Loading...
DSAC Minutes 01/08/2003 RJanuary8,2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE NAPLES, FL January 8, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 PM in regular session in Conference Room "E", 2800 Horseshoe Drive, Naples FL, with the following members present: Members: Charles M. Abbott (arrived at 4:15 PM), Dalas D. Disney, Robert L. Duane (left at 4:43 PM), Marco A. Espinar, Blair A. Foley (arrived at 3:43 PM), Dino Longo, Robert Mulhere (arrived at 3:46 PM), Justin Martin, Thomas Masters, Brian Milk, Herbert Savage, Peter Van Arsdale, Collier County: Tom Wides, Jim Delony, Ed Perico, Ed Riley, Margaret Wuerstle, Patrick White (arrived at 3:40 PM), Denny Baker, Amy Patterson, Joe Schmitt Public: Chuck Mcmanon Len Berringer - William Silvester - Tom Cannon - Rob Potteiger - Nick Biondo - Golden Gate Fire Department Conservancy Golden Gate Fire Marshall East Naples Fire Department East Naples Fire Department East Naples Fire Department Page 1 January 8, 2003 THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Conference Room "E" 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 3:30 PM Minutes January 8, 2003 The meeting was called to order at 3:30 PM. A Quorum was established. I. Approval of Agenda and the minutes of 12/4/02 -Mr. Savage moved to approve. It was seconded by Mr. Milk. The motion passed unanimously. H. Staff Announcements A) Transportation Division Update -There was no new information given. B) Community Development & Staff Announcements -Mr. Schmitt stated that they briefed CBIA on the proposal for the increase in fees. The public meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday at 9AM in the Development Center. They were proposing to raise the evaluation tables, the engineering and planning fees, and decrease the permit fees. The new proposal is to not raise planning and engineering fees, raise the evaluation tables, and reduce the permitting fees. They will propose to raise planning fees by 300% in the "aggregate" and raise engineering fees by 60% in the "aggregate". -Mr. Dino noted that the proposal was a "conglomeration" of the original three options. The raise in the evaluation tables will help to overcome the shortfall, but there is an estimated $2 million dollar loss in FY03 without the planning fees being raised. This option "buys time" to review the tracking system information. -Mr. Schmitt informed the committee that they have hired a new planner and they currently have three available positions. -Mr. Van Arsdale asked if the building fee permits would go up due to the raise in the evaluation tables. Mr. Schmitt replied that ultimately they would go up due to this. He then encouraged the members of the industry to be present at the budget hearings. Page 2 January 8, 2003 -Mr. Van Arsdale asked when the effective date would be and what the percentage would be. Mr. Schmitt informed him that it would be effective in March and the raise would be in the "aggregate" of 22%. -Mr. Van Arsdale stated that he was confused why "the short-term fix" was to raise building fees, while doing nothing with planning fees, even though they know that they have illegally been overcharging building fees and undercharging planning fees in the past. Mr. Schmitt stated, in reference to the legality, that STP reviews go through the building department as well as the planning department, but building is not charged. He added that they are "making a wrong more wrong", but it gives him the opportunity to quickly raise fees, without going before the board, by raising the evaluation tables. He explained that the only two options he has is to use up the carry-over reserves or cut staff. If staff is cut, Mr. Schmitt believes it would leave them in a worse situation. The proposal will go through the public hearing process, the ad-hoc committee, and then return before DSAC for approval as a fee recommendation. C) Public Utilities Division Update -Mr. Delony, Public Utilities Administrator, stated that he brought the annual wastewater and water management masterplan update for preliminary review and discussion. These forms make up the 20-year plan for the county. Documents were included that reviewed the impact fees and how these costs would be retired and the growth related expenditures. In the next couple weeks they will return with documentation on the user fees and rate schedules. There have been some changes since last year's masterplan in regards to focus and meeting demand with liability. Page 2 of the information provided, gave an update of scheduling. It will go before the Productivity Committee on January 15, 2003. On January 21, 2003 the DSAC sub-committee will review the plan, CBIA will also be involved in this meeting. After these meetings, they will respond to any input for the masterplan and then go before the BCC for a public workshop on February 18, 2003. This scheduling is consistence with the timing and sequence of events to last years scheduling. -Roy Anderson, Engineering Director for Public Utilities, stated that there is one masterplan for water and another for wastewater. They identify projects to fill capacity for the required system and build reliability. Mr. Anderson discussed the information contained in the committee's packets that outlined the future projects. Page 3 January 8, 2003 1) Page 12 - This was a copy of a graph that was previously sent to the committee to show the growth curve of the flow of treatment requirements over the next 20 years. It showed that in 2004 they will have an expansion of the South county water treatment plant, a second expansion is planned for 2006, in 2010 there is an expansion planned for the OrangeTree area, and another expansion is planned on the southeast part of the county in 2016. 