DSAC Agenda 06/05/2024If you have any questions or wish to meet with staff,
please contact,
Rey Torres Fuentes at (239) 252-5727
Growth Management Community Development
Development Services Advisory
Committee Meeting
Wednesday, June 5, 2024
3:00 pm
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr.
Naples, FL 34104
Growth Management Community Development
Department
Conference Room 609/610
1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
For more information, please contact Rey Torres Fuentes at (239) 252-5727
or at Rey.TorresFuentes@colliercountyfl.gov
Development Services Advisory Committee
Agenda
Wednesday, June 5, 2024
3:00 pm
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104
Growth Management Community Development, Conference Rooms 609/610
NOTICE:
Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the
time. Speakers are required to fill out a “Speaker Registration Form”, list the topic they wish to address, and hand
it to the Staff member before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and speak into a
microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During the discussion, Committee Members may
direct questions to the speaker.
Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to
conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order
and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing
Reporter can record all statements being made.
1.Call to order - Chairman.
2.Approval of Agenda
3.Approval of Minutes:
a. DSAC Meeting – May 1, 2024
b.DSAC-ROW Meeting – April 29, 2024
4.Public Speakers
2
For more information, please contact Rey Torres Fuentes at (239) 252-5727
or at Rey.TorresFuentes@colliercountyfl.gov
5.Staff Announcements/Updates
a.Development Review Division – [Jaime Cook]
b.Code Enforcement Division – [Thomas Iandimarino]
c.Community Planning & Resiliency Division- [Christopher Mason]
d.Building Review & Permitting Division- [Richard Long]
e.Public Utilities Department – [Matt McLean or designee]
f.Housing Policy & Economic Development Division. - [Cormac Giblin]
g.Growth Management Dept.
Transportation Engineering Division – [Jay Ahmad or designee]
h.Collier County Fire Review – [Michael Cruz, Assistant Chief, Fire Marshal]
i.North Collier Fire Review – [Chief Sean Lintz]
j.Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division – [Michael Stark]
k.Zoning Division – [Mike Bosi]
6.New Business
7.Old Business
8.Committee Member Comments
9.Adjourn
FUTURE MEETING DATES:
July 3, 2024 – CANCELLED
August 7, 2024 – 3:00 PM
September 4, – 3:00 PM
3
May 1, 2024
Page 1 of 18
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Naples, Florida
May 1, 2024
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory
Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on
this date at 3 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management
Community Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 Horseshoe Drive
North, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Chairman: William J. Varian
Vice Chairman: Blair Foley
James E. Boughton (excused)
Clay Brooker
Jeff Curl
David Dunnavant
John English
Marco Espinar
Norman Gentry (excused)
Mark McLean
Chris Mitchell
Robert Mulhere
Laura Spurgeon-DeJohn
Jeremy Sterk
Mario Valle
Hannah Roberts–AHAC non-voting
ALSO PRESENT:
Jamie French, Department Head, GMD
Brett Rosenblum, Supervisor, Project Management, Development Review
Thomas Iandimarino, Director, Code Enforcement
Christopher Mason, Director, Community Planning & Resiliency
Drew Cody, Supervisor, Project Management, Public Utilities
Cormac Giblin, Director, Housing Policy & Economic Development
Lorraine Lantz, Interim Manager, Transportation Management Services
Linda Naples, North Collier Fire Review
Michael Stark, Director, Operations & Regulatory Management
Jason Badge, Supervisor, Project Management, Ops & Regulatory Management
Richard Long, Director, Building Plan Review & Inspection, GMCD
Diane Lynch, Management Analyst II/Staff Liaison GMCD
Rey Torres Fuentes, Ops Support Specialist I, GMCD
4
May 1, 2024
Page 2 of 18
Any persons needing the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the
audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Community
Department.
1.Call to Order – Chairman
Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3 p.m.
A quorum of 10 was present in the boardroom; three members joined later.
2. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Foley moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Curl seconded it. The motion passed
unanimously, 10-0.
3. Approval of Minutes
a.DSAC Meeting – April 3, 2024
Mr. Foley made a motion to approve the April 3, 2024, DSAC meeting minutes. Mr. Curl
seconded it. The motion passed unanimously, 10-0.
4.Public Speakers
(None)
5.Staff Announcements/Updates
a. Development Review Division – [Brett Rosenblum, Supervisor]
Mr. Rosenblum said the DSAC subcommittee had a productive meeting with staff on the
Right-Of-Way Handbook updates recently. Staff has a few more items we need to work on,
and we hope to meet again within the next few months.
