Loading...
DSAC Minutes 08/01/2001 WAugust 1, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, August 1,2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:38 p.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room E, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas Masters, P.E. Charles M. Abbott R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. David Correa Dalas D. Disney, A.I.A. Robert L. Duane, A.I.C.P. Marco Espinar Brian E. Jones Dino J. Longo Thomas R. Peek, P.E. C. Perry Peeples, Esq. Herbert R. Savage, A.I.A. Peter H. Van Arsdale ABSENT: Blair Foley, P.E. Page 1 August 1, 2001 Bryan Milk ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Ed Perico, Building Review Susan Murray, Planning Services John Dunnuck, Community Development Ron Nino, Planning Services Denny Baker, Community Development Page 2 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA August 1, 2001 3:30 p.m. I. Approval of Agenda II. Approval of Minutes - July 11,2001 Meeting III. Staff Announcements A. Summary of Ordinance Amendments B. LDC Schedule C. Summary of Approved LDC Items - June 2001 D. Miscellaneous IV. Old Business Subcommittee Reports A. Land Development Regulation (Bob Duane) B. Construction Code (Dino Longo) C. Utility Code (Tom Peek) D. Ad Hoc Committee on Fees VI. New Business VII. Committee Member Comments August 1, 2001 (The proceedings commenced, Misters Savage, Correa, and Espinar not being present:) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Let's call the meeting to order. We have a quorum. Anybody have any additions they'd like to make to the agenda? ! need a motion to approve the agenda. MR. PEEK: Yeah. I'll move that the agenda be approved. MR. LONGO: I'll second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. The motion carries. And any comments on the minutes from the last meeting which Dino ran so eloquently? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: No comments? Anybody like to move to approve those minutes? MR. LONGO: So moved. MR. PEEK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Seconded by Tom. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And motion to the minutes are approved. Staff announcements, all yours, John. MR. DUNNUCK: I think you had enclosed in your package a summary of the ordinance amendments from the last cycle. I think that was one of the things I -- I thought I told you I'd bring back. The next thing -- and, you know, actually, this could be a pretty brief meeting. Land Development Code schedule, as you-all are aware, we had made some promises to the Board of County Commissioners that we would bring back a public participation plan to them as a follow-up to the hearing examiner proposal. They wanted to see some enhancements. And it was proposed in our workshop last April. We couldn't get to it in such a short notice in the summer cycle, so we said we'd bring back a Page 3 August 1, 2001 special cycle. I believe enclosed in your package you received -- what it is is the outline what were -- you know, what that time line is. It's a pretty aggressive schedule, one where we've already actually been working on the amendments and hope to have them to the subcommittee, I think, as a matter of fact, on August 8th, next week, for your meeting for a preliminary discussion. It's mainly around public participation. We have a couple cleanup items with excavations where the board had asked us to create new policy regarding that. They adopted an interim policy yesterday regarding excavations. This is actually then as much a walk-through and -- and then a couple other cleanup items. But there will be one major one that you-all have a lot of discussion on, and that's PUD sunsetting that we're doing in the special cycle. The board has asked us to come back and look at doing sunsetting at three years as opposed to five. And so there's going to probably be a lot of discussion, I would assume, in this room about that, along with the public participation plan, because we'd like any ideas from you-all as well. But I wanted to give you what the cycle was for the special -- you know, the interim one that will finish up in October. At the same time, we've also developed the second -- the normal second cycle, and I believe you should have a schedule for that, as well, which takes us into January and-- and I'm passing around -- I don't know if you-all have received it or not -- this memo that I provided to the board in June regarding what we would like to tackle. The board has given us direction to start looking at big-picture items as opposed to dealing with individual amendments. They want us to start looking at the big picture. (Mr. Savage entered the room.) MR. DUNNUCK: And one of the things we've seen is that through, you know, every commission meeting we attend as -- there's a lot of confusion about what is said in the zoning districts and what the board really wants to see out of those zoning districts. So we're going to do a complete review with the Board of County Commissioners in a workshop this fall, but we're also going to come back with Land Development Code Page 4 August 1, 2001 amendments in the C-1 through C-5 industrial. And we're going to expect your full participation in that as well to -- to look at, you know, what it is they want to see in those particular zoning areas. Additionally, landscape regulations and architectural review, I think we've acknowledged that that's a year-long process. That's something we probably can't tackle immediately and -- and then transportation needs and clarifying some of those policies on the transportation section, because through the transition of the -- the new transportation administration there -- there has been -- you know, it's been kind of a change in how we've enforced the Land Development Code, and we're working on -- Norm's taking some policy level discussions to the Board of County Commissioners, but we need to translate them into the Land Development Code, and I think we're going to be looking to do that in the fall cycle as well. As you-all are aware, you know, one of the things you have is to be able to, you know, suggest items for this Land Development Code cycle. I wanted to pass it around to you-all, and if there's something, you know, that -- that collectively you-all think we should take a look at also, let me know. I will say this is a very aggressive schedule. While we hope to get through all the C-1 through C-5 and industrial, it's something that the board needs to look at the big picture on, and if it has to take longer through the cycle, it will. But this is what we've outlined so far. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead. MR. LONGO: In addition to that, last -- last month we talked about revisiting the disaster recovery and the coastal setback and the flood ordinances, and we were going to start that process of getting them back in. But after yesterday's meeting with FEMA, I'm thinking that maybe we should wait until we get this proposed FIRM maps into -- into the -- the 90-day comment period or whatever comes out of that, because a lot of the language ties into those maps. MR. DUNNUCK: I agree. I think what you're going to start seeing is that we'll probably have our two normal cycles, and then we'll probably Page 5 Augustl, 2001 have two special cycles, I would guess, each year also and -- to tackle those type of special-needs-type thing. Like this year the main focus is public participation so we can get that hearing proc -- hearing examiner process going. Dino, you bring up a good point where it may be appropriate to bring up in a subset spring Land Development Code. I know it means more meetings with the subcommittee, but I think it's something that the board's asking for. One of the things we are looking to do as part of the -- the whole process, however -- and I want to get some feedback today, and I know this is kind of outside your jurisdiction, but we're looking at from a Planning Commission standpoint only having them have to see the Land Development Code at one Planning Commission meeting because that's all statutorily they're required to do. We do two hearings with the Planning Commission right now, but this process gets kind of-- you know, when you start looking at how many different meetings we have to go through and steps to get some of these things approved, the Planning Commission, I believe, will be in favor of that because it's one less meeting that they have to have in the evening, but wanted to get your thoughts on it. MR. DUANE: Another item I wanted to ask you. The LDC amendments for Interchange Activity Center 9, they were supposed to be in the last cycle. That's what the board has directed staff to do. I don't see them on this cycle again. Is -- is that something -- MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think that's what we're looking for under the transportation needs and land use, I think, for the fall cycle to -- to work on that. MR. DUANE: So that would be under that item then -- MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah, yes. MR. DUANE: -- amendment Interchange Activity Center No. 9. MR. DUNNUCK: That's one of those policy issues that the board has kind of discussed, but they haven't put anything into the Land Page 6 August 1, 2001 Development Code thus far, and we're working with the transportation division to get some of that stuff cleaned up a little bit. Another thing that I requested the Board of County Commissioners for yesterday -- and this was after further discussion with -- with Tom Olliff-- was a way of-- and we've touched upon this briefly at the last meeting, a way of cleaning up the Land Development Code as a whole. I think there's a lot of contradictions from the language from being kind of amended over a period of time. It's been about 12 years, 10 years since it's been looked at. We're looking at just cleaning it up and simplifying it from the standpoint of how it reads. And I have the board's permission to go out and hire outside resources to go and take an