2) Slide 28 provided recommendations to develop well field sites for the county water treatment facility expansion, develop well field sites for the plant in OrangeTree, improve system reliability (by adding additional wells), and provide backup capabilities. 3) Slide 30 showed that there will be a water transmission main that will go between Rattlesnake Hammock and 951, one on East Immokalee Trail, and an expansion on the pumping station on Goodlette. 4) Slide 31 discussed the expansion of the ASR from 1 million gallons/day to 5million gallons/day. 5) Slide 32 discussed the expansion of the North County Facility to 24.1 million gallons/day and then to 36.6 million gallons/day will become the ultimate build out of the site. The south county reclamation facility will be expanded to 16 million gallons/day. 6) Biowater/wasterwater sludge - They are currently pursuing a private contract for someone to process all the sludge in a recycling manner. 7) Infiltration Inflow Program - The state is pressuring to take the flow out of the system. They will be doing a study to find how bad the problem really is in the North and South system. It will more than likely result in Storm water expansion. -Tom Wides, Public Utilities Operation Director, reviewed what this means in terms of impact fees. 1) Page 17 showed that current impact fee totals are $5530; water is $2690 and wastewater is $2840. These totals represent what an average residential home would be paying today. The update from the new masterplan shows that water impact fees would now come out at $2570 and the wastewater impact fee would become $2950. The net decrease is $10. 2) Page 19 showed that these impact fees for the water and wastewater system will only fund -34% of the capital needs. The impact fees are assessed over the next ten years. He explained that this means that impact fees are not funding the entire package. Page 4 January 8, 2003 3) Page 20 showed that the cost for ERC's in the county: currently $5530; combined water and wastewater, but this will drop to $5520. The main question then becomes the growth of the info structure; this will be the driving force in the county. 4) Page 21: Mr. Delony pointed out that the table on this page could be used to do a comparison of our county's system to other counties in Florida. -Mr. Wides reminded the committee that this is scheduled to go before the sub-committee for a more in depth discussion. He encouraged members to contact him with any questions they may have. -Mr. Longo asked what "external funding sources" are used to make up the funding difference. Mr. Wides informed him that the monies will be state revolving fund loans. He added that the only shared revenue sources are impact and user fees. They cannot dip into the ad valorum taxes. Mr. Longo asked if they use shared revenue sources, then are they planning to bond it now. Mr. Wides replied that the shared revenues will all go into the general fund and they will not be able to use them, so it doesn't affect them. -Mr. Delony encouraged the committee members to contact them with any ideas or questions quickly, so they could incorporate them into the masterplan before it goes to the BCC in February. III. Old Business A) FEMA -Mr. Longo informed the committee that the board decided to move forward with the process. -Mr. White stated that the direction from the city council and thc board was to continue thc appeal/resolution process, begin thc re-study based on thc steps they have taken so far as part of the appeal process, and provide a better idea of pros and cons for a solution involving the cost of seating in thc union. Mr. White did not believe they would be paying a lot of attention to this until May. In May they will have received some feedback from FEMA subcontractors about how well they are "meshing" with their request for methodology to be accepted and approved. He stated the costs to carry through thc restudy process will be an estimated $75,000. The goal is to go through the restudy process before the fucl resolution process. -Mr. Schrnitt recommended that the committee and members of the industry should let the BCC know that the recommendation they had provided was duly Page 5 January8,2003 and fully supported by DSAC and the CBIA. He was concerned that the BCC felt the $240,000 was not well spent, when in fact it was a tremendous investment. The net result is that they are still on a "delayed action" and the maps will not be implemented. -Mr. Savage asked about the involvement of Everglades City and Marco Island. Mr. Schmitt informed him that Marco Island was involved, but because the maps were advantageous to them, they chose not to be an adversarial member of the group. -Mr. Longo stated that the bottom line is, they are able to delay the implementation of the maps, although they will be implemented later on in the year. In the meantime the county is giving the "go ahead" for a restudy and FEMA has committed to helping the county with this restudy. The goal is to be come back with new information from the restudy and hope that this time it will be accepted. Mr. Longo reiterated that it is worth the $250,000 to keep the same person in charge of it. -Mr. Mulhere made a motion that they send a letter to the BCC stating their support of the City Council and BCC efforts in this regard. It was seconded by Mr. Savage. The motion passed unanimously. IV. Sub-Committee Reports A) Land Development Regulation -Mr. Duane stated that they did not have a report for this meeting. -Mr. Duane asked staff if there was another committee that was formed to review the LDC and its revisions. Mr. White informed him that the LDC revisions are primarily being done by their consultant. He encouraged anyone to participate in this process, if