Mr. Curl said an issue that came up with Cecilia a year or two ago was sight distances relating
to rotaries and FDOT standards. He was wondering if it’s in the Right-Of-Way handbook. It
was fairly new at the time and he doesn’t know if it was locked down.
Mr. Rosenblum said he didn’t believe they’d discussed that much but he added it to their list
of things to look into.
Mr. Curl said the project was Lintree Medical Center. She had me add a detail to the plan to
put those on there. It makes sense because it’s in the right-of-way.
Mr. Rosenblum said OK.
b.Code Enforcement Division – [Thomas Iandimarino, Director]
Mr. Iandimarino provided an April update:
•Contract Licensing issued 14 citations for unlicensed contract or working outside the
scope of their license, the two most common violations.
•Code Enforcement has been opening up cases on expired permits that haven’t been
CO’d. There are some outstanding fees on those old permits.
•Operations & Regulatory Management is doing a lot of the pre-work, contacting
contractors who need to pay the last fee or complete a final inspection. They’ve done a
lot of work. If they can’t get further movement, they turn it over to Code Enforcement
for us to issue a notice of violation. They’ve given us about 10 cases in the past week,
5
May 1, 2024
Page 3 of 18
and that’s just a small percentage of the old, expired permits out there. That’s going to
be a long, ongoing process.
[Ms. Roberts joined the meeting at 3:04 p.m.]
•We had interviews this past week for three vacant code positions. Hopefully, they will
go to HR and by the end of the week, we’ll send some names forward.
Chairman Varian said two to three years ago, when Jonathan Walsh was still here, the
number of expired permits was about 20,000.
Mr. Iandimarino said they’ve only handled a small percentage.
Chairman Varian asked if they were going all the way.
Mr. Iandimarino he’d let Mr. Stark speak about that, but they’re going back to the most
recent ones that are possible to reach and will slowly move backward into what we can get. It’s
going to end up going to the property owner many times if the contractor doesn’t exist
anymore.
[Ms. DeJohn joined the meeting at 3:05 p.m.]
Chairman Varian said he remembered the vast majority were HVAC change-outs, purchasing
heaters, and single inspections.
Mr. Iandimarino said yes and no. Some of them are simple, while some involve one violation
but there are three inspections that are still there so it may be three cases but it’s only one case,
so it depends. They said there are 24 or 26 elements but it turned out to be 10 individual cases
out of all those permits.
Mr. Brooker said a few years ago, they decided those efforts were too much to take on and the
county decided to let the home resale process cure it over time. In other words, you try to sell a
house and the buyer says there are permits you need to close out before buying the house, and
they’re going to let the process mature itself over time. So why are we thinking this is too
much because John Walsh was looking at 20,000?
Mr. Iandimarino said he can’t answer why houses aren’t turning over fast enough.
Mr. Long told the board:
•At one point, we had 150,000-170,000 combined with both software systems. We
started working through them and the task of going after those would require a building
department four times our size so we try to let property sales and transactions clear that
up. It was easier for us to be reactive and let the property sales clear them up.
•Since then, the state enacted several statutes that have made it easier to clear those up.
•He believes Mr. Stark is moving from the most current and going backward to try to
clear up some cases so that 10 years from now, we’re not looking at another.
•20,000 is kind of accurate for CD, plus we’ve worked through many and
administratively closed many so we’re doing it the easiest way possible.
•What’s left is the past six years and it’s substantially complete. No life-safety elements
are involved. The building official can close it, but there’s a built-in fee and he can’t
waive the fees.
6
May 1, 2024
Page 4 of 18
Mr. Dunnavant said they come to a building owner and the tenant and contractor are gone and
you can’t close it. Because it’s expired, you have to reactivate the permit. You have to change
the contractor, you pay the fees, then work your way out of it and it often holds up current
permits, so it’s very painful.
Mr. Long responded:
• Commercial is definitely more complicated. When we issue permits, we will issue it as
an informational condition and tell them they have old permits open, but we usually
don’t hold up COs for it.
• We had a case with a theater with a 15-ton AC unit that was changed out on the roof
that had fire inspections and fire system control hooked up. It was never inspected, it
was part of the new theater and owner, so we had to get it cleared up before issuing a
CO. Those are some of the complications.
Chairman Varian noted that the new legislation triggered this. We thought the property
changeover would deal with it.
Mr. Long said we deal with the majority of them. We’d like to hit net zero, move forward,
close things out, and develop a program to alert people about permits they need to close out.