independent review of our Land Development Code as a whole and just look at cleaning it up. So we're going to be working that process this fall as well. MR. LONGO: John, are-- are we talking cleaning it up versus our growth management and just all those things making sure it all -- MR. DUNNUCK: Exactly. MR. LONGO: -- all combines together? MR. DUNNUCK: We're looking at hiring an attorney to take a look at all those legal issues and areas where we know that it puts a great burden on our planning staff from a standpoint of you look at it from one area, then you look at another section of the code, and they may not always mix. And some of those simple things that over a period of time where we've amended it somewhere and not another place, and it just hasn't been looked at from that -- that -- that viewpoint. And we think it's probably a good idea that we -- actually, you know, we put together a kind of a consulting staff internally to -- to provide those suggestions but have somebody from the outside take a look at it and give us a fresh perspective. And also work with Municipal Code out of Tallahassee to see if there's any other ways that we can make it -- you know, instead of 2.3.5.8.6, you know, that whole process, seeing if we can't make it a little bit simpler. MR. LONGO: Where does the money come to do the study? Page 7 August 1, 2001 MR. DUNNUCK: That study is from -- was from developer fees. And that is consistent -- we went back and looked at the history of Land Development Code process, and that's been historically where it has come from. MR. LONGO: Do you have a proposal on that yet or rough estimate of what it's going to cost? MR. DUNNUCK: I estimated $75,000 to do the cleanup work. We're going to get into the RFP process and -- and, you know, as a courtesy I'll bring back kind of what specifically we're looking for when we start handing out those details. I'd like to have that by the next -- by the next meeting because it's something that I don't think we can wait on. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. Dino mentioned a while ago about FEMA. Are you satisfied with the -- what that's going to be that we -- some surprise in our minds? MR. LONGO: I -- I can report on that when we get to subcommittee reports. MR. SAVAGE: All right. Okay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Is that it? MR. DUNNUCK: Yup. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Thank you, John. MR. NINO: Tom, if I may -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Ron. MR. NINO: I think we need to emphasize that the special schedule has you-all meeting on days that you have not normally been accustomed to. We're looking at August 22nd. The next meeting is not the first Wednesday in September. It will be -- we need to have you here on August the 22nd, and the subcommittee will be meeting on August the 9th, which is a Thursday. They normally meet the third Thursday of every month. This is the second Thursday of the month. So if you'll note those different dates. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Tom. MR. PEEK: Question-- Page 8 August 1, 2001 MR. NINO: And the package will be mailed out tomorrow. MR. PEEK: Is the August 22nd meeting of the entire committee in addition to or instead of the September meeting? MR. NINO: I don't know. MR. DUNNUCK: I would say it's in addition to. MR. PEEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Well, hopefully there's -- there will be enough reason to have that September meeting. Otherwise the August may be sufficient. We'll -- we'll have probably a better idea then. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, the only reason I can say that -- and probably the September meeting will be necessary also -- is you have a very heavy subcommittee agenda next week in which you're discussing overall fees and development services and the budget issue. And I would think that instead of mixing the two Land Development Code and -- the Land Development Code full discussion and the budget discussion, you would want to have two separate meetings for those. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. That makes sense. If we can get a quorum to both, it sounds good. As we have no old business -- MR. DUANE: Tom, I have one question. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead. MR. DUANE: John, some of these changes we're going to be making to the Land Development Code citizen participation or hosting or -- I know a lot of these are driven by the community at large. I mean, is there any thought of the general fund paying for some of those instead of our industry to pay for things that we know are going to increase all of our costs to get from here to here? We keep piling these on in development services, and some of these amendments are -- are risen from -- they benefit other people. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I certainly think the DSAC will be able to make those recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners and take a look at that. That's one of the main focuses of the subcommittee meeting next week are -- are what should development services be paying Page 9 August 1, 2001 and what are they already paying. And I will tell you, I asked that question when I was going through asking for the funding for this Land Development Code review because I could see it going -- you know, it was kind of a 50/50 split, in my opinion, of what is code's benefitting the public and what does it do to benefit the general fund. And I went back and looked at the history of it, and the track record has been it's -- it's been development services that have paid for it, but it's something that you may want to bring to the attention of the Board of County Commissioners as a recommendation. MR. ABBOTT: When do they do the budget that -- the county doing their final budget hearing? MR. DUNNUCK: September 6th. MR. ABBOTT: Okay. Because this is all starting to happen kind of close. I spoke to them at the budget hearings about splitting ad valorem from our user fees, but they kind of pooh-poohed it at the time. But I think that we need to take a strong stance on that. We're doing our part as a building industry. MR. DUNNUCK: Okay. MR. ABBOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Can I just ask, are we going to be talking about, like, the budget handouts? Is that an agenda item? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Well, I wasn't sure if that was maybe going to come up under new business or .... MR. DUNNUCK: I think those -- those budget handouts were for the subcommittee meeting. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Oh, okay. MR. DUNNUCK: Because I think there was a request that it go to the subcommittee first before we have the discussion here. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Okay. MR. ABBOTT: Do we have an extra copy of the mailout? I didn't get one. Page 10 August 1, 2001 MR. BAKER: I'll get you one. MR. ABBOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Tom. MR. PEEK: I have a question. What day and what time is the ad hoc subcommittee meeting next week? MR. LONGO: It is on August 8th at 3 p.m. MR. PEEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That's the ad hoc -- MR. LONGO: Correct. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: -- committee? Okay. MR. LONGO: And for those of you who did not receive it, Denny sent out a package of what we asked him for last month. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Uh-huh. Which should have been in your packet which you received for this meeting, so carry forward to the ad hoc committee. Let's jump on the subcommittee reports. We can always come back to some other items under member comments if we need to at the tail end so -- land development regulation, Bob? MR. DUANE: Nothing to report until our next meeting. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And construction code. Did you have a meeting, Dino? MR. LONGO: Yes, we did. And from that meeting was the request from -- to Denny to bring us additional information which he has sent out for our preview prior to next week's meeting. For those who are interested, again, it's at eight o'clock-- or 3 p.m. On the 8th in the other conference room. (Mr. Espinar entered the room.) MR. LONGO: The second thing I want to talk about is FEMA. You'll be all glad to know, I hope, that yesterday the county commissioners voted on a resolution to start the appeal process to FEMA Page 11 August 1, 2001 on the FIRM maps. What that basically means is -- I'm not quite sure of the timing, but sometime this month it goes to public -- to the public- comment period. They have to post it to the paper twice. I believe at the end of August or the beginning of September it actually physically goes into the 90-day comment period. We have a number of engineers. We have hired Dick Tomasello. The county commission also yesterday authorized us to continue with Tomasello to -- to get all the information he can to refute some of the information that -- that FEMA has come up with. Quite frankly, FEMA basically came in there yesterday from Atlanta and the Washington offices and basically told us it was going to be a hard fight because they think they're right and that we're wrong. We think we're right in lots of cases, and it's just not me. We have 15 people on this committee who seem to think the same thing. The City of Naples also last week voted in resolution to appeal the process. Within that 90-day period, we have to come up with the scientific data that refutes their scientific data. If we can't come to common ground at that point, then we would take the findings of-- of the committee and the county attorney and Dick Tomasello and bring it before the Board of County Commissioners to ask them whether they wanted to continue in litigation. It would go to District Court at that point, so we have 90 days to get our act together hopefully to refute it. I think based on some of the comments they made yesterday, using those meeting minutes, that