Loading...
DSAC Minutes 10/03/2001 ROctober 3, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, October 3,2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:35 p.m. In REGULAR SESSION, in Conference Room "F", Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Masters, P.E. Thomas R. Peek Robert L. Duane John M. Dunnuck, III David Correa Brian D. Milk Dalas D. Disney Dino J. Longo Herbert R. Savage, A.I.A. Charles M. Abbott R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. Marco A. Espinar Blair A. Foley, P.E. Brian E. Jones Peter H. Van Arsdale, Esq. C. Perry Peeples, Esq. ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Attorney for the Board Page 1 October 3, 2001 Okay. Okay. minutes? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Let's go ahead and call the meeting to order. Does anybody have any additions or subtractions for the agenda? MR. DUNNUCK: I have no additions. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Do you want to make a motion? MR. PEEK: Sure. I move that the agenda be approved. MR. ESPINAR: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Second by Marco. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion carries. Okay. Anybody have any corrections they would like to make to the minutes that were supplied? MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman, next to my name they promoted me to a PE -- MR. DISNEY: Congratulations. MR. ESPINAR: -- without taking the exam. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So let's correct that. Okay. Also, I would like to make a point of correction, too, on page 7. And about half -- or two-thirds of the way down under my quote it has making efforts to address the Corps of -- it should be Corps of Engineers. C-O -- excuse me. Any other titles? Would you like to make a motion to approve the MR. ESPINAR: So moved. MR. PEEK: Second. Page 2 October 3,2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion carries. I would like to add that we appreciate the small text that we saw on the second set of minutes. It created about a tenth of the size of the paper. Moving right along. Staff announcements, John? MR. DUNNUCK: I just wanted to pass along to you, you know, we are in the midst of the special cycle right now -- I believe it's going second -- the Planning Commission meeting this evening. And then, October 10th, it's going to be fourth and will be heard before the Board of County Commissioners. We are passing out a few right now as a regular cycle. One of the things I'm going to be mixing within this regular cycle is we're trying to provide a special workshop to the Board of County Commissioners to discuss where we are with the current policy as far as commercial and industrial. We want to get a feel from the board before we actually get into the cycle of what recommendations they may have. I'm going to be looking to -- and I have already spoken to some people, you know, in the development community and so forth of putting together a full package to discuss the ramifications, including, you know, the property rights issues when the board gets into this discussion, as well. We haven't set a date. We had tentative, November 9th, but I need to confirm that. But I just wanted you all to be aware of that, that within this whole cycle that we're passing out we're going to be working out a workshop with the board so that we can kind of bring some clarity to this issue. This is the first true update we've had of zoning in probably 12 years, and it's going to have some major ramifications potentially. And you all need to be participating in it and keeping your attendance Page 3 October 3, 2001 up as we bring, you know, amendments to you all. Other than that, I have got -- we have got an interview scheduled for Friday for the administrator of Community Development. We have got three -- three people to interview where we can be making a recommendation to Tom -- Tom Olliff for him to interview if he would like to. Internally to the organization, I don't know if you all are aware, but there are potentially some changes going on in the County Manager's office. Mike McNees left to take on the job of the City of Sarasota. Tom decided to take that opportunity to reorganize the County Manager's office slightly and has chosen to go with two Assistant County Managers; one is a Deputy County Manager, where he is recommending Jim Mudd who's currently Utilities Administrator. And the other one will be the Assistant County Manager position, which he's recommending Leo Ochs, who is currently Public Services Administrator. I just wanted you all to be aware of that. Jim Mudd will be in charge of three divisions as part of his duties, including this division, Transportation and Utilities. I just wanted to pass that all along to you. And that's going to the board to be confirmed on October 9th. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. We have nothing under Old business, so we'll move on to subcommittee reports. I don't believe we had a land development code for the subcommittee meeting. Construction code. Do we have anything? MR. LONGO: Actually, yes, we do. We are meeting next Wednesday on the budget at three o'clock. And what we are probably going to be reviewing -- is take a look at the Florida unified billing code in a great synopsis real quick to see how it's affecting us and where we are going to be January 1st implementing those which we have not discussed at length at all. So Page 4 October 3, 2001 that's -- anybody wants to be there, be square. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Utility code basically did meet and brought forward the -- basically the amendment that we're looking at to the code, so we will go over that in a minute of new business -- We will move on to the ad hoc committee. It's basically under the same as- MR. LONGO: Same thing. Same time. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Moving on to the new business. Basically, the utility code subcommittee met, as we have minutes from that. Briefly, what-- what's being passed forward is a revised ordinance bringing everything forward now. It really is no new information. It's just a rewrite of the original ordinance that was split between five different ordinances, so we're trying to bring that up to speed. The technical specifications which were the original sections -- 11 and ! 2 involved -- have been brought into the new technical specifications which won't have to go in front of the board any longer for revisions the way it's currently written. Basically, it will go in front of the utility code subcommittee and this committee for approval and changes to the utility technical specs as opposed to having to go in front of the board. They just felt that they rubber stamped it and that that wasn't required. Really, that's the biggest change to the whole thing. Jim, would you like to say anything in addition to that? MR. McGEE: If you would like me to. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead. MR. McGEE: I'm Jim McGee with Utilities Engineering. I will start one of these -- these are some samples, executive summaries, that are scheduled to go before the board, provided you are in agreement with what Mr. Masters has outlined for you. Our Page 5 October 3,2001 task was basically to do two things, and that is to take the existing ordinance 97-10, the utility standards ordinance, and update it. It had already been updated by two subsequent ordinances in order to keep up with the technical standards. So the intent was to, number one, bring it up to date; and then, secondly, to extract from it the technical standards and make provisions therein to having the utility subcommittee, along with the utilities director, provide, continue, and review updates of those standards. Obviously, you know, the policy makers, the commissioners, don't need to know whether it's a Mazuric or American valve or what the depth of culvert is and some of the technical standards. So it made good sense not to have to put the changes back in the ordinances and then continue to go that route. So that's the intent, as Mr. Chairman has indicated. I guess it would have been better off rewritten with a good secretary than with a P.E. If it was not for spell check, I would probably starve to death. But, basically, the ordinance that's proposed in the -- we would like to go as the first step, basically has those provisions in it. The utility subcommittee felt that some of the other -- some of the other changes were -- from a technical standpoint were a little too drastic, and so we -- we have just pulled our horns back in and said, okay, we will adopt the existing Chapters 11 and 12 and take the technical sections out of our ordinance verbatim; and then we will have the next year to go back through and review some of the other changes and, hopefully, make a better document. I will be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I just -- basically, I wanted to make sure that Tom Peek was here. He was involved with so much of the history of what has been going on in the utility code committee before that. I think he's also in concurrence. Do you have anything Page 6 October 3, 2001 to say? MR. PEEK: I'm in concurrence. I think Section 11 and 12 that the subcommittee had worked on for a considerable number of months, if not years, has some -- a lot of validity to it. And I think, just to go back and incorporate that and make some modifications as necessary, as time permits, will be appropriate. Otherwise, your subcommittee apparently has reviewed this proposed ordinance and found it satisfactory, so I would support that. MR. McGEE: I will make the observation that the committee has looked at it two or three times, and it's also been reviewed by Mr. Palmer with the County Attorney's Office. So we have had a review also. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And the board is itching to get it in front of them and approve it, so with that being said ... MR. PEEK: With that recommendation from the subcommittee of approval, I would so move that we approve the proposed Collier County Utility Standards and Procedures Ordinance before us today. MR. LONGO: I will second that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor of the motion? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion carries unanimously. That's our main piece of business today was really just to move this forward. It really needed this board's recommendation before it went to the Board of Commissioners. I really appreciate Jim McGee's work on all of this. I know he has spent countless hours trying to bring all the documents together and actually trying to take it a large step forward. And I think, over the next year, we have got a lot of work in front of us. Another thing you have got in your packet is a revised schedule Page 7 October 3,2001 of utility code meetings. What they have decided to do is kind of alternate the meetings between wastewater and the water department so that we can try to get more of the key staff at the meetings that we need to have them at. And also we will have a separate meeting for the fire, as well as joint meetings then with all of those departments and try to accomplish a little more business at the specific meetings. And we will try to get that moving forward in a good manner there. That takes us all the way through our agenda. Does anybody --. MR. ABBOTT: What a shocker. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: It was very quick. Actually, we were -- John was trying to keep you from a meeting. Unfortunately, I had to bring this one item forward; otherwise, we wouldn't have had a meeting today. But I appreciate the large turnout, though. Anybody have any comments they would like to make? MR. DUANE: At our last meeting, there may have been a scrivener there in the hearing examiner's co-ordinance, and I think Attorney Pat White has indicated the same to me. And I would like to see the changes of -- including the hearing examiner who reviewed the PUD sunset provision go forward in this next amendment cycle. I don't know, Pat, if you want to add anything to that. But I'm requesting this board to so direct you to do that. Do you choose to make a comment? You don't have to. MR. WHITE: If that's what you believe that the hearing examiner ought do, then certainly make that recommendation, and I will comply to the best of my ability with the text to do so. MR. DUANE: I so move then. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Anybody second that motion? MR. DISNEY: I will second that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Any further discussion? MR. PEEK: Perhaps I wasn't paying close enough attention or Page 8 October 3,2001 missed it some way. Would you restate basically what it is that you're asking Pat to do? MR. DUANE: Yeah. The -- at our prior discussions, when we talked about the hearing examiner, we thought it was appropriate for that individual to review the PUD sunset provisions. We reviewed some amendments to those sunset provisions recently, but they require every four years, I think, was the recommendation that we make that those PUDs be reviewed. In the past that's been an administrative process where they have gone straight to the board. I think it was the consensus of this group previously that those provisions ought to have the same level of scrutiny as any petition that would go before the board. And that was the substance of my motion. MR. DUNNUCK: I just have a quick question. Would it still need to go before the board or just the hearing examiner? MR. DUANE: I believe all of the petitions ultimately still go to the board -- and the variances don't, I know that. But I would defer to the attorney on that. MR. WHITE: The process as it currently is proposed, if it were to become effective today, would require the board -- because it would probably be the same level as a rezoning to have the advisory committee's review. There would be no review by the hearing examiner. But if you want to look at it from the task of it being an administrative function, then it would be one that you can bring through as a recommendation from the hearing examiner with a final decision by the board. So ... MR. DUNNUCK: Is that how you propose it? MR. DUANE: Yes. MR. DUNNUCK: Just an additional step, basically. MR. DUANE: That would be fine, the way that he just outlined it. Page 9 October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any other questions? Okay. All in favor of the motion? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That motion carries unanimously, as well. Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: When will we have these amendments to the Land Development Code if this -- is this the drastic rewrite that you were talking about? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, this is the -- yeah. And, quite frankly, that schedule is a very aggressive schedule, and we may not get there. I see the board, once they get into this issue through the workshop, backing off and saying, "We may need to spend a little bit more time zone by zone" that we tackle this issue. So, you know, that's kind of our -- where we are headed right now. Ron has been working on those amendments and looking at some of the updates and what we can potentially have. But that is the schedule and, you know, he's talking about October 19th being the deadline of when we would have the information available. But I see that changing as the workshop is scheduled. MR. DUANE: John, would the LDC amendments for Interchange Activity Center No. 9 be included in these amendments? MR. DUNNUCK: Transportation has committed to me that they will be. We are awaiting the transportation element side of it. We haven't seen those yet. You know, Norman's been reviewing them, and he's supposed to have them to me any day. MR. DUANE: Okay. MR. DUNNUCK: So that is supposed to be included as one of the amendments in the -- included in that interchange master plan are the architectural side of it, as well, that we're working on. Page 10 October 3,2001 MR. DUANE: Okay. Thank you, John. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Questions. MR. VAN ARSDALE: And this that you refer to you say it's a fairly natural provision or ... MR. DUNNUCK: It could-- MR. VAN ARSDALE: As applies to what? MR. DUNNUCK: The Board of County Commissioners requested, based upon case-by-case issues that we've had going to the board, they've shown their dissatisfaction with the zoning and how we have basically created transition area zoning between residential communities and commercial. And they have looked at -- since we have kind of piecemeal amended the code over the last 12 years, they wanted to have us take a whole comprehensive rewrite of the zoning issues as far as setbacks, height restrictions, and some of the major issues, including uses, hours of operation, and how that works with the surrounding community. So that's what we've committed to the board where we've looked at the consistency of the purpose and intent of those areas as far as the technical aspect of actual allowable uses within those zones. MR. VAN ARSDALE: When you do that review, do you look at all of the community character study that was done? MR. DUNNUCK: To some extent, yes. Because that's one of the things that we found from a planning standpoint is that when you look at the purpose and intent is that they are inconsistent. Some say you need to look at the community as a surrounding first, and here are the elements below. Some say -- pretty much direct you towards the elements below are the ruling factor. And then that's what has got the board, you know, situation with the Goodland issue, where they had ruled over the planning staff regarding, you know, what our recommendation was. They went back to the purpose and intent and made an interpretation there and then, subsequently, was overturned Page 11 October 3, 2001 in the courts. But those are the type of things we need to take a look at. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Like I said, on comment that. Dover-Kohl study was like a half-a-million-dollar study. And it dealt with the -- these and a multitude of other issues, and it's -- I guess I don't -- I don't see anybody that is really too focused at looking at that or using that as a foundation or basic ground rules on how to deal with some of these issues. But that's what it deals with. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, we are. We're looking at a couple of fronts. You know, we have a couple overlay issues that we're working on. We just created a committee on community character and smart growth last week, and that will be kicked off by Commissioner Henning in the coming weeks to look at the Dover Kohl study specifically. With the zoning aspects, though, they wanted us to specifically look at setback issues and height restrictions and really how we transition. One of the things that we have seen is that, you know, we may have an area where there are only five-story buildings allowed, and all of a sudden, you have a 1 O-story building allowed that's abutting a residential community behind it, for example. And the board has said, "We want to avoid those type of issues. "But that takes us -- leads us back to, you know, private property rights and what we can and cannot do. And that's why the workshop is going to be very important and explaining to the board at what level we can operate so we don't end up in situations where we are applying a $4.7 million settlement agreement to buy a piece of property down in Goodland, which is what the board did last Tuesday. MR. ABBOTT: Where is that 5.1 million coming from? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Permit fees. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. Where are the cash cows? MR. LONGO: John, just as a comment. I mean, we continually Page 12 October 3,2001 look at our zoning and our LDC, and we are amending it and changing it all the time. And as a result we have a hodgepodge of things that we already have. I mean, how can you take everything that we have done to this point and say, okay, we are going to make it all better or consistent or ... MR. DUNNUCK: Well, here -- here's one of the major things that I think has occurred, and it's been more market driven than anything else. You've had a maximum allowable uses in zoning, but people haven't built to the maximum allowable use. So you have had this in existence for a number of years, but now land values are escalating. The people are starting to look at the property and say, where is the maximum setback that I can build to, what is the maximum height that I can build to. And the board is looking at it and saying, "Oh, my gosh, I didn't know this is what we had in our code." So now they are wanting to take a look at that and say, "Okay, where do we have opportunities to ensure that we know what we are going to get?" Because I think what we have heard consistently in the planning department is, you know," I didn't know that that was allowable use." And then that's why we are trying to take a look as a whole and paint the picture of, "here is what is allowed right now in your current land development code." MR. LONGO: But let's not forget what there are -- also some of the objective are, is not to go up beyond the urban fringe and put more density into where we are. So you have to take a look at it when you're looking at your codes, as far as setbacks and heights and stuff like that. If you are going to ask us as a community to keep putting stuff more in the community in the intercity source fee and not allow us to build up beyond -- develop beyond the urban fringe, then -- I mean, you'd really have to take a hard look at that and how it affects what you're going to be doing in the future. Page 13 October 3, 2001 MR. DUNNUCK: Agreed. And I think that's why this workshop is going to be very important, because I want to outline all those issues independent of getting into the hearing process where we -- we are in that discussion later on, and then there's something we haven't discussed with the board from a -- you know, one of the good things about these workshops is we can frankly discuss, "Here are the pros and cons of these issues." And when we actually get to the hearings, you know, then they