Through awareness and education, homeowners, and contractors, especially homeowners, are
more attuned to what they need to close the door on.
Chairman Varian said Realtors had their eyes on it and were hot about that for a while.
[Heard after 5.d]
c. Community Planning & Resiliency Division [Chris Mason, Director]
Mr. Mason reported:
• He told DSAC last month about Lee County and its partnering jurisdictions within Lee
County’s borders and the struggles they were facing. That’s still going on but Collier is
holding steady.
• This isn’t over with and he expects further FEMA requests. We’re ready to answer any
requests.
• About three weeks ago, we had a community-assisted visit with the state and went to
Lee County for their EOC event with state floodplain management officials. We spent
about three hours going over processes for substantial damage determinations and what
we do for floodplain management. That went very well.
• He, our floodplain coordinator, and William Lang were at the Florida Floodplain
Managers Conference last week and two Lee County employees came to our
presentation and asked questions about substantial change. We’re well versed in it.
Mr. McLean said he’s done a waiver to the 50% rule in the past on a historic project. He’s got
a historic project and knows he’s going to exceed the 50% rule, so we’ve done a waiver
process or a variance process to get the 50% rule waived. Is there a methodology that if he has
an existing building that he can’t get within the 50% rule, a building with a substantial amount
that the owner doesn’t want to demolish that building and start over. Is there any waiver
process, an appeals process? Maybe it’s a contributing factor to a historic district or something
that’s not a designated building, is there another avenue to get a waiver?
7
May 1, 2024
Page 5 of 18
Mr. Mason said Collier County doesn’t have many historic structures, so staff hasn’t faced
that scenario. FEMA has provisions for reviewing historic structures. Puerto Rico is a
participating NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program) community and has tons of historic
Spanish colonial structures in the floodplain, so there’s obviously a method. He wouldn’t call it
a waiver, maybe a variance process. They’re not going to alter or lift a 16th-century Spanish
colonial structure, so there is something in place. He can look it up for him.
Mr. McLean said that in the city, we did it on a historic house through the Zoning Board of
Appeals, a City Council subcommittee. He feels FEMA has a variance process. What if it was
a non-historic structure?
Mr. Mason said that the community could issue a variance, but it would go against NFIP
compliance standards.
Mr. McLean asked if it would affect our NFIP.
Mr. Mason said absolutely.
Mr. Mulhere said he’s done about three (variances) over the years and they were always for
something that was a public benefit project, like bathrooms near the beach, and even those are
hard to get. It must be 24 feet above, handicap accessible, with a ramp that goes for miles.
Years ago, we could get them, but it’s gotten hard because of the risk to the Community Rating
System (CRS). They’re checking to see if you’re granting these variances.
Mr. Mason said that technically, in Collier County, we have not granted any type of floodplain
variance since 1994.
Mr. Mulhere said oh my God. He said he did a few.
Mr. Mason said there are some from the late ‘70s up, about 100 because he’s reviewed that
information, but the variance process is something we’re not involved in when it comes to
floodplain management standards.
Action Item: Mr. Mason will look up the FEMA variance process for historic and non-
historic structures and provide that information to Mr. McLean.
d. Building Review & Permitting Division [Richard Long, Director]
Mr. Long reported:
• We’re still doing 1,000 inspections a day.
• We performed 8,230 reviews last month on the building side.
• There are 1,546 reviews pending on the building side.
• We’re 10 days out for residential and structural reviews.
• We’re 20 days out for floodplain.
• Permitting staff processed more than 50,000 activities in CityView last month,
processing permits from intake to issuance. That’s an extensive amount of work.
Chairman Varian said that on the building permit application, there’s a section on the
description of work asking, “How detailed do you want it?” He got kicked out on one
involving a shower being changed out. The description was: “changed tile, including drywall,
minor plumbing,” and it got kicked out because that wasn’t enough for the description. What’s
the policy?
8
May 1, 2024
Page 6 of 18
Mr. Long responded:
• The policy is to try to identify what reviews will be needed and if a design professional
will be needed.
• An Alteration Level 2 requires a building or a design professional unless it’s minor and
you seek the building official’s opinion. He may waive that.
• We’re trying to determine who needs to look at it, what are you really changing?
• It doesn’t need to be a 100% description, but it needs to be a really good description of
what you’re doing, what trades will be involved, if you’re opening up floors, etc.
Chairman Varian said we have all that on the plans, plumbing work, electrical work, etc. It’s
clearly written on the plans and on the application, he always says minor electric and plumbing
will be done.