they had an interest. Mr. Mulhere stated that he had sat in on a preliminary meeting and would like to participate more. Mr. White stated that the discussions are not formal meetings, but electronic meetings. He added that if anyone wanted to become part of the discussion, they should provide their email. Mr. White updated the committee and explained that the revisions were an attempt to make the LDC more concise, consistent, and shorter. They are attempting to place the LDC on an electronic website and have provide the ability to view the code and its updates on the website. Page 6 January 8, 2003 -Mr. Van Arsdale encouraged anyone, who might have comments or suggests, to speak with Mr. White. B) Construction Code & Ad-Hoc Committee -Mr. Longo stated that Mr. Schmitt had presented the proposed planning and evaluation table increases before the Ad-Hoc committee. -Mr. Longo stated that he and David Ellison would be going before the Florida Homebuilders Association & Governmental Affairs Committee on Friday to make presentations on workman's compensation and the real estate transfer fee. A representative from Goodlette informed Mr. Longo that there was a good chance the real estate transfer fee would happen this year if there is county support. He added that this was another tool, other than impact fees, that is bondable and could help to fund info structure. C)- Utility Code -Mr. Martin informed the committee that they had a utilities sub-committee meeting in December. The minutes of that meeting were provided to the committee. For the next meeting he will have a draft of the proposed changes to the utilities ordinance and the techno-standards manual. The sub-committee also discussed scheduling. In the January meeting, they will be discussing the masterplan update, new impact fees, schedules, and the proposed language for requiring telemetry at sewage pump stations within Collier County. Review and Approval of the Interlocal Agreement with Collier County and the Fire Districts -Rob Potteiger, Assistant Chief of East Naples Fire Department, stated that they have taken the old interlocal that was with North Naples and voted, through the steering committee and all the departments, to have the East Naples Department administer the fire code. Because the office has grown to five people they have made some changes. The changes were underlined or stricken out in the copy provided to the committee. He believed that the changes that were made were positive and added that all the changes were made through the steering committee with the help of the Fire Interpreter's Office. The changes have been approved with all departments involved in the interlocal except Page 7 January 8, 2003 the county's two independent district and the North Naples Department, who will have their meeting tomorrow. -Mr. Longo asked if North Naples had to approve this. Mr. Potteiger stated that they did since they are part of the interlocal and their monies go to support it. If North Naples did not approve it, then it would have to be re-written to take out the North Naples Department. Ms. Rodial, North Naples Fire District, stated that she does not foresee any problems with their approval of this. -Mr. Longo asked if the County Attorney had seen the document. Ms. Rodial stated that Robert Zachary has been working on the document since the beginning. -Mr. Longo asked how the transfer of funds will be happening. Ms. Rodial informed him that it will happen through the interlocal agreement, but it has not happened yet. They are waiting until this goes before the BCC in January. -Mr. Foley asked why the language was changed on page 3, #5. Mr. Potteiger stated that sentence, "The fire district may within 10 working days after receipt of the plan will notify the fire code official of any objections or comments the fire districts may have in regards to review or modifications of the plan" was changed because the three days was not enough time. -Mr. Dino asked what the average turn around period was. Mr. Riley stated that currently it is around the 1 O-day mark due to backlog, but in November it was around the 5-day mark. -Mr. Mulhere stated that he did not have a problem with the 10 days, but he was concerned about the change of language from "shall" to "may", which may allow too much time to pass. Mr. Potteiger stated that they could add a sentence to prevent this from happening. -Mr. Longo asked that these documents be reviewed with the sub-committee first, and then return with their recommendation to the full committee. Mr. Mulhere replied that they need to do it this way in order to accommodate the timeframe, since the fire document will go before the BCC on January 28, 2003. Mr. Mcmanon stated that they had emailed the document to all the members of the DSAC committee two weeks ago in order to allow time for review. Mr. Longo replied that if it had been sent, he agreed that it was an adequate amount of time for review. -Mr. Abbott made a motion to send this document to the sub-committee for review and vote on it after this has happened. Mr. Savage seconded the motion. The motion failed. Page 8 January 8, 2003 -Mr. Masters asked why the reviewer was not an employee of the Development Services Department as opposed to being located through one of the fire departments. Mr. Potteiger replied that the fire districts decided that they wanted one of their own people dealing with this. Mr. Riley stated that this is allowed through the state statutes and these statutes separate building code administration and fire code administration. He added that the fire districts maintain responsibility and because of this, they want to maintain oversight of the office. -Mr. Savage was concerned that there have been too many interpretations