will have the understanding of what's driving some of the things that are driving. And that's part of the picture that I'm trying to paint for the board through this workshop process and why I started to talk to people in the development community. Because what I have seen since I have been over here is that we pass codes and we don't look at what the cost is of passing those things to the community, and as we are on the brink of impact fees, you know, we are reviewing four or five different impact fees -- this coming year. And those costs are going to go up, and we have the new state building codes that are changing. You know, there's a significant impact. And how does that relate into the housing market? And what does that do for our affordable housing initiatives per se, you know? And that's part of the whole picture we are trying to paint for the board when they also look into the zoning side of it. MR. LONGO: Are these workshops -- are you working -- shopping before you actually start digging into the code? Or are you digging into the code simultaneously saying, "Here's an example of what would happen if we did this to that"? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, we're doing our ground work right now. And the board has given us some direction as to what they want to take a look at, and we're starting to do some of that background work. But before we actually bring amendments forward, we want to have that workshop with us. And we want to Page 14 October 3,2001 actually, you know, talk about maybe some of the potential amendments and opportunities that they will have during that workshop and what the pros and cons are. Because we know what the direction is they have given us. We want to make sure that they understand the consequences of some of those directions. MR. LONGO: I want to echo what Peter said. I mean, that Kohl -- or Dover Kohl, whatever, report was $500, 000. And not everybody agrees with all of it, and there are some parts that are good and some parts that are bad. And everybody has an opinion, but we need to at least take a look and use those things that we have paid for in order to make some sense, instead ofjust blankly changing our LDC, which is yea thick (indicating). MR. CORREA: What did we do for affordable housing? MR. DUNNUCK: In what regards? MR. CORREA: Attempt to increase it or ... MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. I mean, we've had specific goals and objectives in affordable housing as far as how many units we are trying to produce annually. And, you know, that's a growing concern in this community because nobody is building affordable housing because the incentives just aren't there. And so one of the board's initiatives is to look at affordable housing and work towards housing and, you know, how do you tie that in to make the -- to have incentives out there so that some developers would want to go in and build that affordable housing? But if we keep raising the value of these houses through impact fees and everything else, we are making it unaffordable for somebody who wanted to do that. MR. CORREA: Yes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. LONGO: I was remiss in telling this committee that we are in the midst of our 90-day comment period with FEMA right now. And Tom Sullivan who has been joined -- hired by the City of Page 15 October 3,2001 MR. WHITE: MR. LONGO: building. Naples and the county government he's outlined already a procedural type of task rebutting, rebuffing some of the technical findings for FEMA which, in some cases, can set some of your new elevations as high as seven feet in some areas. Basically, we have okayed a flood elevation map for Golden Gate Estates that will set elevations for those people out there. And, hopefully, by the end of October we will have some sort of feedback from FEMA as to where we are. MR. ABBOTT: We are meeting tomorrow? MR. LONGO: Yes. Actually, we are meeting. We have a FEMA meeting tomorrow to review those -- that outline. MR. ABBOTT: At two o'clock. Location? Location is the Emergency Management MR. ABBOTT: We cram all in that little, tiny room. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. Brian. MR. JONES: I have a question for John. The latest information on the addition to the building department development services, do you have that? MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. You know, Ed may be able to give you more detail, but I think we are looking at breaking ground about the first of December and looking at a time line of July and August and have them -- both parking garage and the building completed. We're doing it simultaneously; that was part of the deal that we have worked out. We did a lot line adjustment so that, you know, we would not only have an access to that side of the road, but we would have the opportunity to build them both at the same time so we can keep it moving. Now, I've got a plan in the lounge, if you-all want to take a look at it when you get a chance, that kind of shows where people are going to go once the building is completed. But it has provisions for Page 16 October 3, 2001 the hearing examiner over here and a smaller corridor, you know, to hold the smaller-type hearings. And we have a training room, training facility, and some other nice things, amenities as well. MR. VAN ARSDALE: That kind of brings up a point as we go through the -- some of us are starting on that. Could we at some point sort of see an allocation of cost or at least rents as they are going to be applied to different -- MR. DUNNUCK: We are actually bringing that forward next week to the subcommittee. I mean, that's part of what we have told you that we would bring back is, you know, we've been doing that rational nexus study about Fund 113 and then how it should be broken out. Understand that we think there's some areas where we can cut back what Fund 113 has been supporting in the general fund. And we will start bringing that forward to you next week at the subcommittee meeting along with, you know, the level-of-service standards and where we are with the development review process. So, you know, while we have had half of our meetings, the last two, I don't anticipate they're going to last very long. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, I was thinking maybe -- so, let's focus on this new building and the new space, and maybe we will sort ofjump on that from the get-go. MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah. That will all be part of the budget process. MR. ABBOTT: Who is the builder of the new building? MR. DUNNUCK: Kraft. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All right. Any other comments? MR. BAKER: Denny -- Denny Baker, Environment Business Manager. We have successfully tested buying permits over the Internet. We have -- starting next week you will be able to buy -- purchase siding, roofing and air conditioning permits over the Internet with Page 17 October 3, 2001 your credit card. There is a $3 transaction fee. We have successfully tested here, and there will be a -- there is a kiosk in the lobby which we will be opening up next week. And then after testing that on site after a week or two, youtll be able to do it from your offices or your house or wherever. We have had a contractor come in and test it, and it worked quite well. MR. LONGO: How do you verify on-line that it's the actual contractor submitting for the permit? MR. BAKER: Well, there is a bid -- to the contractor -- it has to be a licensed contractor. MR. LONGO: Right. MR. BAKER: But whether it's a contractor or not, we really rely upon somebody purchasing it for themselves, using their credit card. There is no -- there is no connectivity between the credit card and contractor. MR. LONGO: So if I wanted to borrow someone's contractor's license number off a permit and call in a roofing permit for myself, although I'm not a roofer, and put my credit card through it, I can do that? MR. BAKER: I suppose you could, Dino. What's to prevent that from happening today? MR. ANDERSON: A lot of things. MR. LONGO: A lot of things pretty much. I mean, you -- I don't-- well, that's scary. MR. DUNNUCK: We will take a look at it. We have to bring a resolution to the board adopting the fee to go along with it, and we'll look at that issue before we bring it on-line. MR. LONGO: Now, I'm not so much concerned -- like, fence permits, those type -- well, even fence permits you have occupation licenses on, I guess. But contractors' licenses, I don't know; it was just a thought. Page 18 October 3,2001 MR. DISNEY: You may want to set up PIN numbers or something for valid contractors. MR. BAKER: It's a good thought. MR. LONGO: Because, I mean, all I can see is a scam about someone stealing a bunch of permit-- Contractors' licenses numbers off permit boards and real quickly scamming, but how do you know that's going on? MR. BAKER: You really wouldn't until it surfaces somewhere. MR. LONGO: Physically coming to the building at points and time, you get caught if you're -- if you're -- you probably have some safeguards; your license is expired, and you don't have your insurance and this type of thing. But it's just a thought. MR. BAKER: It's a good thought. MR. VAN ARSDALE: And I would think that, to pull a contractor's permit or a permit that you issue to a contractor they have to have some sort of prior arrangement with the county. But, I mean, I'm -- I guess we don't need to discuss that. But explain to me the fee. In other words, we are going to charge an additional fee besides a permit fee for this service? MR. DUNNUCK: Right now, right. Because we have to do a passer fee to the credit card company to pay for that and, you know, from an administrative side -- and so instead of eating that cost as part of the fee that we have currently in place, until we bring back a new fee structure, we have opted to charge the additional fee until we can work out those percentages. And that way -- because Visa won't allow us -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Denny, that Visa won't allow us, you know, to not pass along that fee, or we can't eat that fee if they come specifically to the desk. But if they are set up in a kiosk or somewhere else, then we can charge that fee under our current policy, and it's some issues we were working with in the clerk's office to get resolved. But until we bring Page 19 October 3, 2001 back the fee policy and know exactly how much of the percentage we will eat of the administrative fee to Visa or Mastercard, we are not ready to, you know, accept that. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I just -- I mean, my only thought is that we want -- I think there would be a manpower savings to use this automated system and to -- you know, to charge a fee in addition to the normal permit fee would be a disincentive for people to use the system. And there's got to be a big cost savings to not have somebody come to the lobby and take a number and wait for a clerk, take the clerk's time and -- and I don't know why we charge anything. And pass that along. MR. ABBOTT: There's also some state laws concerning charge difference. If I came in and paid cash and you charged me more for using a credit card, that's illegal under Florida law. MR. BAKER: Well, that's why we got them set up this kiosk. MR. ABBOTT: I understand, but I -- but what Peter is saying, too, you got to remember, your job is serving the public, not extorting extra funds. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I'm just saying, I think we save labor cost by having people use the system. We should encourage people to use them and -- I mean, not that three dollars is going to do it, but it's kind of an insult that here I am doing more work and not taking county staff time and I get charged extra. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think our point was, for right now let's look at it, let's get it up and running, and let's see how it's working before we come back and do the full fees structure that we're going to be working on within the next couple of months. When we are doing the technical audit of how much time you spend doing something, you know, that's when we can talk about the savings and talking about passing on a savings to the customer on the permit side. But I think right now we are looking at just getting it up and running Page 20 October 3, 2001 and getting the bugs worked out without getting that full audit of the functions. Because one -- you don't know, you know -- offhand you don't know how much savings there is actually going to be. My finding has been you replace it with -- okay, you make some savings there, you end up replacing it somehow with something else on that staff time that's more valuable. We are trying to improve efficiency and quality, and I don't know the answer to that right now. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I won't say any more yet, but the only government -- they do this with, I think, license renewal where they charge you extra to go on-line than to walk down to the office and meet someone face to face for some reason. Government is the only entity that I know of that sees it to be less efficient and charge a fee for service on-line. The rest of the world sees it as a way to make money and save costs. Anyway ... CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All right. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I wish we were not charging a $3. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think your point is well made. Any other things? MR. JONES: One last comment for Ed or John. I've kind of witnessed a train wreck with contractor's permits expiring, and I think there were -- the hall was filled with different contractors coming in. And on a certain date apparently there is an expiration that caught everybody by surprise and apparently has happened in the past, and inspections are called in, and it kind of throws a monkey wrench into everything. What can we do to keep that from happening? MR. PERICO: For the record, Ed Perico. What we do, the notices are sent out months and months in advance. Unfortunately, it happens every year, they wait until the eleventh hour to renew their licenses. And then we are working all kinds of overtime, and our girls are working down there to eight and nine o'clock posting stuff. And, you know, it's nothing that we Page 21 October 3, 2001 created. This happens every year. They create it themselves. I hate to say that. MR. JONES: Part of what -- for example, the proof of insurance the insurance companies automatically send, but they do it when it expires. They turn it over when they turn it over. MR. LONGO: They don't always automatically send it. MR. JONES: And they don't always automatically do it. MR. PERICO: Normally, we will even accept a fax to keep things moving. And what we have been doing is updating as fast as they can. They have literally got thousands. And, like I said, you see people line up in the hall. This was all supposed to be done by the 30th of September, and here we are the first week in October, and they are still lined up. So it speaks for itself. MR. LONGO: There is one more thing that you have a glitch between your occupational license and your contractor licensing. I'm current on both and could not get a building -- a permit -- or an inspection called in the other day because the system automatically took me out of being able to call in and punch in -- tap in an inspection because the system got -- or the girls in inspections got a list of expired occupational licenses, but they didn't -- or who was to expire September 30th. But they did not get a list of who renewed prior to September 30th. And so I had renewed on September 1st, and I couldn't get through for three days on the phone because, obviously, everybody in the world was calling with the same problem. And I couldn't get an inspection called in. We physically had to come down here and physically go to the desk. And so you need to take a look at somehow when someone's up to date both on their insurance and their licensing that it's already in your inspection in the -- in the computer stuff. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. With that, I think we have covered any extra things we can even cover today. Page 22 October 3, 2001 Would you like to make a motion? MR. PEEK: I move we adjourn. MR. ESPINAR: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you again. (Proceedings concluded at 4:12 p.m.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned of the Chair at 4:12 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN THOMAS MASTERS, P.E. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY EMILY C. UNDERWOOD, RPR Page 23