[Mr. McLean joined the meeting at 3:13 p.m.]
Mr. Long said that’s awesome, but the intake staff needs to figure out who needs to review it.
They don’t open plans up to look at them. They’re not licensed as plan interviewers, so they
don’t go into that depth. We’re still working on getting rid of that application form so that may
solve that but you’ll still need to write a description.
Chairman Varian said this is the first one that got bumped out, but it’s the same as what
we’ve been doing all along, so that surprised him.
Mr. Long reminded him there was a roughly 50% turnover in staff, so it’s always a training
exercise.
Mr. Mulhere said he looked at an older motel on the East Trail for rehab for someone and he
sent me an email from an architect who asked a question. It said it may have to do with the
dollar amount of the permit or the 25% rule, that you can’t replace more than 25% of the value
of the entire property or the entire property has to be upgraded. I thought it was 50%.
Mr. Long said it is 50%. We use 20 for our CRS rating and of those points, we use 25% to
require the 50% documents.
e. Public Utilities Department [Drew Cody, Supervisor-Project Management]
Mr. Cody provided an update:
• FDEP permit numbers are average, a bit clustered down.
• We’re having deviation system issues again, so we don’t have that chart. It’s at the
point where it’s hobbling along and we’re working with IT for an in-house option to get
away from our vendor because our vendor has consistently been unable to not only fix
the things that are breaking but stop more things from breaking.
• We hope to have better news in the next two months. He doesn’t expect a quick
turnaround but we’re still processing them.
• We still have the ability to pull records but our ability to report on them isn’t great.
• If you’re not getting your deviations, let us know. There’s more than just two
employees putting them in. The two of us got used to compensating for the vendor.
• If you’re not getting approvals, objections or providing resubmits, let us know. One of
the utility planning team members will go in and clear comments and get a disposition
for you.
9
May 1, 2024
Page 7 of 18
• There are several things that are intermittently breaking, including our notifications to
you, to us, to everyone.
f. Housing Policy & Economic Development [Cormac Giblin, Director]
Mr. Giblin provided several updates:
• Last month, he provided an update on the Live Local Law and the upcoming
community forum.
• The forum took place and was well attended, and we got some good ideas.
• At the last Board of County Commissioners meeting, the County Attorney’s Office
asked staff to have the board issue guidance on how to interpret the use of the Live
Local Act, and the board was presented with two questions.
• Where can you use Live Local? It can only be used in straight zoning, commercial,
industrial, mixed-use, straight zoning, or can it be used in a PUD zoning that contains
commercial use and industrial use or mixed-use.
• The board issued guidance to staff that says we can only apply Live Local in straight-
zoned areas. An Attorney General opinion was issued last summer to the City of Delray
Beach and it concurred that they could only apply it in straight zoning because the
statute says “properties zoned commercial, industrial and mixed-use.”
• The second question was: How do you determine the highest density and the highest
height that a Live Local Act project qualifies for? Using that same logic, the board
determined that densities and heights related to PUDs should not be applied. You refer
to the LDC and Growth Management Plan to determine the highest height and density
in the county, which is 25 units per acre.
• That’s the board’s latest guidance on how to apply the Live Local statute.
• At the end of the last board meeting, Commissioner Hall discovered it might cause
issues with some previous approvals, so there might be more to come on that issue.
• The nuance is that when the statute outlines where you can use it, it says property zone.
When it outlines how to apply it, it says any property within the county where
residential is allowed, which, using the same logic, includes PUDs, so there may be
more to come on that.
Mr. Brooker said Live Local says you don’t have to go through any public hearing process
and it’s automatic administrative approval. A question he’s heard around the state is what if
you’re in a district that requires public-use hearings for things other than building height or
density, architectural standards, or special historical standards that do require you to go through
a public hearing process? Has the county encountered that? If so, what is the county’s position
regarding whether a public hearing process is needed?
Mr. Giblin said we have not encountered that yet. The way he reads the law is that it seems to
exempt you from all of that.
Mr. Mulhere said that from a density perspective, he doesn’t think the previously referenced
92 units per acre on the Mini Triangle PUD dropping to 25 will have any real impact because
unless you’re building a very tall building on a very small lot – in which case he doesn’t think
you’re agreeing to do 40% of the units at 120% or below the median income – 25 units is
probably more than enough. He doesn’t see that being an issue.
