Loading...
DSAC Minutes 01/02/2002 RJanuary 2, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 2, 2002 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 3:40 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION, in Conference Room "E", 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Tom Masters, P.E. Charles M. Abbott R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. Dalas D. Disney, A.I.A. Robert L. Duane, A.I.C.P. Marco A. Espinar, P.E. Blair A. Foley, P.E. Dino J. Longo Thomas R. Peek, P.E. Herbert R. Savage, A.I.A. Page 1 January 2, 2002 ALSO PRESENT: John Dunnuck, Assistant County Manager Commissioner Jim Coletta Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Denny Baker, Development Services Business Manager Joyceanna J. Rautio, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission Edward Perico Page 2 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA January 2, 2002 3:30 p.m. II1. IV. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes - December 5, 2001- Regular Meeting November 14, 2001- Special Meeting Staff Announcements A. AUIR Update- Discussion Only B. Resumes for Development Services Advisory Committee Member vacancies Old Business A. FEMA Update-Discussion Only Subcommittee Reports A. Land Development Regulation (Bob Duane) B. Construction Code (Dino Longo) C. Utility Code (Tom Masters) D. Ad Hoc Committee on Fees VI. New Business VII. Committee Member Comments January 2, 2002 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Let's go ahead and call the meeting to order. Do we have a quorum? Anybody have anything they'd like to add to the agenda? John, we all set? MR. DUNNUCK: I think we're all set on our side. MR. SAVAGE: I ask a question, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: -- if I were a member of the committee, do we have elections for the new officers today for the first meeting of the year? MR. ABBOTT: Not officers -- members. I take that back. MR. DUNNUCK: I think we're going to do it -- until we get the new members on board, we'll do it next month. MR. SAVAGE: Do you know who the old members are? MR. DUNNUCK: We're verifying that right now. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. With that, anybody like to make a motion to approve the agenda? MR. PEEK: I move the agenda be approved. MR. SAVAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Seconded by Herb Savage. All in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. The agenda is approved. Okay. Let's go ahead and have a look at our minutes from the December 5th meeting. Anybody have any comments on that? MR. DUNNUCK: I have one correction that it has me moving the agenda for approval on that meeting, and I don't think it was me Page 3 January 2, 2002 that probably recommended approval of that agenda for December 5th. MR. ANDERSON: You probably just orchestrated it. MR. DUNNUCK: Probably. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: It also has you listed as a member on the list. MR. DUNNUCK: So I think we make those corrections. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any other corrections? Okay. And did anybody have any comments on the November 14th special meeting? MR. SAVAGE: Yes. COURT REPORTER: I wasn't here. Please identify yourself. MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. COURT REPORTER: I need you to identify yourselves for a few minutes when you speak. MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. I'm trying to figure out whether or not if I'm still a member. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Until we have a replacement, they're still members; correct? MR. ABBOTT: Yes. Hold it up and waive it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. With no comments on either meeting minutes, anybody care to make a motion? MR. FOLEY: Blair Foley, I'll make motion for approval of the minutes of the two meetings mentioned. MR. PEEK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Motion approved. Now move on to staff announcements. Page 4 January 2, 2002 MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah. I want to keep you-all posted on, you know, some of the things that have been going on, you know, outside of this committee, and there's been a few things recently. Starting with the AUIR, you probably -- if you follow the newspaper -- are aware that we presented the beginning of the AUIR study with the Board of County Commissioners earlier this month. There was lots of discussion regarding some transportation issues relative to how we've gone about and handled the concurrency in the past, and long story short the Board of County Commissioners is recommending that we look at options because right now we have two options in our comp plan for the most part, and that's approval of the AUIR or moratorium, and the moratorium puts the constraint on the roads of approximately three miles if it's a major collector road. The board -- we have some roads that historically the board has considered politically constrained but we've never set up the parameters of what those road segments are. So the board gave us direction on a segment of Davis Boulevard, a segment of U.S. 41 and the third segment is -- I'm drawing a blank right now, Bruce. Can you help me out? Do you remember which one it was -- oh, Vanderbilt Beach, that they historically said is a constrained road between 41 and, actually, Gulf Shore Boulevard -- to go back and actually define what those boundaries are and not do it as a three-mile radius, but rather do it as, you know, something that we can control the growth on those areas but that, you know, we can work with, obviously, development -- redevelopment in those areas. Along those lines, too, the board had some discussion on kind of AUIR and what it really means and it's transportation and staffs recommendation that we take a hard look at exactly how we look at the AUIR as being the annual update. You know, it's -- right now, I think, in the code it's designated to be two things. One, it defines that it's -- it defines, you know, our annual update of what our inventory is Page 5 January 2, 2002 in the county, and the second thing is it's supposed to provide a level of comfort for concurrency for the entire following year. They are looking at that second option really hard as being is that the definition of AUIR and, actually, looking to proposed amendments in this current Land Development Code cycle to restrict or to change that definition, to make it the annual report to tell the community here's where we are as far as the inventory, but to look towards a checkbook type of concurrency management program which is, you know, as permits come in or as plats or site development plans come in, that's where we would look to see where the triggers are whether we can continue to allow permits to be issued or not so that we're looking at more of a concurrent basis as opposed to looking at it from an annual basis. And staff is busy right now drafting some of those amendment languages for-- for the Board of County Commissioners, but I wanted to alert you-all because it's something that hasn't come through the DSAC. It's something that's been directed but -- we