in the past and he was under the impression that the 202 code solved this problem. Mr. Potteiger replied that part of this office was to serve the purpose of having one interpretation. -Mr. Espinar was concerned about the same change Mr. Foley had been concerned about on Page 3 #5. He was uncomfortable with the word "may", because he believed it would allow redundant inspections. Mr. Riley stated that this was in the document because some times there is an agreement made with the fire district and they do not have this information. Therefore this statement allows the fire district to come back and inform the county of any historical agreements on the site. Mr. Espinar stated that the problem was that an applicant could obtain approval and then find out two weeks later that it is no longer acceptable. He felt that 3 days was sufficient and the wording should be changed to read, "shall" instead of "may". Mr. Riley replied that it is not always possible to have the review complete in 3 days and they used "may" because it leaves the fire district the "option" for review. -Mr. Silvester, Golden Gate Fire Department, stated that the quality of reviews has increased dramatically over the past few years, so if something comes back to them in this 10 days it is normally a minor issue. He added that this allows them to address these issues through the plan review. -Mr. White suggested that they amend the language to read, "The fire will, to the extent possible, within ten working days after the receipt of the plan, notify the fire districts...". Mr. Potteiger stated that they had no problem with this. Mr. Foley stated that this was the current language being used and there were no problems with this. He added that 10 days is appropriate, but he wanted the "may" changed to "shall". Mr. Van Arsdale stated that he was fine with the language that Mr. White suggested. -Mr. Espinar stated that he had concerns about them having 10 days "upon receipt of the plan", because he believes that it would have the ability to sit on someone's desk for a Page 9 January 8, 2003 while before it is received by the fire district, which will make the process longer than 10 days. Mr. Riley didn't feel this would pose a problem. -Mr. Biondo stated that one of the important points is that they are trying to establish a system of checks and balances. He added that despite when an error is found, it still must be corrected. This system would allow the option of having two reviews, so that they have the ability to find any errors before the building is built. Mr. White added that if a problem arises, despite the timeframe, they are still required to fix the error. He believed that this system would allow the error to possibly be caught at an earlier time. -Mr. Van Arsdale recommended that they used the language earlier proposed by Mr. White. -Mr. Mulhere made a motion to recommend approval of the revised interlocal agreement, with the change to page 3 #5 so that it reads: "The fire district shall, to the extent possible, within 10 working days...". The motion was seconded. -Mr. Foley stated that on page 1 they need to include the language of the uniform building code. Mr. Mulhere amended his motion to include this change. The second was amended as well. -Mr. Longo stated that they are voting on this without the full review from the County Attorney's Office. Mr. Mulhere amended his motion to include that the motion is subject to further review if the County Attorney's Office determined any needs for change. The second was amended as well. -Mr. Van Arsdale stated that on page 2, he preferred the original language, which referred to the fire marshals duties and responsibilities. He felt that it eliminate the concept of striving for consistency in reviews and interpretations. He asked why this language had been removed. Mr. White stated that the language is in the agreement on page 9 #5 at the top, where it discusses the conflict in code interpretation. This section elaborated the mechanism in place to resolve conflicts when they arise. -The fire districts discussed with the committee their attempts to be consistent and the improvements they have made. Ms. Rodian added that Mr. White pointed out the method that they placed in the document to help resolve inconsistencies. She also encouraged committee members to come to the steering committee and feel free to bring up these issues for discussion. -Mr. Longo asked which interlocal agreement the motion was made for. Mr. Mulhere stated it was the one for the county and the fire districts. -The motion was recalled. The motion passed unanimously. Page 10 January8,2003 Committee Member Comments -Mr. Mulhere stated that he would like to know who is sitting on which committees. He asked that this be put on the next agenda. Mr. Van Arsdale stated they would put it on the agenda and asked the committee members to submit any request to serve or leave a committee to Ana Diaz. -Mr. Masters passed out a letter that addressed how he believed they could pull the fire review back into the county office and make the system more efficient. The committee is going to review the document in the future. -Mr. Van Arsdale stated that he would like a formal process established to bring up more specific comments, suggestions, etc.., on new issues. Mr. Mulhere suggested that they place an item on the agenda called "Operational Issues". He added that when it is heard, the committee could decide what type of action they want to use in order to address it; send it to the sub-committee, bring it back before the full committee for more discussion, etc.. Mr. Longer stated that they could address these issues under the item "New Business". Mr. Mulhere agreed. Adjournment - adjournment was at 5:27 PM. Page 11