10
May 1, 2024
Page 8 of 18
Mr. Giblin said the hindering factor in the application of the Live Local Act has been other
site design regulations, setbacks, parking, water management, etc. So it could have been 1
million units per acre, but there’s only so much you can fit on a piece of property that meets
those other standards. It might be a bit on the lower side because we’ve got site-specific
companies and plans that have been approved recently that include affordable components that
have been in the 30-unit range.
Mr. Mulhere asked if they were approved.
Mr. Giblin said yes.
Mr. Mulhere said he’ll have to research that.
g. GMD Transportation Engineering Division
[Lorraine Lantz, Manager-Transportation Planning]
Ms. Lantz answered a question asked last month about Whippoorwill Lane:
• Our traffic operations group has not received any complaints regarding the operations
connecting Whippoorwill and Marbella Lakes.
• Initially, they received some complaints about the signal timing on Livingston and
Marbella, but that was addressed.
• If there are specific issues regarding gate maintenance, etc., that’s more for the HOAs
and maybe Code Enforcement to address, but they are not aware of anything else.
Mr. Curl thanked her for looking into that.
Mr. Mulhere said he’s working with someone who owns property on the Wilson Boulevard-
Immokalee Road intersection and we’re under review. He knows somebody, probably Jacobs,
is working on an updated design for that intersection.
Ms. Lantz said two projects are going on, the design of Wilson Boulevard, going from
Immokalee Road down to Golden Gate Boulevard, and that project is through Jacobs, which is
working on the design. She doesn’t know the specific time frame.
Mr. Mulhere asked how many miles it was.
Ms. Lantz said it’s long, but HNTB Corp. is working on Immokalee at Randall and that
includes the corner of Wilson, so two consulting firms are looking at it.
Mr. Mulhere said we understand there may be some need to look at stormwater and also,
depending on how that intersection is designed, we don’t want to wait 10 months. He’ll send
her an email.
Ms. Lantz said you can coordinate with us. Dennis McCoy is the project manager working on
the Wilson project and the Immokalee project.
Mr. Mulhere thanked her.
Mr. Brooker said Commissioner Saunders and the board recently requested that traffic signals
on Immokalee Road be desynchronized, where that section was terrible. He’s started to see
some changes. Has that work commenced?
Ms. Lantz said there has been some signal optimization on Immokalee Road and some
restriping. They’ve restriped Valewood to I-75 on the westbound side so you can drive straight
or make a right turn instead of it being a right-turn-only lane. That’s optimized some of the
pavement that’s already there so people can make the move to I-75.
11
May 1, 2024
Page 9 of 18
Mr. Brooker asked if she was aware of any traffic signal resynchronizing.
Ms. Lantz said they were looking at that but she doesn’t know where it is in the process.
h. Collier County Fire Review [Linda Naples]
Ms. Naples provided an update for April:
• We reviewed 581 building plans for an average of three days.
• There were 44 planning reviews 44 for an average of two days.
h. North Collier Fire Review [Bryan Horbal, Captain]
(No report)
i. Operations & Regulatory Management Division – [Michael Stark, Director]
Mr. Stark provided April updates:
• In CityView, we don’t have any flags but staff are rotating to different sites and had
4,979 permit applications.
• We’re between 400-500 daily and it takes about 1½ days for the intake process.
• We are seeing a slight increase from last month with customer calls and the number of
customers, 1,334 to the Business Center and satellite offices.
• We’re using staff from different locations to do reviews.
• At Orange Blossom, we haven’t had many customers and it’s been close to zero over
the past couple of months. Most of that is attributed to online applications,
improvements to CityView, and other enhancements.
• We’re currently working on our version testing and Mr. Badge has an update on your
text messaging request.
•
Mr. Badge told the DSAC:
• We began version testing, which we were starting when he last updated the DSAC.
• We found a few problems and are now on our third service pack of fixes from the
vendor for the issues we fixed.
• We started trying to test the text notifications this past week with the latest service
pack, and it didn’t even allow us to schedule an inspection, so it’s not working at all yet
and we have a ticket into the vendor.
• We’re hoping they can get that turned around soon so we can retest.
• We’ve still got a few bugs we’re working out.
• We’re about three weeks behind schedule with what we projected originally because of
the different fixes we needed.
• Staff will come in this weekend to finish testing that we need for the current service
pack, and we hope to find out if we need another service pack or need to wait for some
internal bug changes that need to be made by the vendor to solve the issues.
• We’ll keep you posted.
Mr. Stark said Mr. French would speak about some quick items. We want to provide
information to the industry as quickly and compliantly as possible. You’ve heard from intake
and Rich Long’s group that we try to seamlessly move things as quickly as possible through
12
May 1, 2024
Page 10 of 18
the pipeline and CityView. We’re going to talk about our fees, the fee structure and where
we’re headed next.