would not adopt it at the second Land Development Code hearing next Wednesday, but we would initiate it as that would be the first part, and we would have another hearing two weeks after that. January 23rd would actually be the adoption. So that's in the mix right now. I wanted to alert you-all. There's a third piece of the puzzle that was assigned separate from the land development-- that became part of the Land Development Code during the board meeting of the first hearing, and that was this issue of how we treat reviews. In the Land Development Code and then PUDs, there's usually one last sentence -- when it's defining the allowable uses, it says, "Or other type similar uses." And it's typically been the planner's discretion to decide to determine ultimately if something is being proposed actually is similar to those uses. It's kind of that catch-all phrase in case you figure in codes Page 6 January 2, 2002 you're going to miss something. The Board of County Commissioners has directed staff to bring back an amendment that makes all those type of uses conditional uses so that they will go to the Board of County Commissioners for ultimate approval and not be done at the staff level. We had recommended it be done as an official interpretation; that way we can do it somewhat administratively, but the board recommended conditional use. So those are some of the major changes that have been kind of added on to this -- this cycle of the Land Development Code, and I wanted to bring you-all up to speed because there are some major issues. MR. LONGO: So, John, what you're telling us that what you got -- your actions on the direction of the county commission on your AUIR reports are not going to come before DSAC -- MR. DUNNUCK: Well, what I would recommend is we hold a special meeting between January 9th and January 23rd so that at the very least the Development Services Advisory Committee gets the opportunity to review it. We're setting up a special meeting with the Planning Commission right now in between those two meetings, but certainly that's -- that's the gist of it, and that's why I wanted to bring it to your attention. MR. LONGO: And the second question I have is, what happened to our mediator? Would he or she handle those type of issues that you're talking about making conditional uses now? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, the hearing examiner -- as a matter of fact, I'm finalizing the draft on who -- the board gave me direction to -- because it's a position that works specifically for the board, so it's not something that we hire administratively. I'm handling it similar to how we handle the community development administrator position, though, and then I'm recommending to the board that we Page 7 January 2, 2002 have a subcommittee set up to interview hearing-examiner candidates that will be comprised of a member of the Board of County Commissioners, a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the Development Services Advisory Committee, a member of the Environmental Advisory Committee and then one staff member appointed by the county manager to sit on a subcommittee to make that recommendation on who the hearing examiner would be. But to answer your question, we're probably about four to six months away from having the hearing examiner put together, you know, having him in place. And the way the board has currently constructed the hearing examiner process, conditional uses, the hearing would be with the hearing examiner, but it would be a recommendation to the board on conditional uses. The hearing examiner would not make the final determination at this point in time. MR. SAVAGE' Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. It's my feeling that the commission just doesn't trust the judgment of staff; is that correct? You don't have to answer that. That's my feeling about that. I think they probably want to take the blame themselves instead of pointing the finger, "You did it wrong." You know, it's amazing to me they have such little confidence in their staff, and I'd like to tell them so one of these days, and I will tell you so. (Laughter.) MR. SAVAGE: I think it's ridiculous that we don't allow ourselves to have a staff that can use good judgment, and they do -- they do. And I'll tell Mr. Coletta that and anybody else in the county commission. MR. ANDERSON' About the hearing officer, when that was approved, it's my recollection that the commission did not want to assign him any more responsibilities until they had fixed the Land Development Code. This is the third set of Land Development Code Page 8 January 2, 2002 amendments in the last 12 months. Is the fix in now so that more responsibility can be given to the hearing examiner? MR. DUNNUCK: I believe -- well, I believe to a greater degree what the board committed -- I brought the funding of the hearing examiner to the Board of County Commissioners about a month and a half ago, and I gave them the option of whether they wanted to do it on a contractual basis and have somebody from the outside because recognizing that if you only had the hearing examiner doing variances and conditional uses, he wasn't going to be spending a lot of time, you know, and it wouldn't justify a full-time position. As part of that executive summary, I reported to the board that I -- looking at the big picture, I thought transition-wise it would be much better to have a full-time hearing examiner because the board has indicated that if we make those fixes we will go to a more progressive program which would be final decisions on conditional uses and -- and, you know, whether we've got the board to commit to the PUD type of program right now where the hearing examiner would be hearing PUDs as well, I'm not sure. I think they want to see it in place for a little while, but certainly we need to get that hearing examiner hired and up and running, and that's why I'm bringing this executive summary forward to the committee so we can-- we can begin the advertisement and selection of the person. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Anything else? MR. DUNNUCK: That's it on that one. The next one is resumes for Development Service Advisory Committee members. There's four resumes and four positions available. You know if the committee wants to review and make a recommendation to the board, it's certainly their option. MR. LONGO: John, do you know the categories they're supposed to be filling? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, the categories, I believe, are Page 9 January 2, 2002 engineering, you know, construction, what is vacant right now. You know, it's never a specific category. It's all a recommendation of the actual ordinance itself. So I kind of looked at this as you've got four positions available, you've got four people who have applied. Historically the commission has always appointed those four people that have applied if there's only -- if there's four positions available. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. Who sent the letters out? I think I'm at the end of my term, but I never received a request whether I was interested in renewing. I don't have to be appointed again, but I -- I should have gotten a letter. MR. DUNNUCK: It's handled by the county commissioner's office, and I'll verify those because, as I said, we were -- we were provided a list of the resumes, and that was about the amount of the detail we received. MR. ABBOTT: Sue Filson called me about it and said she was handling it, and the only one I think she said at the time, you know, that everybody reapplied or did not. Bruce didn't want to. MR. ANDERSON: No. I applied. MR. ABBOTT: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: And I said if another-- because they didn't have enough applicants and that if another attorney applied for the attorney position then to remove my application. That's what happened. MR. ABBOTT: Okay. MR. ESP1NAR: Mr. Chairman, Marco Espinar. Which of the four that are vacating right now? Charlie's one. Bruce is another. Who are the other two? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: David Correa. MR. ABBOTT: David Correa was the other one. David Correa told me that he would not reapply. He had other fish to fry. MR. ESPINAR: So you're one. Bruce is another. Dave is the Page 10 January 2, 2002 third and Herb's the fourth? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Well, we haven't been able to confirm. MR. DUNNUCK: I've got it right here. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. Is that shown that a letter was sent off to Herb Savage there? MR. DUNNUCK: This does not, no. This is only my list that we dug out of the file. MR. SAVAGE: They probably knew who it was and sent it to him because Itm in the City of Marco Island. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Well, I mean, is there anything that would preclude us doing Herb as a write-in at the end -- so we could recommend Herb over one of these other applicants if we so desired? Okay. MS. RAUTIO: Point of order, since he didn't apply, you may want to make it very abundantly clear that he didn't get his notification because, technically, he has to apply to be recommended. Joyceanna Rautio, former member and Planning Commission person. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman, Marco Espinar, are we voting for new members today? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: recommendations. I think we're looking for MR. ESPINAR: Recommendations. I'd like to make a recommendation that we accept some of the incumbents and then take it from there and see who else is left, and then we can vote from there. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Well, we have two incumbants that have expressed a desire to return. MR. ABBOTT: Two and a half. MR. SAVAGE: One and a half. Page 11 January 2, 2002 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Anyway -- MR. SAVAGE: No respect. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So we have Charlie Abbott and Herb Savage as desiring to come back. Tom? MR. PEEK: Tom Peek, the other two positions -- I would -- I know Tony Pires. He's got a lot of experience. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Right. And that would fill Bruce Anderson's spot as the other attorney. MR. PEEK: I would like to recommend Justin Martin. Justin has been on our utilities subcommittee for a number of years and been the mainstay of getting a lot of the utility and code work done in the last year and a half or two years and has been greatly involved in that and would make an excellent member of this committee, particularly as a liaison with the utility subcommittee. So I would like to recommend Justin Martin. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Do we have a second on that? MR. ESPINAR: I'll second. MR. SAVAGE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That's the start of your motion. MR. ESPINAR: That's right. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Amended by Tom. MR. ESPINAR: That's right. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. All in favor of those recommendations say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Next order of business is our-- actually, do we have a particular item that you'd like to get -- Page 12 January 2, 2002 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. No. I'm just sitting here to witness what's taking place. I'm very proud of you-all. You, too, Mr. Savage. MR. SAVAGE: You know I'm very quiet about my opinion. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: With that, let's -- let's go ahead and move on to a FEMA update then. MR. LONGO: Mr. Chairman, I sat down with Bob Devland and Patrick White last week, and we sent off the final appeal for whatever we had to send off last week to make the final appeal, and our 90-day process was up I believe last -- on the 28th. We don't have a response yet from FEMA, so we don't know where we are. All's we know is that we have a packet of about an inch and a half thick with rebuttals to their wave setup, and from what we're being told by the consultant, if his numbers are correct the proposed FEMA maps would go back to nearly what they are today, which means the proposed increases are anywhere from 1 1/2 to 3 1/2 feet in some sections, B Zones to B-E Zones. With new calculations on the transects and wave setup, we're projecting, if we win, that the FEMA maps will go back to where they nearly are right now. They will probably accept the Golden Gate study and assign some numbers to Golden Gate. That doesn't mean that those residents out in Golden Gate Estates are going to get tagged up to -- upwardly to $1,200 per unit flood insurance that currently don't pay flood insurance right now. We don't know what our -- what our response is going to be until we get something back from FEMA. At that point they can either say it goes to mediation or they just dismiss it promptly and tell us an effective date for the maps to go into effect. At that point Patrick and Bob Devland and Gene Chartrand would go before the county commission and ask them whether they want to go to litigation or take it to the Court. The politics of things is we've opened a huge can of worms Page 13 January 2, 2002 nationwide because their wave setup and their modules that they're using -- models that they're using could be flawed which means that everything they do on the coast could be flawed across the nation. There's big bucks involved in this, so we'll see how the politics play out. You know, we spent three years on this, and I hope our hard work pays off, but we're the David against the Goliath right now trying to get that slingshot going. We'll see what happens. MR. DUNNUCK: What I've been told is that we asked for the procedures on the transect zone on what -- on what their methodology was, and on every case that we challenged it and sent our surveyors out there and followed their procedures they were off; that they had incorrectly done the individual studies in every case and that they were also supposed to procedurally do other measurements that they did not do as part of the study. So that's -- from our perspective it seems like we have a pretty strong case. MR. LONGO: We were pretty well stonewalled by FEMA. The FEMA office when called -- we asked for their backup to their calculations