we're going to show that to some degree they're -- they're presenting misinformation, both to our -- our public community and to our Board of County Commissioners. So I think we can discredit them to a large degree. We may not win on every point, but overall I think the Sheet D-2 studies in Golden Gate will be accepted and maybe put within that appeal process if there are any discrepancies. I think we can get some of the transects changed coming through -- off the coast that they use. They have a number of transect points which vary in height calculations on wave setup from the north end of Naples to the south end. One of our contentions is that they -- that they didn't use Page 12 August 1, 2001 the same methodology on the north end as they did on the -- on the south end, and paying no attention to attenuation of structures and stuff like that that would stop flow. They have some -- some wave set (sic) come directly in -- inland for almost 2 miles with no obstruction. And so we think we have a good case. It's very political. Both the City of Naples and Collier County has enlisted the aid of Porter Goss's office, Representative Goodlette's office, and whoever else may help us on the -- on the government and state and national level to help us do whatever we can. And I believe the Department of Community Affairs was here yesterday, but I don't know if they commented. I did not see that. But they were here to back us up. MR. SAVAGE: Question-- Herb Savage -- Dino, the commentary - - you talked about two meetings would be only with the county, or is FEMA going to be here for that? MR. LONGO: FEMA has to post the appeal process just like we do, you know, for the Sunshine Law. Within that period then -- then the county attorney goes to work along with Dick Tomasello who is the consultant. They start putting together all the information. Basically, we're positioning ourselves to go to court should the communication -- committee communication not fall -- you know, if it falls -- falls through. MR. SAVAGE: Secondly, you're talking about City of Naples and county. Have we asked the City of Marco Island to participate in all of this financially? I know we did initially. MR. LONGO: I was remiss in leaving out the City of Marco. The City of Marco is part of all this. Together with the county manager, the city manager, and city manager of Marco, they will come up with some sort of dividing line for their contribution. And I think that was based on a population or the number of policies issued. MR. SAVAGE: I just want to make sure Marco is contributing to it. MR. LONGO: Marco, from what I understand, will contribute. Marco doesn't have a whole lot of problems with the flood study. Page 13 August 1, 2001 The north end of Collier that's in the county region is Pelican Bay and so forth, Vanderbilt Beach are affected pretty drastically. The City of Naples has about six -- 600-plus units affected. It totals about $25 million. MR. ABBOTT: Six-hundred something lots; correct? MR. LONGO: Units, whatever they want to call it. Whether existing homes or not, I'm not sure. And one of the contentions I've put before the board yesterday and to the FEMA, and one of the reasons why we're looking at this, is they can't seem to get it straight. Every time they come back they come back with different elevations. We've seen our topography in the City of Naples from 20-year-old homes at this (indicating) level going to the '86 study bringing our flood heights up and now the proposed '98 study going up here (indicating). We're already three years past the '98 study. We're almost due for a restudy. And -- and when they made the comment that, you know, "There's digital format now. It's more accurate than it's ever been." I had a hard time with that when they couldn't get the maps straight. And that's what brought it all to start. We figured if they couldn't get streets and names straight, that the methodology of these conflicts -- calculations, you know, it -- there could be some problems in there. We have our work cut out for us, but I think we stand a real good chance. I don't, of course, want to see it go to arbitration or to District Court, but we're not going to back off it. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage again. I just want to say this to you: You're talking about elevations. Where in the State of Florida, where in the United States of America on the coastal areas do they have a code, structural code, that requires -- that this county requires, the Southern Building Code, from the ground up to the flood level and they in these codes of FEMA says you cannot build a second floor on an existing structural wall because of the fact that it may blow away or flow away? Page 14 Augustl, 2001 MR. LONGO: Well, your structural codes are different than your flood-elevation requirements. And, remember, we're not talking about wind-borne debris or anything like that. We're talking about flooding. And that's what we're dealing with. MR. SAVAGE: But, you see, we can't build a second floor on an existing, structural building; that this county requires columns, steel, concrete, and all that. We can't build because they think the flood will blow or flow away the block walls that we have on the ground level. Now, that has to do something, in my view, with water, with flooding, you see -- MR. LONGO: That's a separate iss -- MR. SAVAGE: -- not just building code. MR. LONGO: Yeah. That's a separate issue from FEMA. And the last item I want to comment on -- MR. SAVAGE: Why we don't get involved in that, I don't know. MR. LONGO: -- the -- the unified building code is going to go into effect January 1 st. Everybody needs to realize that. There is no -- that is set in stone. Both the city and the county building departments have gotten to go, and they have held classes, kind of giving us a general overview of the code in the last couple weeks. The Collier Building Industry Association will be offering classes that will -- that offer continuing education units to bring you up to speed on the code, and the code requires all general contractors, I think all licensed building contractors, to have a four-hour continuing education class. I think it's for architects and engineers as well. So CBIA, along with, I'm sure, some other schools will be offering some classes. I think Edison is going to be offering classes on that as well. David? MR. ABBOTT: Edison got decertified as a thing because of politics or something. But I think the county is going to offer it. Is that correct, Ed? MR. PERICO: Yes. Page 15 August 1, 2001 MR. LONGO: Okay. And-- and Charlie Abbott is certified to teach the classes for CBIA, so we'll be offering that at CBIA as well. There are a lot of discrepancies in the code. Some of the things that we're dealing with today is -- is the -- the line of where it goes from 130 miles an hour to 140 miles an hour. We have determined so far where that delineation is. And it's beyond 1-75, from what I understand, at the moment. It's all in 140-mile-an-hour wind zone. And we talked to Ed about this. If-- if they did this off the development of Department of Community Affairs map, that map on the internet is completely wrong from the code book. MR. ABBOTT: I happen to have knowledge of that. I looked at them yesterday. I think that's what Ed's gone to fetch right now. And they're down to a lot basis, and the graphics department here in this building has done them, and they're very precise. MR. LONGO: Very good. MR. ABBOTT: So you can see right where the 130 and the 140 line is, etc. MR. LONGO: That -- that was a major thing. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: David has something to add as well. MR. ELLIS: My name is David Ellis. Ed -- Dino said Ed has done his maps. And he created a set that we have over at the CBIA office now just so that people in emergency -- and Ed also has a copy. For those of you that are engineers and architects or would want to have that or certain builders, we need to probably follow up and ask Ed. But Ed was looking into what the cost would be so you could purchase them. And Charlie's right; the -- the graphics part -- we took the lines and laid it over the FEMA map, so it's down to -- I mean, you can look and say down to the lot is where it's at. It's a very helpful administration of where he's going to enforce the lines. It doesn't have any real effect on the city. Everything is 140 there and out of Marco. He also did them on a P -- the PUD maps and overlaid it over PUDs, as well, so you can see where are the PUDS, and so it's -- it's helpful Page 16 Augustl, 2001 stuff. But -- and Ed was looking into what it would cost or how if you wanted your own set. MR. ABBOTT: He's given you the preop on the maps, so they want to see them. MR. PERICO: For the record, Ed Perico. Okay. What we did, we took the county. We subdivided that into all the different wind zones, the wind load and the breeze zones. You've got -- this one is probably easy to read. It shows the City of Marco, the City of Naples, which is all basically in the 140 zone. It runs from 130 to 139. This here (indicating) when we break it down into the PUDs, we were originally talking about 41 as being the dividing line. What -- here's 41 (indicating). This one's over back into Golden Gate city, the better part of Golden Gate city here. And the difference is, once you cross this (indicating) line, by code you can use hurricane shutter-- plywood shutters. Here (indicating) you cannot. So it's a big -- it's a big cost factor. MR. SAVAGE: Ed Perico -- Herb Savage -- answer this question for me: What makes the wind less strength in the 120-29 versus the 130- 39? You know, it sounds just like FEMA in my view, exactly. MR. ELLIS: David Ellis. Mr. Savage, it's interesting that up in Barefoot Beach they're in the 130 zone, but Golden Gate city is in the 140 zone. And you would just have to think logically to tell you that coastal area would be different but -- MR. PERICO: But it's not. MR. SAVAGE: Just like FEMA exactly. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: There you go. MR. PERICO: We went one step further, and I took it over and I overlaid it onto the half-section maps, which I can break it down. These are the flood maps. And we've got the lines that are actually designed showing all your lots in blocks, the street names and what lots it actually intersects. So, you know, we've gone to the extremes. This was done by Tim Billings out of our graphics department. He's done an outstanding Page 17 August 1, 2001 job on it and especially in the short period of time. I mean, we couldn't get it any more precise than where we've got it. And based on what Tim did, I would take it to the bank. MR. LONGO: All right. So we'll be able to have that offer to the public in some sort of-- MR. PERICO: Yeah. MR. LONGO: -- bound-- MR. PERICO: It's going to be -- this will be up on the front counter. And what's going to happen is when the girls -- the CSAs do the permit applications, this is going to be part of the application. They'll look at the flood maps. They'll determine the flood elevation and the wind-borne debris all at the same time, be part of the application. (Mr. Correa entered the room.) MR. PERICO: And to just give you a little further update, what we've been doing with the City of Marco, Naples, and ourselves -- is that this committee that's put together, and what we're trying to do is, we're going to even go so far as to have the application fees, and they will all be the same thing. The application -- the building permit application, it will all be the same throughout the districts. What we're trying to do is avoid any boundaries, the administrative code, uniform administrative code. So pretty much when -- when you go from one city to the other, there aren't going to be any changes. MR. LONGO: Yeah. The good thing about this code is that possibly all our paper -- paperwork will be the same through all the municipalities. The bad thing is everything in this code is set in stone. The only way it can change is locally we have to propose an amendment, and then it has to go up to the state. The state votes on it through the board of-- MR. PERICO: The Florida Board of Commissions. MR. LONGO: Code -- yeah, the codes and standards, and whatever it is. And if they see it's a good thing for the whole state or the areas that this particular amendment might affect, then they would institute it back Page 18 Augustl, 2001 into the code as an amendment, and it would then become part of the code. The building director pretty much has the last say locally as to how he interprets the code, but it still is subject to -- to the state's interpretation. So if there's a gray area, Ed may have to go to the state and get an interpretation, or he may make the call. He could be -- he could be wrong later, or he could be right to start with. The biggest part of the code that you're looking at is the wind-borne debris section which puts most of Collier in the 140 miles an hour. And, like Ed says, once you step over that line, you go to 130, you could -- you could build a home with non-impact glass, with non-shutters, and you could have plywood in the garage, I would assume, at the end for the CO marked where it goes, and you're okay. Once you step back over that -- into that 140 zone, you have to have impact glass and/or shutters or however they -- there's a number of ways you can protect the openings, so -- storm shutters and/or storm panels. MR. SAVAGE: If I could shake this table -- Herb Savage -- I would do it. I'm so irritated that people supposed to be in the know about hurricanes tell me that 140 mile an hour wind is going to be in Marco or south Naples and not up there on Golden -- or whatever it is, Immokalee or something like that, absolutely ridiculous. You know who --just because they had a hurricane over there where they didn't put any nails in the sheeting, we have to face this kind of a problem. You may not be interested in this because you're lawyers and other things, but in the building field it's damned ridiculous to think that we have to go to 140- mile-an-hour wind loads. MR. LONGO: Well, the other significant part of the code is that all plans, no matter what size they are, commercial and residential, have to be sealed by a certified architect and/or engineer. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Oh, wow. MR. LONGO: Okay? So that -- you know, you need to realize that. There is no more mastering of-- of building plans and those type of things. Every individual set coming in has to be sealed. I don't care if it's Page 19 August 1, 2001 a 500-square-foot addition or if it's a 50,000-square-foot commercial building. It has to be sealed. MR. ABBOTT: But, also, a lot more detail on the prints -- MR. LONGO: Exactly. MR. ABBOTT: -- concerning the windows, the doors. MR. LONGO: You have to show fasteners and applications, so not only your window bucks and your entry door system bucking, you have to show that fastening. You have to show the fastening of the system to the bucking, and then you have to have the rating on the glass as well and -- and the structure of the -- of the window frames. MR. PERICO: We're in the process of doing -- for the connection of master -- is we're taking probably -- hopefully the 1st of September we'll have new plates setting up a whole new master for the system. And when people start getting -- we'll give them a four-month window to have all their plans mastered, their cookie cutters, the typical homes that they build over and over again throughout the county and have that mastered so that when 2001 comes it's already been in the system and been approved. So it's not a slowdown in process. As we know, we're going to hit -- get hit in November, December. know, and-- MR. LONGO: MR. PERICO: MR. LONGO: We're going to get hit hard, you There's -- I mean-- There's nothing that's going to stop the building community from inundating this development services prior to December 31 st with, you know, 10,000 plans trying to beat the -- beat the new code. I would suggest to those in that business those who have the vendors that are in those businesses, like Ed said, they get them going on getting their master certificates going on the ratings of the windows and doors. And if you're doing the cookie-cutter-type reproduction homes that you start working on that now. Because it will put you to a grinding halt. I'm sure he's going to have a couple hundred permits a day in the month of December trying to, you know, make it under the gun. Page 20 August 1, 2001 MR. PERICO: We do a hundred a day now. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Charlie. MR. ABBOTT: Quick comment, is every time we've changed the rule or regs or increased impact fees or in this case increased the code requirements, there's been a big rush on the permits, like we're talking about, but a lot of people don't pick them up. And I think that we need to entertain a thought -- Ed, right now isn't it a nickel a square foot? MR. PERICO: Thereabouts. MR. ABBOTT: Permit application fee. And if you don't pick -- you get a credit for it on your permit once you pick it up. But if you don't ever pick it up, the county has wasted a significant amount of time logging it in, taking it, giving it a number, basically no process later on. MR. LONGO: I'll take it one step further, Charlie. I've always been a proponent that -- I get calls all the time, we're so slow on getting permits out, so on, so on. Nine out of ten we usually find out it's the applicant applying that doesn't have his stuff together. I would go as far as saying that do not accept permit applications that are not complete. MR. PERICO: Well, we are going to be screening them because, literally, after the road impact fee, I have hundreds of permits there that have never gotten picked up. They are just laying in files. What it does is penalize the people that really need the product, you know, for somebody that didn't -- you know, figured they might have it. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, I guess -- MR. CORREA: Go on. MR. VAN ARSDALE: The only comment I'd make is -- I don't know -- I disagree with you, Dino, in terms of the -- I'd say, you know, for a good set of plans the process is still not right. I mean, we're six to eight weeks for commercial plans. And -- and we need to be doing something about that, and that's a bigger issue. But I would like to hope that in -- this time around maybe we can identify the plans that are -- just be honest with people, say "If all your intention is is to beat the deadline and get your application in, you really don't have Page 21 August 1, 2001 any intention of building this thing for 6 or 8 or 12 months or whatever it is, then let's not -- you know, let's put that at the back of the line rather than put it at the head of a real project where somebody is ready to go." I mean, is that something you can do, Ed, rather than have this log jam? MR. LONGO: I think they're going to lie. I think they're just going to say, "Yeah, we're going to build it next week." MR. VAN ARSDALE: Yeah. But, I mean, if they -- yeah. But if we just said is -- what's the point -- I mean, if we don't -- if we don't care and we don't -- in other words, if somebody gets -- if they are under the deadline but yet in there by December 31 st, I mean, we know why they're rushing to get it in. Let's try and at least say -- let's be honest about it. MR. LONGO: But my point is, Peter, though, if they're -- if they're rushing to get it in and they're going to take the time t9 put the application together in full form and do all the right things, then they're -- they should go in line with everything else that's getting put in. But if they're just submitting and don't care about whether they have all the right information and it gets rejected three days later because not all the right information is there and they're just trying to get in on the deadline, I'm saying if you can screen those, it stops staff from spending tons of time. And right off the bat a lot of it can stop