Mr. French told the DSAC:
• The Productivity Committee was here last month and asked him and Mike many
questions about the financial structure. They’re focusing on fees and don’t understand
how he continues to operate and what he’s done.
• The baseline is inspectors. A few years ago, we fought hard to stop the attrition of
employees to other communities. The Board of County Commissioners under former
County Manager Mark Isaacson was able to secure board authorization to provide
enough raises to remain competitive with the market. That came at a cost.
• Although he’s proud of not raising fees over 14 years and lowering them instead,
inspector costs now are about $58 for an inspection, and he’s charging $45. We have
bled down and we’re in our final year of reserves. He’s bled reserves down smartly.
• Through the budget process, he’ll be able to demonstrate where he’s taken the
remainder of the capital fund that we set aside for this building, the hardening and
maintenance that was long overdue. Those projects will be completed shortly.
• Between the building shutters and ensuring the building is always open, we had to get a
generator and an AC replacement. We went from the old Decks cooling units to a
chiller system. All of this was budgeted out over the years, a 10-15 year process.
• There’s a little over $3 million left in that fund, which will carry him into next year.
After that, we’re done. There is zero overtime that he will approve. We’ve been
mandated to do a 10% cut against our budget countywide due to the Board of County
Commissioners and the budgeting process. They want to see where we can save money.
• Unfortunately, he was probably the only one who was doing it for the last 10 years, so
the rest of the county is feeling the effects of what was left over, decisions that were
made when the former administration relied on a strong reserve fund balance, as well as
avoiding a rollback in tax rates.
• He often cites the Paradise Coast Sports Complex. The county spent over $120 million
on a beautiful facility but budgeted nothing for maintenance. We never have. We’ve
always relied on the next tax year to carry us forward so we have shifted positions.
• He’s no longer paid out of Fund 113 and Fund 131. He’s pretty much solely Code
Enforcement and Fund 131 now because he wants to keep people employed, so we’re
moving around positions to try to find funds. It’s a good budget exercise and we have
enough reserve fund balance from the past to carry us for the next 18-20 months.
• If there’s a spike, we’ve got only one plumbing reviewer.
• If you’re not in a revenue-generating position with this organization, he’s freezing
positions as staff leaves. That includes employees who answer the phone, help at the
counter and review permits online. We won’t end up shutting down. We will always
meet the state law, but state law gives him 30 days, which he doesn’t want to do.
• He’s established a level of service. You’ve trusted him and he’s always tried to be
forthright. He’s at the point now where he had a discussion with the Collier Building
Industry Association (CBIA). We’re probably going to have to back those fees, at least
on the inspection side.
13
May 1, 2024
Page 11 of 18
• What he’ll propose to the board is that they allow him to hire another consultant to
conduct a fee study and to make the gap into next year to secure some of that rollover
for future years.
• We’re probably looking at rolling the inspection fee back because at one time in 2009,
it was set at $65 and we rolled it to $45. His intention is to start by rolling it back to $65
per inspection.
• The next one is that in 2017, the Florida Building Commission updated the Florida
Building Code. We don’t charge for FEMA reviews and have seven employees doing
FEMA reviews, which are their biggest holdup and cause the most work.
• It’s a required review that we don’t charge for. It’s not in the fee schedule so that needs
to be addressed. This isn’t as much about refilling the bank as having enough to secure
confidence going forward for the industry. The last thing we want you to do is compare
us to Lee County and for Lee County to be better.
• It’s about offering a reasonable level of service at a reasonable price, so he’ll be
bringing an item back to the DSAC next month that provides a further description.
Mr. French provided an update on a unified countywide code enforcement model:
• It’s a force multiplier, a cost savings.
• Domestic Animal Services’ animal control officers will probably be coming under
Code Enforcement as of June 1. That will go to the board.
• We blended and still have the separation between Contractor Licensing that’s paid by
the industry and Code Enforcement but we want to provide a full-force multiplier by
bringing in Domestic Animal Services (DAS).
• If we show up to a dog case and it’s a puppy mill or they’ve got illegal kennels, right
now, Animal Control Officers go in, evaluate, and may remove the animal and then
they leave. What does the person do? They just refill the unlawfully permitted cages.
That’s a misuse, a zoning violation, an illegal business.