and stuff. They responded by telling us it would be $19,000 in documentation. We responded by saying, "Let us come up there and pull the documents we need, and we'll pay for those," and they would not let us. So Patrick had been on that. I don't know quite what the response was back and forth legally on that, but we did mention that in our letter, and we documented chronologically the request for information and the no answers or the noninformation that we didn't get back. So we can only make three-quarters of our case based on scientific fact because we didn't have some of the backup to go against, so to speak. (Mr. White joined meeting.) MR. ABBOTT: Say it again since he just walked in. MR. LONGO: Oh, Patrick can probably enlighten us as to where it went. I was just telling them about the FEMA response, Page 14 January 2, 2002 Patrick, and where it was going. MR. WHITE: Patrick White, assistant county attorney. It was timely filed. We'll have the board ratify that action next Tuesday. MR. LONGO: And then we're just waiting to hear? MR. WHITE: Yes. And we're contemplating the need to expend perhaps another $4,500 that may or may not already be out there for the purpose of getting some Freedom of Information Act information that we've been requesting for about three months and the Feds have been kind of back and forth with us on it trying to isolate specifically what we need. MR. LONGO: Nineteen thousand went to forty-five hundred based on the information we could truly say we needed, and we think we have some monies left over. Gene's not here today and-- in the original budget that was budgeted and allowed for by the consultant, so we may have up to $6,000 left in there. If not we'd have to go back before the board and ask for a little bit more money. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. I just want to say that, you know, did we ever sit and say thank you to Dino or Dalas who's on that committee? Who else is with you on that group? MR. LONGO: Charlie. MR. SAVAGE: It just amazes me how great it is that somebody small as they might seem stands up to the big -- which is it -- Goliath or the other one? MR. ABBOTT: MR. SAVAGE: Goliath. It's not like Marco Island. But it is wonderful, and I just compliment them tremendously for that. And also John Dunnuck and this whole staff to sit up and say, "Hey, you big Goliath, you know, this is it." And I think we ought to put up the $4,500 and we ought to take litigation and encourage Marco and Naples and all of us to do that. Page 15 January 2, 2002 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you, Herb. I think we all agree. Subcommittee reports. Bob, I don't believe we've had a meeting. No land development construction code? MR. LONGO: The only thing I'm concerned with -- and I need to ask Ed Perico -- is how we've come along on our administrative ordinance to enact the -- MR. PERICO: The ordinance. MR. LONGO: -- okay, I'm not sure that we need to see that. I think we probably should. MR. ABBOTT: See a copy of it. MR. LONGO: Yeah. It's the proposed -- what's going to happen is your construction ordinance is going to be deleted and your new one administrative ordinance is going to come out, because the new code takes place of our construction ordinance basically. The only thing we add or staff has to change is the administrative code and they need to enact that and it has to be passed by the county commission in order for him to enact the new code or put the new code into effect and that's now March l st? MR. PERICO: Correction. The code doesn't have to be adopted by the board. That's mandated with or without the board's approval. It's just the administrative portion of the code which is done which is strictly, you know, department policies is what it boils down to. It has nothing to do with the building codes in any way, shape, or form. MR. LONGO: Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought you had to pass the administrative ordinance in order for us to enact the code? MR. PERICO: No. MR. WHITE: No. MR. ABBOTT: So what's happening the 9th? MR. LONGO: The 9th they're going to -- what they're going to do is they're going to go before the board and show them the new Page 16 January 2, 2002 administrative ordinance, and they're going to vote on it. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman-- MR. PERICO: Wind-borne debris maps. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. White. MR. WHITE: That's correct. The primary reason for bringing it forward on the 9th of January is so that will timely meet the deadline essentially of March 1 because of a rule change that -- I'm not sure it was a rule change or statutory change. I'm more correct to say a statutory change -- the legislature and special session last month published or promulgated, more correctly, and as a result in order to be timely with our wind-speed maps we needed to get them in as soon as possible, the January 9th date being that for us. And by way of doing it in one combined effort we put in the administrative code Chapter 1 provisions of the Florida Building Code changes to parallel those that were in the prior construction code. We will bring it back to you so you can review it. If you have anything that you'd like to make as further suggestions or comments, we'd be happy to look at those. Essentially we went back and replicated what was in Chapter ! amendments to the SPC to put them into the FBC and adopt the maps. MR. LONGO: I'd like to see the wind-borne debris maps before they go before the county commission just so we have a chance to look at them. MR. PERICO: Those -- those have been on the web. They have been publicized. MR. ABBOTT: Are those the same ones? MR. PERICO: The same ones that I had here, the ones before the committee. Nothing has changed on them other than we've taken and really fine-tuned them to one-wind-mile increments instead of a ten-mile wind increment which really is a fine line, you know, more detail showing them. We brought it before our committee which Page 17 January 2, 2002 there was a member from the Florida Building Commission who made the comment at which we didn't know he was at this commission. We got sandbagged. And he said if anybody in the state had done it-- had done it and there would be no problem with the wind-borne debris maps. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. PEEK: Question -- Tom Peek. What is the implementation-- implementation date of the code now? MR. PERICO: Right now March 1st. MR. SAVAGE: Maybe. MR. PERICO: That's why I said right now it's March 1st. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. I don't believe we had a utility code meeting and ad hoc committee on fees. MR. LONGO: Ad hoc committee on fees. We kind of didn't have a meeting last week. We're still working on that. We're working on getting the planning side with the level of service. I think that's going to come into play a whole lot more this -- this first quarter with a little bit of reorganization that's going on in the planning department, but our intent still is to come back to this committee on a recommendation of what we're going to do on the planning side as far as charging fees. We need to develop a level of service that's -- that's comparable and acceptable to everybody, and at that point we can start taking a look at time frames of getting permits out. No matter what they are we're looking at overlapping from the permitting side to the planning side and getting some stuff out of the planning side that doesn't need to be there that's sitting on people's desks and shouldn't be reviewed by the planning side and so forth and so on. I would assume, Denny, that we will have another meeting this month yet. We need to get on it. And we need to make a recommendation within the next 30 to 60 days, so if-- I don't think Page 18 January 2, 2002 we can get it done in one meeting, but we're close. We've developed pretty much the levels of service that we think we can handle and then we'll get with staff to come back and tell us where we need to be. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Thank you. With nothing under new business -- MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, Denny Baker. Dino -- Dino, I think you're right on target. I would add to that that we should consider looking at the process as well in terms of what are the requirements for current planning, for example. Why does current planning need to see paint specs, for example -- MR. LONGO: Exactly. MR. BAKER: -- and those kinds of things? We need to examine those along with turnaround times. MR. LONGO: The current incoming president of CBIA, Todd Gates, is -- one of his goals this year is to get a subcommittee to work on that, because he's primarily in the commercial building business. There are a lot of crossovers and faux pas between planning and permitting to where you can't get a PUD or an STP unless you get a building permit in some cases, and it has nothing to do when you're going horizontal. So those type of issues we need to work out between us, staff, and Denny. Right now we're trying to get that, and I believe we're going on a tracking system similar to the permitting side that once it goes into a department, say, it's architecture review on the planning side, we'll be able to track when it went in, when it came out, how many letters went out for a rejection, so forth and so on, the timeliness of a contractor or developer in getting this information back. So when someone says, "It took 40 days to get a permit out," we find out it really was the developer not getting his information back or was staff on vacation or whatever. We'll be able to tell that Page 19 January 2, 2002 MR. ABBOTT: Right now they're doing that all by hand. MR. BAKER: Add one other idea. I prepared an executive summary with John's assistance to go forward to an upcoming meeting to the board that is asking for $220,000 to Fund 113 to pay for wireless technology for the inspectors. And some of you fellas have probably heard about this. What we wanted to do is provide the 30 inspectors with handheld PCs that dial the computer here realtime constantly during the day, updating constantly whenever an inspection is being made, providing the history, providing the reasons, the final notes. This is -- according to Ed and his staff we will pick up an hour and a half per day of productivity per inspector. For 30 inspectors that's obviously 45 hours per day pick up, and most of that will come from the inspectors not coming in using the office in the morning. They won't come in in the morning to pick up their trucks and also not returning their trucks in the afternoon, taking their trucks home. So this is a very huge impact -- productivity pickup with a payback in less than one year. I want you guys to know that because we're going to go forward with this unless someone has -- MR. LONGO: I guess my concern would be to take a look at it. We're talking a 3 percent reduction across the board in development services, and now you're going to come back and ask for a $220,000 line item somewhere. MR. DUNNUCK: Well -- and I think from our perspective we had mentioned this to you in a presentation we did on technology about six months ago. But from our perspective -- and I think Denny hit the key point -- it pays for itself real quick. And through efficiency and quality of inspections and I think that's what we were gearing towards and that's how we have structured the executive summary to show the return is within a year for the board and that Page 20 January 2, 2002 certainly we do have the reserve money, and we think this is a good, viable project for them to move forward with. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. ABBOTT: One comment on that. The back half of Tom -- or the second paragraph of Tom's letter here, that sign sounds just fine and good, and I applaud your thinking and all that kind of stuff, but you also cheerfully blow us off on other things. The way we did the quick push on the utility impact fees and we asked for information, and that's the second time in my service on this committee that I've seen the commission and staff just run right across us, and I just think that they hear you-all come and just tell us we're just going to do it. MR. DUNNUCK: Which letter is that? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah. I was going to address that under member comments. MR. ABBOTT: You-all don't need to treat us quite so cavalierly. You know, we spend a lot time doing what we do. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I'll tell you I didn't bring it as a copy, but I will tell you that I have submitted a memo to the county manager expressing how the process, in my opinion, failed during the utility impact fee issue and what we need to do better, and he has verbally concurred that we're going to go ahead. One of the major things we had, frankly, was that Phil Tindel, the impact fee coordinator, was not involved in the process of coordinating the effort. And I had a major concern about that and, Dino, when Ed's got to gear his people up to be able to handle these things and, I mean, it has a significant impact when we go through here. Procedurally we are working on a set of stringent procedures that we are going to bring back to you-all, but I think it's what you're looking for, and I think -- I don't think it went unnoticed what your recommendation was -- Page 21 January2,2002 MR. ABBOTT: That's twice now. When we did road impact fees, at one time we had a couple of quickie meetings and, bam, it made no difference. We asked for the data. We had no problem on approving fees or impact fees or whatever. We certainly like the ability to be treated as grown people and have the information presented to us so we make intelligent decisions and still it might happen. But the contemptuousness of the process here alarmed me big time, enough to make a political issue over it. MR. LONGO: We're not trying to point fingers, John, but we've expressed this concern before that this committee is charged by ordinance to review everything that affects the industry, and when we're not allowed to do our job fingers get pointed. And they can get pointed at county, get pointed at developers, and get pointed at this committee, but the whole -- the whole idea of this committee by law is for us to be able to take a look at that, and I'm still adamant and still want to see two oversight committees on transportation and utilities and besides the AUIR reports every year because we know they've been skewed. We know they -- with no offense to anybody sitting in this room -- that things have not happened right in the last couple of years, and we are behind -- and people getting that are getting blamed that shouldn't be blamed. Growth shouldn't be blamed for not paying for growth because growth does pay for growth if it's done efficiently and on a timely basis. If the school system can do it and they can put up four or five hundred million dollars based on the taxes that they're getting, certainly we can do it with roads and sewers. But if we don't know what's going on and we don't know how -- who's accountable for not making the decision or making the wrong decisions, then these committees are kind of useless. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That's what I tried to tell John a little bit in this letter, and I -- and I look forward to anybody that can give Page 22 January 2, 2002 me any additional points that might -- maybe added or something to clarify that letter then I'll go ahead and send it off to the board. Go ahead, Joyce. MS. RAUTIO: Joyceanna Rautio. I just would like to observe that for the amount of time that I was on this committee one of the difficulties we did encounter is not having a good interface with public works. We talked to each other. We had a technical committee that I was in charge of, but not having the physical presence in this room the public works leaves you at a disadvantage, and apparently it hasn't completely improved. There may be some things on the utilities subcommittee, but you truly need to find some way to make sure that a representative or somebody is talking to you- all from public works, which is the impact fees that went through. I got a lot of those e-mails, and I appreciate staying in the loop. And the same issue with transportation. And as an observation about the two new people in charge of transportation, they have come from the state level, and they have a different environment in which they have worked. I don't think they are sensitive yet to the value of this committee and the value of the input that the industry gives and other contributions that are made. So, you, as a committee, need to make an effort possibly through the chair to make sure you have somebody that's talking to you from transportation and from public works. MR. LONGO: And we discussed that before. MS. RAUTIO: We have. I've been here a long time. I spent years of my life in this particular set of meetings. I really want to encourage you again to keep that open dialogue and if you can find a new creative way to do it do it, because I recognize that you-all were left out of the loop dramatically with the public works issue and impact fees. And I know exactly your frustration. A number of people talked Page 23 January 2, 2002 to me about it. I want to encourage you to keep doing that. And whether or not -- as I spoke to Mr. Dunnuck on Monday when I got on my soapbox about certain issues, truly you need his office to try to coordinate to make sure public works has a presence here and transportation has a presence. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All right. I would just add I think -- over this last process with public works, I think the utilities department, anyway, seems to understand a little bit better that they need an active role with our subcommittee especially. MS. RAUTIO: That's encouraging. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So there is forward progress being made. MR. ELLIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm David Ellis. I would concur, and I would encourage you-all to stick to that. I think once they discover it's not punitive to come to you-all -- it seems like they almost feel like they have to come here, and it's like a penalty for doing what they want to do, and I think they'll find that with your help and then your support that those efforts will go forward much better. And I concur with what Mr. Longo said in terms of oversight. You know, we live in a county that went several years without building roads, and no group got together to say, "What about those roads?" And we had a sewer spill on the north end of town that potentially could have paralyzed this industry that you-all are stewards over. Time and again I applaud the commissioner while he's here for the proactive things they did to work through that and the staff to work through that. But there was nobody looking over their shoulder going, "Aren't we getting kind of near the top on this plant?" Somehow or another we need to have a better oversight. There's so many brilliant people in this community that understand those processes that would willfully and freely give their input, and I think the county does itself Page 24 January 2, 2002 a disservice by not really trying to draw that information out either through this committee or through another group. It doesn't really matter to me, but I think -- you know, again, I say that knowing that our county has tons of committees and oversight groups, but I tell you on those two big areas we're doing ourselves a huge disservice when no group is working with the county staff and augmenting their efforts, and maybe you-all can sort out a way in the future on how we could do better there. We got to do better. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may add and tell you for a fact the commission does appreciate your efforts. I'm sorry we don't follow your advice 100 percent of the time, but believe me, the thought process that goes into it helps us greatly to make our decisions. I do read the minutes from your meeting. Sometimes I got to admit they're kind of boring. MR. ABBOTT: Only when Herb's talking. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But, no, your work is appreciated. It wouldn't hurt occasionally if you have something profound coming up where you want to weigh in possibly if you have the chair from your committee make an appointment with the different commissioners to visit them or divide up the commissioners and just make an appointment to see them. They can individually question you and get into your mind to see where you're coming from. I regret I can't make every one of your meetings. I hope I can make them at least three or four times a year to get a feel for where you're going. Whatever you do, don't give up what you're doing. My God, keep your opinions even if ours don't seem to be going along the same direction. Bring the facts up and everything. I assure you that even though we're not reaching the same conclusion you are your opinion is weighted in our decision very heavily. In other words, keep working for nothing; we'll double your salary next year. Page 25 January 2, 2002 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We appreciate the fact that you're here. It goes a long way toward making me feel better, at least I think, about our efforts. And with that we can lead into any other member comments. Tom. MR. PEEK: I have one. Back to John Dunnuck's report earlier about the hearing officer, the process and the selection committee and the composition of that committee. I think you informed us that perhaps there be at least one member of the Development Services Advisory Committee. MR. DUNNUCK: That's my recommendation to the board. MR. PEEK: I would like to recommend Bruce Anderson, because I think Bruce -- although Bruce may not be a member of our committee at the time that committee functions -- Bruce has probably got the best qualifications of any of us sitting here to be on that selection committee since he's been a member of our body for eons and he is a practicing attorney. He knows the codes and he has to deal with this judicial area that we're getting into for the approval. So I'd like to recommend Bruce as our representative on that committee. MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. You're talking about the hearing officer selection committee? MR. PEEK: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: I agree with you 100 percent. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So we have that based in the form of a motion? MR. SAVAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor of recommending Bruce for that? MR. ABBOTT: Wait. Ask him. MR. PEEK: Craft an approval without giving him the opportunity to back out. MR. ABBOTT: It's only fair that he speaks. Page 26 January 2, 2002 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Get Bruce to leave the room. MR. PEEK: Would you serve? MR. ABBOTT: We'll take that for yes. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. I'm interested in that we get somebody qualified and good, yeah. So I'd be willing to do it if you guys get a shot at putting somebody on there so ... MR. DISNEY: Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: recommendation. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: With that, all in favor of that Any opposed? We're all in agreement. MR. PEEK: I have a second question. Earlier Mr. Dunnuck also said we, perhaps, need a special meeting between January 9th and January 23rd. Do we want to pick the date for that meeting at this point? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I'm wide open. MR. DUNNUCK: You want me to do a poll of all the members to find out, or do you want me to do it here right now? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Here now. MR. DUNNUCK: Okay. MR. PEEK: Two weeks from today is the 16th. MR. SAVAGE: How about one week from today is the 9th. MR. PEEK: He said between those dates. MR. DUNNUCK: We could do it on the 9th. I mean, we can work on that date. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Will we have the information to actually -- MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah, because it'll be going to the Board of County Commissioners. Page 27 January 2, 2002 MR. BAKER: The sooner the better. MR. WHITE: And at 5:05 there will be the second of the two LDC public hearings. MR. LONGO: Right. We need to set the code -- construction code meeting for three o'clock next Wednesday which is the 9th. Okay. And then set your meeting for the 16th. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: At 3:30? MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. MR. ABBOTT: So it's the 16th. MR. DUNNUCK: I will let Mr. Schmidt know. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. John Dunnuck, I have not read and remember the details of the definition of the -- this Development Services Committee. Does it say in the code in that ordinance, whatever it is, that we work with -- other departments of this county work with us, or does it say anything about that? MR. DUNNUCK: I think it says you represent the development community and that we need to work with you. It doesn't specifically say by department. MR. SAVAGE: They work with us. MR. DUNNUCK: Exactly. And I will take your recommendation to make sure we have representation from the public works utilities and the transportation section. MR. SAVAGE: Do they have an advisory committee, as we have, of interested builders and developers? MR. LONGO: We talked about that, and I thought the definition last year when we talked about this that they fell under this DSAC. MR. DUNNUCK: I agree. MR. LONGO: They're supposed to have representation here reporting to this committee just like you guys do on the development services side. They should be coming to us on a monthly basis and Page 28 January 2, 2002 telling us what's going on. MR. DUNNUCK: I will work with the county manager's office to make that happen. MS. RAUTIO: Point of question here, did we not at one point in time say we were going to change the agenda to always have a member of public works on here? And that was when Mr. Cautero was still here, and then Mr. Dunnuck is here, so maybe you-all could agree one more time if put an item on the agenda maybe someone from public works will start showing up. That's a solution we tried. I've been off this meeting -- commission now for, what, two years and two months or three months, and it's not on this agenda that I'm looking at. MR. SAVAGE: MS. RAUTIO: Why don't you come back? I'm having too much fun at the Planning Commission, thank you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Charlie. MR. ABBOTT: The committee doesn't represent the development industry. I don't think we were quite set up that way, were we? We have several other members around that are not development oriented for that purpose to temper us as a group. So I wouldn't say we represent the development community. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Pat is going to enlighten us here. MR. WHITE: Patrick White, assistant county attorney. Section 2-1037, function, powers, and duties of the DSAC, to serve as primary communication link between the community development services division and the development industry which includes environmentalists, designers, developers, and contractors involved in both -- COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Would you slow down. MR. WHITE: I'll pick up from "development industry, which includes environmentalists, designers, developers and contractors Page 29 January 2, 2002 involved in both site work and building construction." That's one of 13 separately enumerated functions, powers, and duties, but I think it's the broadest brush. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. Anybody else have any comments? Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: I just want to thank you-all for serving with you for the last eight years. I've enjoyed it. My two terms were up. I was appointed to another committee. I feel it's time for some new blood, and thank you-all. Keep up the good work and keep me on the mailing list. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We will. We appreciate all your efforts. Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Similarly I would like to say the same thing. It's been a great experience for last 16 months for me, and this is my last meeting at DSAC, and I'd like to thank you-all too. I think it's been a good experience for me, and I really learned a lot from you- all. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Now, are you going to stay on a certain period during transition time? MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah. I'm going to help Joe, obviously, with the transition, but-- you know, as I was advised in coming from a military background, I'm supposed to give him the keys and walk out into the sunset for the most part. MR. SAVAGE: That's his military background. How about yours? MR. DUNNUCK: Mine's over in parks and rec. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, when is our new director coming? MR. DUNNUCK: Monday. MR. ELLIS: David Ellis. In that vein, on the 16th John and I tentatively scheduled -- I say tentatively scheduled because we Page 30 January 2, 2002 haven't, I guess, heard from Mr. Schmidt yet, but Mr. Schmidt is going to come to a meeting of our CBIA office since our normal governmental affairs meeting is Wednesday the 16th at noon. It would be an opportunity for many of you that would like to, perhaps, meet with him and ask questions. It's pretty open and candid. It would be a good opportunity to, perhaps, to express concerns you expressed today. It would be an appropriate time to get that ball rolling with him and begin to discuss things with him, at the same time hear his vision for the department. By then he'll have at least found his way to the restroom and know his way around the office. He'll be able to speak a little bit about his vision. Again, so if you want to tentatively write that down, the 16th, and maybe check with me on Monday or Tuesday of next week and for five bucks, day-old sandwich and a warm coke. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any other nonmember comments before we depart? MR. WHITE: One point of order, Mr. Chairman. I didn't understand that Mr. Anderson was at this point kind of concluding his lengthy and certainly worthwhile service for this committee, but we just earlier had selected him to do something for you as a member of the committee. I'm a little confused. If he's part of you-all in your sending him forth to work on the hearing examiner officer thing, that's fine with me. As you-all know I kind of put myself out there as a person who's going to submit a resume for that position. Regardless, I feel compelled wearing my assistant county attorney hat to say, if he's your representative then, fine, do so as a vote of the committee, you know, with the understanding that he's not part of DSAC but rather as your representative. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That was the motion. MR. WHITE: All right. Page 31 January 2, 2002 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: The motion included the fact that he would no longer be a member of the committee but because of his lengthy service and understanding of the operations -- MR. WHITE: Thank you. MR. DISNEY: I guess it's a question more than a comment. I was reading the newspaper over the last week, and I saw the article about the temporary parking lot here for development services and the fact that that had not been permitted. Is that an accurate statement? I take into question anything that shows up in the Daily News, but I just wondered what our status was and whether I could be enlightened on what the issues might be. MR. DUNNUCK: The transportation division, obviously, you're aware we're planning on doing a building expansion and parking garage. One of the things we had negotiated with this park was that we would have property set aside so that while we were building it we could build them both simultaneously and have a staging area and move our vehicles out of the way. Transportation division started. They had a pre-op meeting, and I think they just got a little bit ahead of themselves as far as making sure the permits were -- you know, they had their ducks in a row there, you know. We caught it and, you know, we notified them and talked to them and said, "Let's make sure that we're doing it correctly like everybody else is." So that's where it is. MR. DISNEY: So a submission has been made and drawings are in here for review and they're running the normal course and the normal process and six weeks from now a permit will be issued? (Laughter.) MR. DISNEY: Is that where it's going? MR. DUNNUCK: I think I got baited into this one. Something along those lines. MR. DISNEY: Something along those lines, or will we as -- as Page 32 January 2, 2002 a county project accelerate this so that it is so much quicker than the general public could get? MR. WHITE: Economic development. MR. DUNNUCK: I think that-- MR. SAVAGE: As public works. MR. DUNNUCK: I think we probably will accelerate it. I mean, I don't think there's any question about that. MR. DISNEY: But it's going to run through the normal course, and we're going to have architectural review on the parking lot and all of the plans. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, the holdup was the landscaping. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That is normal. MR. SAVAGE: I have a rubber stamp. MR. LONGO: I would like to thank Bruce for his efforts, and you're outstanding. You always say your peace. You always are professional, and I appreciate your input, and I learned a lot from you. John, I appreciate what you've done in the last year. You worked real hard in turning things around. It's been a pleasure. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, one final question that I might say -- Herb Savage -- asking Dino, when we talked about $4,500 a while ago, the monies that are available still from the City of Naples, City of Marco Island and the county, do we still need to make an appeal to them for additional funds? MR. LONGO: I don't have that answer. Gene Chartrand would be able to tell us that unless John has that answer, but there's an accounting of monies already spent. There's $100,000. Patrick has that answer? MR. WHITE: I don't have a precise answer. I can tell you how we're going to address it. We're going to look and see when the final bills come in from Thomas Elliot Consultant Engineers or the filing of the appeal and get that last set of bills in, we're going to look at Page 33 January 2, 2002 what monies were originally allocated versus what's been expended from the county side and see how much is left and do the same thing from the city side. The city had originally committed to $50,000 to this. I don't know to what degree they may have revised it, but I can assure you that if we need to ask for more money we're going to assuming, of course, that we hear on next Tuesday that the board actually wanted us to file the appeal that we filed -- assuming that to be true -- and take it from there. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. With that entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. ABBOTT: I'll make the motion. MR. ANDERSON: Second. MR. SAVAGE: Last final action. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Seconded by Bruce. All in favor. (Unanimous response.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:3 5 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE TOM MASTERS, P.E., CHAIRMAN Page 34 January 2, 2002 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD Page 35