at that counter out front, not having the correct information, just hand it back to them, and say, "When you have it correct, bring it in." The other good thing about this code is -- and it might be good or bad, depending on how you look at it -- it's going to stop commercial projects from coming in incomplete. They're going to have their fire and their -- their fire sprinklers, their -- their fire alarm systems, all their structural stuff done prior to submitting. I think that will -- that will at some point in time make the process go smoother because the applications are going to be hopefully more complete and coming into the building department -- so their review is going to be more complete and more timely because you're going to have less mistakes on the application. And that -- it's not going to be very possible for him to Page 22 August 1, 2001 screen everything 100 percent. But the more he can screen and get those dead projects out that aren't going to start forever or not for six months, then those that have their act together and get their applications together and they need to start it in January, they'll -- they'll submit a pretty -- a pretty accurate permit package. MR. PERICO: See, you know, we've got individuals here that are bringing in a hundred permits at a pop. DiVosta, you know, comes to mind. And what they'll do, when they bring them in, they get all the permit notes, but they have them in a sequence of how they need them. And if this is the case, if someone is going to bring in 20 permits, we know damned good and well they're not going to build them -- 20 houses all at once. At least tell us which order you need them in, and we can -- we can funnel them in that way. That helps with the situation, you know. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. One of the things that I look at -- and I was thinking -- we architects love to draw, you see. But it seems to me if the DAM and N code requires a 2-by-4 buck for the window and there's a certain fastener that goes into the block, you know, there should be a standard detail that everybody uses in a standard way and we don't have to have it on every set of drawings and make 16 sheets of drawings, you see, for a little crappy job. MR. PERICO: Unfortunately, Herb, like I say, our hurricane ordinance that had that design in there, that's going to be -- that's going away. MR. ABBOTT: All local ordinances are disallowed. MR. PERICO: All local ordinances are going to be gone. MR. LONGO: Part of this code is you can design for internal pressures. MR. SAVAGE: Right. MR. LONGO: Or you can meet the statutory guidelines that they have in the -- in the new code book. MR. SAVAGE: But you have to show those on the drawings, you see. Page 23 August 1, 2001 MR. LONGO: Yeah. But you -- you can have a reproduction of standard detail. MR. SAVAGE: Computer. MR. LONGO: You can keep doing it. That -- that conforms, depending -- for the cookie-cutter houses, it's not that big of a deal. MR. SAVAGE: No, I understand. MR. LONGO: For custom homes you're probably going to wind up doing that anyhow. The couple glitches with the code are -- is that the things that aren't well thought through that we're going to have to do -- deal with locally, and at some point in time Ed may have to try to get an amendment through the state to -- to reflect back locally. Those are the things I can see. I can see the big rush in December coming on. But if we give the community enough notice, which we've already started to do, starting to hold classes and stuff, we probably might need to do something as far as the permit applications to let people know not to inundate us with garbage. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think we'd be pretty supportive of whatever plan you can come up with to try to stagger these things coming in. MR. PERICO: I appreciate that. MR. SAVAGE: Your hair will be gray by that time. MR. PERICO: Grayer. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I guess is -- the only thing, though, is that here we're talking about a process that is going to take more staff time to review the plans from every direction, from the front counter to -- to the back office or view. We're already four to eight weeks for the first -- for turnaround just for first review, commercial plans. We've been that way since the last crunch. We haven't gotten any better. Here we're talking about probably going to be twice as bad. And I think we need to see some kind of action plan that says, "Here's what the department's going to do to manage the problem." Page 24 August 1, 2001 I mean, to me it's unacceptable to say, "Well, we're just going to accept -- go from our 4- to 8-week turnaround time to a 8- to 16-week turnaround time, and that's the way it is." That is lousy service on the behalf of our monopoly government, and we can't -- this is a problem that we've been trying to get our hand around for easily the last 14 or 15 months, and we've got to do it. Now -- MR. LONGO: Actually, Peter, I think that's probably going to change because, correct me if I'm wrong -- because they are sealed by an architect and engineer, I think it's going to take less time for plan review, because now the architect and engineers are taking on the liability of that plan review. They are basically going to have to make sure it meets the new statutory guidelines. But when it comes to a lot of that other stuff, except for fire plan review, I believe it's going to be, I think, a lot easier. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Except commercial plans have been the problem. I mean, single-family home has been fine for the last 14 months that I've been involved. MR. PERICO: That's where you're going to see the influx. The biggest influx is going to be single-family homes. That's where you're going to see the biggest -- MR. VAN ARSDALE:' Well, that too. But commercial -- I mean, we have all of our commercial plans that come in with -- have come in sealed, and that problem is going to persist being compounded by the -- the influx of new -- new single-family homes. In other words, we've got five months before we go back into crisis mode, and it seems to me that we have to have some sort of specific action plan by the department. Maybe it means no vacations for November and December, if that's how we've got to do the staff-up to handle the influx. We know it's coming. We can't just sit here and all of a sudden say, "Okay, you know, we're going to get this horrendous backlog." It's unacceptable. MR. DUNNUCK: We'll -- we'll bring back an action plan at the next meeting. We're working on some things already now as opposed -- you know, we're actually looking at contracting out some things that we Page 25 August 1, 2001 typically have taken on that we may not need to take on. I mean, we're looking at other opportunities where we can do that and gear up so that we can have this influx, and we'll try to bring a report back to this -- this board now. I think, you know, we can discuss it. But, you know, we'll -- we'll get together. We've already been talking about it and how we're going to handle it. You know, I kind of talked to you a little bit last month about the SDP process and-- and having simultaneous reviews and how I think that's been a little bit of a headache for us and -- and but I want to make sure that we can correct that problem first before we go to something, because I don't want to give you guys -- you know, take away something that's going to slow you down until we can guarantee some levels of service over on the permit side. So we'll bring back something to you at the next meeting. I think that's probably a more appropriate time to have that discussion. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: What I'm picking up from Peter is -- is that, I mean, right now the situa -- I mean, we still don't have a reasonable turnaround time on -- on -- on those permits. And so, I mean, I don't know how much we can plan for that influx coming up, but we need to do something to improve the existing situation right now as well. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I know -- and, Denny, I don't know if you want to give them an update about what you've been working on. But, you know, on the building permit side, I think -- we've got to separate out between the plans review side and the building permit side, for one thing. I thought we've gotten a pretty good handle on the building review side. It's the plan side that we're starting to work the overtime and get all caught up on. I told you last month we have 200. Well, we've identified it down to 35 that we've got out there that are really not in our court -- or in our 'court, I would say. And as you-all know, I'm not going to make excuses, but we've had -- we've been down on staff over there, but we're working Page 26 Augustl, 2001 that from an overtime perspective. Denny, why don't you bring them up to speed on some of the stuff you've been doing too; it might be helpful. MR. BAKER: Well -- Denny Baker. I've been looking at the process for the planning. Again, I gave you guys statistics and charts a few weeks -- a few meetings ago on the commercial permitting side. You remember how we went from 11 days to 16 business days. I haven't left that alone because there wasn't too much concern about those days, even though they should improve. But the problem that we've agreed does exist is on the permit -- the permitting -- excuse me, the plan -- the plan review side. I've been spending a lot of time on that and looking at the process, sort of flow charting the process. There is -- from -- from the systems point of view, there is a dearth of management information available in -- on the planning side. And what I mean is, we don't have any good reports. We don't have good information available for the managers to know what is in-house at a given time, when the plan -- when the SDPs came in, or when the insufficient -- what is the term? MR. DUNNUCK: Letter of insufficiency. MR. BAKER: Letter of insufficiency came