing in the near future is put it on the county-wide westbound as something that you download off of there or on a -- or on a floppy disk, that sort of thing. Some of the things to point out, we have a lot of very specific procedural things that we've incorporated in here. We've put tabs for some of the ma]or actions -- specific actions that are involved. For example, if you look under the first tab in position starting with page 11, we've done something really Page 104 June 6, 2001 interesting which is developed a -- a very detailed flow chart. If anyone's ever wondered, if I was a permit, and -- who -- who -- who would touch me when and during what phase, and -- and all this iljustrates that in -- in great detail. And so this is something that would be not just for impact fees but kind of educational to people who want to understand the process about permitting in general. There's a lot of good information like that in here. In the appendices we have the actual consolidated impact fee ordinance, and at the end of that that includes all the fee schedules. Our appendices include for things such as affordable housing and similar areas all kinds of sample forms and -- and application-type materials for people in the industry who are doing those types of things. We think it's going to be handy reference for staff as well as for the building and -- and development communities. MR. DUANE: We love it. MR. TINDALL: We just want to give you an advanced copy. Later this month we're going to be asking the board to adopt this by resolution as a formal reference for the county, but we wanted you guys to have it in advance to peek at it so -- MR. SAVAGE: May I ask a question? If I ask you something in here, it's talking about Collier County --. MR. TINDALL: Uh-huh. MR. SAVAGE: I will not read some other county's name? MR. TINDALL: I'm sorry? MR. FOLEY: That's right, you won't. MR. SAVAGE: I can remember years ago -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Dale. MR. DISNEY: We have at one point a comment you made about getting a calculation. MR. TINDALL: Yes. We're making great progress with that. We have one of our programers in the ID department -- IT Page105 June 6, 2001 department who's put together a -- a model type of -- what we're calling the impact fee estimator on our website. We've -- we've run a lot of practice scenarios with it. We've -- we've worked out a lot of bugs and -- and, actually, they've pretty much made all of our changes from our review of it. We'll be able to -- in fact, probably if some of you would like to try it, we could give the link to try it yourself for that purpose if you want to -- in fact, Mr. Disney, what I'll do is I'll get in touch with you and find out from the IT department what the link is, and you could access it yourself until we're ready to go final with it. We're making good progress with that, and we think we'll have it on the web real soon. It looks like it's going to work. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Congratulations. MR. ABBOTT: A question in here: Where does it say that, in fact, he coordinated or relaxed his dress code? MR. TINDALL: Oh, no, that's a county policy -- MR. ABBOTT: I didn't recognize you. MR. TINDALL: -- after Memorial Day. MR. KUCK: October. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All right. Any parting comments? MR. JONES: We spent quite a bit of time with the turtle issue. That's a pretty charged issue, as we're aware of. And on - - at the subcommittee meeting -- I just wanted to share with the membership here -- one of the hotels, the managers of the hotel other than the Ritz, commented that he was -- he was trying to clear up some compliance issues. He called Collier County to say, "Hey, I've had these sailboats; they've been here on the beach in these racks for umpteen years, 26 years, or something like that, and I want to make sure that this is okay." according to the -- the way I'm interpreting this, there may be a problem. Well, he was right. He called the county, and they -- they sent someone out, and they issued him a citation for his Page106 June 6, 2001 equipment. And there -- there is -- I was flabbergasted when he told me that, and I don't believe that he told me in error. There's -- there's something going on that's stirring the pot that's causing some animosity with this, and -- and this seemed to come from the county side. I don't know -- if someone calls and says, "Can we do this, can we not," I don't expect someone to come out and -- MR. KUCK: I would be the first to agree with you, I mean -- MR. ABBOTT: My opinion on that is that's what's wrong because we're funding our code enforcement department to a ridiculous degree, and this is what comes of this. MR. JONES: The gentleman told me 'I'm trying to be proactive. I'm trying to be in compliance. I'm trying to do all the right things." I'm shaking my head, and I was doing exactly as this gentleman had done. MR. KUCK.' I think that person needs to go in and talk to John is my recommendation. MR. SAVAGE: I asked John-- MR. KUCK: Nobody should be fined for whistle blowing on himself, so to speak. I asked John Dunnuck earlier -- what's her MR. SAVAGE: name? MR. PEEPLES: MR. SAVAGE: Michelle Arnold. Yeah -- do we go based on calls from neighbors about code enforcement, or do we go out looking for? 50 percent was going out based on calls, if I remember. Forty percent was go out looking for. You know, I think it's totally -- I~ can't believe her department being in that category that you're talking about. MR. JONES: Well, that -- that -- there's something wrong in a higher position to allow that to go on. That fosters not what we want to represent. Page 107 June 6, 2001 MR. SAVAGE: Absolutely not. MR. JONES: That's not what this is about. It's that Barney Fife mentality, you know, let's put Aunt Bea in jail, you know, for jaywalking. MR. PEEK: Well -- and it may be, but you could use a car, and I'm not supporting whatever this enforcer did. But if you're growing pot in your backyard and you call the sheriff's office out, '1 think I got some funny looking plants here in my backyard,' I don't think he's going to come pat you on the head when he comes out there and looks at it. MR. ABBOTT: Yeah. But if you have been growing it for 26 years, you're slightly more justified. MR. PEEK: Yeah, right. MR. ABBOTT: But no. The sailboat thing, that's a real issue MR. JONES: These are issues that people don't know the rules. MR. ABBOTT: I would urge everyone to spend a little time with channel 54. May a year ago I was imprisoned in the hospital with foot problem, and I got to watch 54 a bunch. And I came to the conclusion we're seriously overgoverned. Check it out. Check it out. You will be appalled. And when you watch the code enforcement board in action -- and I do a lot of straighten- up work as a salvage contractor after somebody's done some work already and I go to get the permit to get it all straight -- code enforcement can't tell its right hand from its left hand and what they're doing, and you -- you listen to this board. And it was either to Dwight Brock or, oh, gosh, Burt Saunders -- Tony Pires that the chairman of the code enforcement board says, '1 don't care about due process. I care about what's here today." Due process was what we were speaking about. I was appalled. But he wears white ties, so God only knows. Page 108 June 6, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Any other subjects on other subjects? With that, let's adjourn the meeting. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:42 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE THOMAS MASTERS, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 109