• Our shelter is 30-40 animals over capacity. It’s a big deal, so we’re trying to be smarter
about the way we work forward, much like we do with affordable housing, resiliency,
and economic development. There’s an added advantage to taking a force-
multiplication approach through education, much like we do with code.
• Domestic Animal Services prosecutes all those cases. Six to eight months ago, Special
Magistrate Pat Neal was throwing out 60-80 percent of cases because they lacked
substantial competent evidence, so we took over the administrative end of the
investigation process. For the last four months, we’ve had a 100% conviction rate.
• Tom Iandimarino, who heads Code Enforcement, has a federal law enforcement
background and Tim Crotts, who heads Contractor Licensing, is a former chief
executive officer and was a police chief in the New Hampshire area.
• This is due to the shift from Brenda Garretson to Patrick Neale. Brenda was amazing
and did a great job for many years. She was a good judge but Pat Neale has done a
phenomenal job. We’ve had greater response with less staff effort and we’re able to
utilize and find efficiencies based on how we’ve tried to model this.
• We recognize that for every dollar we have to consume on the enforcement side, that
takes programs away from seniors, kids, daycare, parks, the sports complex, etc.,
because there’s only so much annual taxpayer money and the board sets policy. But
when a rollback year occurs, your service level will drop.
14
May 1, 2024
Page 12 of 18
Mr. French outlined issues and future plans:
• He will return to the DSAC again. He’s already had a discussion with Dom Amico,
Amelia Vasquez, and Kathy Curatolo of the CBIA and they support the fee increases.
We have to do something because next year we’ll be in a bad spot.
• Volume is picking up, the burn rate is high and he’s not going to add staff.
• He’s only going to address the FEMA review and inspection costs and it will cost
money.
• PRMG, Rob Roy’s group, does rate studies for Public Utilities. He’s been before the
DSAC before and is doing other fee studies for the county. It’s already a county
contractor, so he doesn’t have to put it out to bid. We can go through continuing
services, hire them, and work with the Productivity Committee.
• We’re balancing a budget, our burn rate is high, and our employment, gas, and vehicle
costs are up. The electric bill went from about $17,000 monthly to $23,000-$25,000.
These are overhead costs we don’t consider. That’s why he took on Conservation
Collier here. He’s offering to help the County Manager’s Office and the board because
it’s the right thing to do. But he’s hitting them up for rent to try to offset the costs.
• We upped the rent for Code Enforcement and increased Contractor Licensing costs
from $2,000 to $2,500. We can defend that per license.
• You use CityView and are pumping out work for us and we can’t find employees.
We’re at a point where we’re trying to reduce overtime costs. We had unlimited
overtime at one point during COVID.
• All the work we do on permit extensions since Hurricane Irma, then COVID and
Hurricane Ian, all of these have been tolled. They never expire. We did about $500,000
in inspections and plan review work on Hurricane Ian and people are still coming in
today from Immokalee and Orange Tree, saying this is hurricane-related damage, “I
lost a roof tile, so I’m getting a new roof.” He can’t charge them a fee. When he finally
gets to charge the fee, it’s half. The board reduced it by 50% to help people, which is
non-refundable to us. Residents get refunded on their insurance, but FEMA doesn’t
give us that money.
• We can’t collect the money because all the fees were held in abeyance until a certificate
of completion or certificate of occupancy. If you’ve homesteaded, what can he do? He
can’t foreclose on a home. He’ll use Code Enforcement and get a lien but they’ll come
in and settle it at 10% of the property’s value, but that’s free money. He’s got no
enforcement on that.
• They’re smart. They pull owner-builder permits so there’s no contractor involved but
the good news is that we’re shaking down everybody who owes us money.
• These are permits, generator contractors, shutter contractors, roofers who don’t call in
the final and there’s money they still owe us so we’re going after them. We don’t want
to go after their license or livelihood, but they have an obligation to close out the
permit. Often the homeowner has no idea they didn’t get a CO and it pops up when
they go to refinance, do a title search, or get insurance and want a new roof. It shows up
as permitted, but it never got a final inspection.
• Every time he went to the BCC to ask for more help, he had to reduce fees to get help.
• That’s the only way he could get help. It didn’t make sense, so we bled down the
reserves.
15
May 1, 2024
Page 13 of 18
• We’re always balancing up against what the state law says – he can have 50% reserves
to his total budget. We used to monitor that years ago but stopped monitoring it for the
last four years because we’re nowhere near it.
• So he wants the DSAC to know he has to get an item to the Board of County
Commissioners or we’ll start to see a degradation of service because there won’t be
money to pay people.