in, when it was rejected, when it came back in. Within the system the dates get changed, if it-- if it's rejected and it comes back in, if the due dates get changed, so we don't have continuity in review information. We don't -- so we don't -- consequently, we don't have good management information. So you can't sit in at the verbal (sic) control tower and know what's going on and, oh, well, who's working on what and what's aging out and what -- you know, what needs a half-hour review versus what needs a whole-day review. So that's where I've been spending my time. And when we first did our pass at the number of SDPs in-house, we had -- we had a number of 200 plus. I've gleaned that number down to 35 -- 35. So, obviously, whatever led me to believe there were 200 in-house was bad information. So if I can't find out what the information is easily, you can imagine how difficult it is for the managers to know. Page 27 August 1, 2001 So that's where I've been spending my time. And this is going to take a while to work through that process. I'm working with Tom and his crew, and we need -- we need good gauge -- control gates to know where we are. We don't have them, and part of it is the systems process that we've got to change. MR. LONGO: And accountability. MR. BAKER: Accountability, who it's assigned to. MR. LONGO: What we talked about was basically having someone who can look at something, a screen or whatever, that actually can say, hey, we got 17 in last Monday. They should have been out by Friday. Here it is next Tuesday, and they're not out, and why. MR. BAKER: Right. MR. LONGO: And that's -- that's what we're headed toward. MR. BAKER: How many are in the fire or how many in health, and where are they in the system? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Do you have a feel for when we might have that kind of-- MR. BAKER: I hope to have the flow charts and -- before the next meeting here I hope to have the flow charts completed and reviewed -- and transportation is part of this also -- and also hope to have a conversation with our software supplier, what kinds of good management tools they can provide us without recreating the whole damned thing, you know. From our databases what can they compile for us to allow us to manage it better. I hope to have that -- my goal is to have it by next meeting. MR. DUNNUCK: Go ahead, Tom. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead. MR. DUNNUCK: And not to think that we're working on the long- term process too. We're working on the short term. You know, Tom identified some things last month that said we're sending it to people we don't need to be sending it to. We cut that out, you know, and I would have to believe that there have been some benefits to that, whether, you Page 28 August 1, 2001 know, we don't have the data to show you right now on this very day that there have been benefits. I will tell you that from the standpoint of people calling me in my office, I have not had that for a period of a month, other than some ongoing issues we've had with maybe some specific transportation issues and so forth. On the other side of it, to get that control and to make sure that we have somebody who can really watch over that process, we had asked in the budget for somebody to help out the Shirley Nix and Sherry Longs. And we actually went to the board yesterday because they tentatively approved it in their June workshop. We went to the board yesterday and said, "Will you please accelerate that," knowing that Shirley's retiring in November saying, "We don't want to wait for that position." And the board approved it. So we're bringing on another position who can specifically work in that regard to help out with that -- that tracking. And the final thing is, we recognized when I had a meeting with the whole current planning staff that they weren't really being the representative of-- and taking responsibility in being accountable for those projects, that they were kind of letting the system do it. When it was passed out to everybody, they were just one other person in the thing. They weren't the person calling and saying, "Hey, it's been ten days. Why haven't you returned this?" We've kind of gotten that focus back to say the planners are going to be the person responsible for it, and -- and, you know, from the standpoint -- to me you can say that all you want, but until we put it in their action plan and do it, it doesn't mean a darned thing until we actually, you know, rate them on that, and we're doing that too. So we're trying to -- we're trying to put it all together, you know, and -- and, you know, we've been working with the subcommittee to do that. I would love to see the subcommittee adopt a level-of-service standard of what they accept -- of 12 days or whatever it is for the building side and, you know, on the SDP side, however long that they anticipate it will take. Page 29 August 1, 2001 MR. BAKER: John, I would add one more thing to what you said. We have to remember, Ed -- Ed, in his area of permitting, has been using the system for two years? MR. PERICO: Three years. MR. BAKER: Three years. Permitting is -- I mean, planning review has only been up since January 26 of this year. That's not an excuse, but it's somewhat mitigating that they've only been up on the system a shorter time. But because of the lack of personnel we haven't really been able to devote quality time to ironing out all the botches that we've-- we find ourselves in. MR. SAVAGE: Mr.-- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Dino. MR. LONGO: I was going to say I have one more item to discuss but -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. I just want to say this to everyone. I know you're working very hard to shorten the time element now. But if you think for a moment these architects and these engineers are going to make it quicker, you've got another thing coming, and I've told this to Ed Perico. I've told it to everybody. It's going to be a hell of a big job -- and you can use that -- to get these information on these drawings so it meets all of those requirements when you tell me that we have to comply to. And I'm not apologizing. I'm just saying there aren't that many people around. So I just expect a heck of a big problem. I know you're going to take up drafting, aren't you, Tom? MR. PEEK: As soon as I come out of retirement. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Dino, next item. MR. LONGO: One last item is yesterday at the county commission meeting the county commissioners approved the rate increase on our fire inspection fees. The only glitch -- and we need to discuss this with John Dunnuck -- is that they made it effective as of today. Ed's not ready. Because they met -- they should have changed the date on -- on the Page 30 August 1,2001 application, but they didn't. He is not ready. His software is not ready. Legally he is supposed to start collecting those fees today. MR. DUNUCK: After it gets filed -- MR. LONGO: Okay. MR. DUNNUCK: -- that will be ten days from now, whatever it will be. MR. LONGO: We need to know how we stop that because he doesn't want to go back from the -- back 60 days, 60 days from now, and start collecting those fees from those inspections. I mean, that's -- it's going to be a mess. MR. DUNNUCK: I'll get with you guys afterwards. I know how we can do that. MR. LONGO: Okay. MR. CORREA: I'm the only nonbuilder here, but from a home buyer's viewpoint, how much will this add to the cost of a home with the new code being implemented? MR. LONGO: That's a good question, David. Actually, the Florida Home Builders Association and the State of Florida was supposed to do some prototype homes. David Ellis probably has a better answer for that. MR. ELLIS: I talked to the fellow over the weekend. I'm David Ellis. They're building 12 demonstration homes around the state, and it's a really good question, David. They're building one up in Cape Coral. Aubuchon Homes is building one. And what they did is they took a plan that they build a lot of. Then they're building it to the new code and just doing a cost comparison. MR. CORREA: Just to compare. MR. ELLIS: I talked to him over the weekend, and he's now putting together a little presentation and, basically, a spreadsheet that shows the increase in cost. And certainly the big increases, as he mentioned, were in his win'dows, what he was having to do there. MR. CORREA: Can we receive a copy of that spreadsheet? Page 31 August 1, 2001 MR. ELLIS: He said he was going to get it to me in the next couple weeks. I'll bring it to you next meeting. You'll -- you'll probably find it very interesting. MR. CORREA: Thank you. MR. ELLIS: And the other thing that he really -- he said costs. And you probably weren't anticipating this because he was actually getting additional costs in a lot of his labor expenses because of the additional nailing they were having to do and some other things that he hadn't really thought about, but it was adding up. And he -- he builds a very affordable house. And he -- he actually builds his house to what they call internal pressures. He was trying to see if-- without shuttering the windows what he could do if they build a more affordable product. I'll bring that, and I think you might find that very -- MR. LONGO: Es -- estimated was between five and eight thousand dollars -- MR. CORREA: Five and eight thousand? MR. LONGO: -- depending on what zone you're in. And I would say the 140-mile-an-hour zone. MR. CORREA: And as far as the insurance costs, what will this do to our insurance rates right now? MR. LONGO: I couldn't tell you that. MR. VAN ARSDALE: They'll go up. (Laughter.) MR. ELLIS: You know, if you don't mind me just having input on that, the insurance industry, who was a very big proponent of this new code, are on record as saying it will mean a reduction in your insurance rates. But I don't think -- as a matter of fact, the only thing that most folks are anticipating if you don't shutter windows, there are probably going to be some differentiation in your actual -- you know, if you go to the internal pressures as opposed to shuttering the windows, you might find that that house experiences higher rates because there will still be a great deal of opportunity for damage to the interior of the house so -- Page 32 August 1, :2001 MR. CORREA: Is -- is there also a way of estimating the cost of retro -- taking an existing home and bringing it up to standards? Is there any -- MR. LONGO: No. That -- that would depend on the home, David. If you -- if you put an addition on or remodel an -- an existing home -- and I'm not talking if it's in a flood elevation. But if it's just an existing home, say, in part of the city of Golden Gate, and you want to put a remodel on it and it's substantially over a $500, those new things that you put in will have to meet the new code. So if you put new windows in that house, they will have to meet the new code. If you put a new front entry door system in there, it will have to meet the new code. MR. CORREA: We have no way of estimating what the new -- new code will-- MR. LONGO: That's a case-by-case basis, so you can't be generic about that. That's just going to be case by case. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to offer a figure for this entire board. And I want you to tell me I'm incorrect. I'm never wrong, but I might be incorrect. Ten percent is going to be additional cost of a home after we get all this going. You watch it. And I want you to correct me when I'm -- next year, all of you. It's going to be 10 percent of the cost of that home. I'm just not talking about the blocks and the cement and the mortar. I'm talking about everything in reference to that house. MR. LONGO: I think you will see on a yearly basis continual changes to this code. It was meant to be a unified code. It's -- it's kind of an oxymoron. You can't be the same in Tallahassee as you are in Orlando as you are in Naples. But that's what they attempted to do. They took three years to write this code, a little over three years, I believe. They had 300 some amendments on it at the legislative session at the end of last year. Florida Home Builders Association sued the Building Code Page 33 August 1, 2001 Commission, and they got it down to less than 80 or something like that. Insurance companies are a big part of this. The window companies -- believe it or not, the wood window companies are splitting out from the aluminum window companies in their own associations because aluminum windows don't meet -- don't meet the thermal codes now and the Florida energy -- or the -- the energy code that's part of this unified building code now, you have thermal breaks on -- on aluminum windows now that do not comply. So, in fact, aluminum windows can become passe in certain cases on certain glasses. You go to insulated glass, the aluminum window may work if it has a thermal break in it. So the aluminum window companies are basically out of business in certain areas until they can convert their windows. So there's -- there's lots of things you're going to see come out of this code that probably will change on a yearly basis. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: It should be interesting. Moving on quickly to utility code, I went to that meeting. I'll keep it real short. I thought one of the interesting things that .you-all might find interesting at least is they're switching over now to these automatic meter readings for water meters and whatnot, and they have these units attached in the van now. They just drive down the street, and they read the meters. The part that I thought was -- from a cost-savings point of view, they can read six to eight thousand meters a day versus the 600 that a meter reader used to read without sticking their hands in all of those swamp -- flooded or swamp -- or snake-filled meter cases, so that was interesting. And, also, they're completely revamping -- right now there's three separate utility ordinances that you have to go to to try to find your information. They're going to rewrite those in a single ordinance and try to get it by September 1 st. So good luck. That's that meeting. I guess the ad hoc committee on fees, there's -- you didn't have a previous meeting, so really we just -- Page 34 August 1, 2001 MR. LONGO: We -- we, actually, did have a previous meeting, but it's -- it's ongoing, and it's continuing next -- next Wednesday. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Anybody have -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: Would this be a time -- we did get this handout from Denny. And I was just wondering if we can maybe just request additional information for the meeting at this time. And then what I'm trying to find is -- is just a -- like a summary of department revenue and department appropriations, in other words, how much building permit money comes in. Like, this report we have says license and permits. That's all your fee income from both planning and building permits and everything lumped into one. And I think what we're trying to get a handle on is revenue associated with fees for service by -- by the departments that generate. The planning services charge you a fee to analyze a PUD; that's revenue. And there's a certain cost associated with planning that goes with that fee income. On the other hand, there's a certain cost of planning that should really -- is really part of general fund planning, comprehensive planning, long-range planning, whatever we call it. And I was hoping that we would have that information or we can really understand really the profitability or lack thereof of the different departments and then to try and understand the -- I mean, the use of the building permit income. I mean, that's the only fund that's operating in a -- in a plus basis. And understand where the surplus goes: transferred to the general fund, to run GIS, to run pollution control, whatever. And I hope we can get that information for the meeting. MR. DUNNUCK: Why don't we have Denny get together with you after the meeting and talk about it a little bit because I think some of that information may be on the fourth page there, and some of it we can provide in addition. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Yeah. I didn't really see it, so I just -- Page 35 Augustl, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah. I think that's a -- a good idea if you two can get together and come up with maybe a couple more general things that you can pull together for the -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, I just brought it out in case anybody else has other information -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Uh -huh. MR. VAN ARSDALE: -- they want for the meeting. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Right. I think that's a good point. If we can get it before that meeting, then we can get through it in the ad -- in the ad hoc meeting. Any other new items anybody would like to discuss or -- MR. DUNNUCK: One briefing thing -- and I -- I wasn't sure if Dino was going to mention it. We had a meeting together. As you know, Dino is serving on the administrator selection committee. We narrowed down the candidates we were going to interview to, I believe, seven -- seven or eight. MR. LONGO: Seven external and about two internal -- MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah. And-- and we're-- we're going to have those interviews on August 13th and then try to get a ranked list to the county manager's office soon thereafter with hopefully getting an official recommendation from the Board of County Commissioners at the next meeting on September 1 lth, so we're working aggressively on that end. MR. DUANE: Local applicants or most from out of the area or-- MR. DUNNUCK: Most of them are from Sarasota and -- and further north from the external candidates. I -- I don't think we have anybody below Sarasota. MR. LONGO: Key West, I believe. MR. MR. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Key West? DUNNUCK: What's that? MR. VAN ARSDALE: They're Yankees. SAVAGE: They're all coming over from Miami. Page 36 August 1, 2001 MR. LONGO: No. I think, actually, most of them on the short list, they're -- they're all in Florida, for the most part, if I recall right. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Good. Okay. Any parting comments? Herb, lead us off. You've got to have something to say. MR. SAVAGE: I probably have said not enough, but I'll be quiet this time. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Does anybody else have anything they'd like to add? MR. JONES: I second that. (Laughter.) MR. ABBOTT: I was going to say, call Ripley's. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Anybody else have anything to bring up? David? MR. PERICO: Yeah. One thing, Tom. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. PERICO: I say this -- it's a little premature. But based on what Dino was talking about, FEMA, we had our audit two weeks ago. And the FEMA auditor was here two days in my office, going out into the field, where we came in at 6:30 at night checking the break -away walls, hydrostatic vents, whatever on the project-- make a long story short, after checking all our files and everything, after two days he made it very clear that his job is to find something wrong. He says, this is the first county he's been at he could not find anything wrong. MR. LONGO: Congratulations. MR. ABBOTT: And also didn't want variances or asked about the number of variances. MR. PERICO: Variances, the amount of variances we were planning. And this year I said none -- I mean, last year, none. We've never granted a variance on flood. And he said Sarasota just this year alone had 26 variances. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Huh. Page 37 August 1, 2001 MR. PERICO: So, I mean, you know, this can only help our cause, you know, with FEMA. I haven't seen the written report, but that was the preliminary report. MR. LONGO: I'll -- I'll make a comment. I just got back from the Southeastern Builders Conference and the Florida Home Builders Association meeting, and I sat amongst local presidents from all throughout the State of Florida and local associations. And I got to tell you guys, this county is light years ahead of others. MR. SAVAGE: It's what? MR. LONGO: Light years ahead. I mean -- MR. CORREA: In what way? MR. LONGO: In -- in every -- in every way, from how we deal with our growth management to our staff at development services to our local Community participation to our building industry association. We are just light years ahead. MR. CORREA: And yet traffic is terrible here. MR. LONGO: Traffic has nothing to do with it. I'm just telling you that the issues that we -- that the other associations and other counties face on a daily basis, from what I hear and what I see, they look at us when I walk into a room, and they ask us how we do it, how do you guys do it, how do you get along so well, how are you getting through to your county commissioners. I got to tell you it's guys like John and -- and Denny and staff and Ed and this -- this -- this committee right here that makes it happen. And you should be very proud of it, because when I walk into a room and people stand up to applaud because we're doing something right down here, that's a good feeling. And we are just so ahead of the curve, it's -- it's incredible. You should feel good about that in your community because -- I mean, we really are top-notch. (Mr. Duane left the room.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Ed, good news only. MR. RILEY: I'll see what I can do. Ed Riley for the record. Quite some time ago I brought up the possibility of trying to speed up the plan Page 38 August 1, 2001 review process in our office to take some plans directly over to the south -- our other office. We have researched that, and it would take a full-time employee to do that. I have gone to our steering committee and asked them if they would be willing to support it if the building industry was willing to support it, adding that person, so that instead of the plans coming in over here and then having to be processed and then sent over to the other office, they could come directly into our office. We have a computer link. We can do the processing from there. They wouldn't give me an answer last meeting; that was almost two months ago. You know, the 21 st I have another meeting to get their direction to see if they want to go in that -- that way. Their concern is the level of-- or the number of staffing and the size of the office. I don't know -- legitimate or not, but my feeling is that the building industry is willing to pay for a service -- if they want that particular service, then we should be able to provide it. The issue that we have, not being able to put the person on with the building department, an extra staff person to help run some of the plans through, is -- is space. I heard time and time again they just don't have the room. Well, I have the same problem. If we go to that, I have to seek out another office space larger, increase our physical plant so we can provide that service. I think it does have merit in cutting anywhere from two to six or seven days off the process of some of the plans that we review. I'm only talking about the ones that we review and others don't, such as the many sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems and hood suppression systems and things like that. But there are enough of those that come through that would be a full-time job for one CSA that we would hire and put in place. I did -- put a proposed budget together what it would cost to do that if we had to move the office, etc. And the steering committee is considering that. If they give me the go-ahead and say, yeah, the building industry is at -- be prepared that I will go to CBIA and back to this organization to get direction to see if that's something you want. Page 39 August 1, 2001 It was requested of me early on several months ago. And through the process of finding out what it would take, I thought maybe I could do it in-house with current staffing and everything else. We just can't do it with -- we'd have to add staff. We'd have to have a larger plant, somewhere to store the plans. If you go back here now and look at what Diane has to deal with, she's going nuts because she doesn't have room to store all the plans back there. It's very difficult. But understand what we would do is we'd take some of that burden off of this side, off of the development services building. Some of those plans would then be in a different location that only we review anyhow, and some of that walk-in traffic wouldn't -- wouldn't have to go through your front door. So it does have some advantages there and kind of free up some of the staff that you have here. So it's just a -- something we're looking at. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I did not make my comment. May I make one now? I just want to add to what Dino said about the utility subcommittee. If it wasn't for Tom Kuck and all those different agencies in this county working together -- again, it may not be perfect, but it's a very, very good indication of cooperative activities between all these departments. Tom, I think you'll agree with that. Secondly, I'm going to the architects' convention tomorrow morning, and I'm going to be loud and clear, which I hardly ever do, and that is to say to them that -- I hope you did in the builders' association. I hope the engineers did the same thing, anticipate what's going to happen next year in this new building code. It's not all ground. It's all sorts of things that we have to knock around. I'm going to see what in the world we're doing in the Association of Architects to see what we can do to help everybody be able to present to the governments of these various counties documents that can be looked at rather quickly. MR. LONGO: One of the things I -- I forgot to mention on this code is local drafts -- draftsmen or design professionals that don't have Page 40 August 1, 2001 licensed architects that are physically working and under a payroll salary in that office-- MR. SAVAGE: That's right. MR. LONGO: -- can no longer submit plans after January 1 st. So those local draftsmen or design professionals have to hire an architect. You can't seal a plan. I can't do it in my office, draw the drawing, go to Dalas and have him seal it for me or go to Jim. I mean, it would have gone to Jim before anyhow, but-- MR. ABBOTT: For other reasons. MR. LONGO: Yeah. But now it's -- it's -- it's now statutory law that -- that physically the architect or engineer has to work out of that office. You need to be aware of that. MR. DISNEY: Well, and-- and-- Dalas Disney. If-- if we expand upon that, that is -- that is simple enforcement of the laws that have been there for an awfully long time. There's also a clear delineation now between what is a building for human habitation and what is required to be done under Chapter 481, architectural license, and clearly what can and cannot be done under engineering licenses. So all of that has gone away. If it's human habitation, building put up for someone to occupy, licensed architect, that's it. Good for our profession in one way; bad in the fact that there's just going to be a terrific load of work that people probably are not going to be able to get to promptly. MR. SAVAGE: To add one quick item, I just hope they can meet the demand. The same thing about engineers. MR. DISNEY: Right. MR. SAVAGE: It's -- it's going to be a big demand. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Were we supposed to -- were you asking, Ed, for some sort of-- MR. RILEY: No. I was just making a statement that -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: -- a report? Page 41 August 1, 2001 MR. RILEY: -- you know, be aware that that's something we're looking at that's been requested. I've taken it to my subcommittee, you know, the steering committee that I answer to. And if they, you know, endorse that that we can go ahead and do it, I will be bringing it back for direction from both the CBIA and this organization in terms of what you really want to see. MR. VAN ARSDALE: And I guess the only comment that I want to make is if we -- you know, last year was a 15-percent rate increase on permits where you just -- and you -- and you had a large one on -- on fire plan review. We just had a 300 percent on fire inspection. We still got a million eight fifty unaccounted for in terms of building permit fees. Ed needs to, you know, have -- you know, we're trying to get Ed to get plans turned around in ten working days or less, or at least first review. And so I hope that we look at any rate increases from any function having to do with building within the context of the overall budget. Now, we've got to figure out where this money's going, first of all. And then if we need more money to go somewhere, that we, in fact -- whether it be to beef up the building department or to -- to speed up the process in fire plan review or wherever, that we take it out of the surplus that we don't really know where it's going. That's why I keep pushing to find out where it's going because it's hard to say -- it's hard to get it back if you don't know where it's going so -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Uh-huh. Hopefully in the next couple months that will become clearer. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Gosh, I hope so. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. With that, if anybody would like to make a motion to close? MR. ABBOTT: ! make it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: MR. CORREA: I second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (Unanimous response.) Charlie Abbott. Second. All in favor? Page 42 August 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: 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 4:50 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE THOMAS MASTERS, P.E., CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 43