Mr. Mulhere told Mr. French:
• When you go to the BCC for a fee study, we should authorize the DSAC chairman to
support that in a letter.
• It would be helpful to look at Enterprise Fund revenue by department to see what’s paid
by ad valorem taxes.
• Some county fees are ridiculously inexpensive. For example, a zoning verification letter
is $100. It says it can be more if you have to do a lot of research, but he guarantees it’s
costing the county $500 minimum to produce that, so $100 is not a lot. You do a fair
number of them. There are quite a few things that can be looked at.
• You need to charge what’s fair to recoup the cost because that’s fair to everybody
sitting here, no matter who you represent.
• Mike’s and Rich’s department heads could probably provide a list of things that you
could seriously consider for a different fee.
Mr. French responded:
• That’s what his intentions are. We would start with Fund 113 and then Fund 131, which
will be much more complex. He agrees with you. We’ve looked at that and more
research needs to be done.
• If you go to the records room to look for history on a site, the first hour is free. Beyond
that, you pay the weighted cost. He established that model over 20 years ago and it
made sense then. It’s not a win, but it’s certainly not a loser.
• We’d like to find a way to pay the overhead from the building. Any group that comes
into the building that’s not related to enterprise funds needs to pay rent.
• The board sees a big windfall due to site development activity, but it’s a slow draw.
You could start a project and we could be talking about it for more than two or three
years under the same site development plan and if it expires, we just renew it anyway,
so Fund 131 is quick money up-front, while Fund 113 on the building side is slow
money up-front until you go to work and then we’re drawing down because you’ve
typically got a bond, a construction loan and a client who wants to get it done and out
of the ground.
• The drawdown there is much faster. But just because you’re looking at this activity on
plats, on Site-Development Plans, zoning interpretations, pre-ops. That means nothing
to the Building Department until you apply for a permit and it’s issued. That’s how it
works.
• We could be sitting in limbo for two years from the time a Site-Development Plan is
issued to the time you went to construction, a common occurrence. He cited the
building on Santa Barbara that sat empty for years or the one Randy Johns is working
on now by Restaurant Row, where the tenant is $2 million in arrears to Phoenix
Associates. Randy is putting a lien on the building and subs. Now an attorney and
16
May 1, 2024
Page 14 of 18
banks are involved and there’s a permit hanging out there. There’s no guaranteed
income so it’s hard to schedule against that for an inspection.
• Nova has been a great partner. We’re glad we helped them be successful because they
took the business model they established here and ran with it.
• As good as Berco is, you guys pay a lot more money to Berco and Jason Hill than we
do because we have them locked into a contract at $75-$85 an hour when you’re paying
more for a private provider, probably $100-$150 per hour. When we call them, they
might be able to provide someone in a week or two. Meanwhile, you’re waiting.
• These are things we always felt comfortable with because we had enough reserve fund
balance that it didn’t matter what the cost was for overtime, it was worth it for the
customer service. You probably won’t see a degradation of service for a while.
• We built this to where we could have avoided what we went through in 2009-2010 and
always talked about it so there’s enough money to carry us for the year. But going
forward into that next year, that’s where he’s skeptical, especially with the increased
costs, contracting costs, employee costs, and operating costs. That’s where we’re
thankful that the Productivity Committee came in and they wanted to know and we
wanted to tell them. Thanks to Jeff for bringing them here.
Mr. Brooker generally agrees with what Bob said. You mentioned pre-application
conferences. It’s a pretty cheap, inexpensive process, especially if you go in and the developer
says he’s not going to move forward because you can have eight people sitting around a room.
That’s a lot of time so in general, he agrees. But there’s one example he’s never understood in
the fee schedule because he thought the county doesn’t charge anything more than what it costs
them. It’s cost-driven. For an after-the-fact variance, the fee doubled. That’s punitive.
Mr. French said we got rid of it on the building side unless you had a finding. You had to go
to court. He agrees. It’s just one line item.
Mr. Brooker said he always thought you’re doing the same amount of work.
Mr. French said we haven’t really touched Fund 131 as much as Fund 113 because 113 is
easier.
Mr. Mulhere said you could look at the pre-app. There are many. You’re crediting someone
who submits the cost of that, so if that’s higher, you get the credit if you go ahead and apply.
Mr. Brooker said credit it at 50% of the cost because arguably, legitimately, they’re not being
educated in the depth that we ultimately need. Pre-app is an area where you could see more
money coming in.
Mr. French said we’re not going to leave any stone unturned. It was a third-party independent.
We tried it before with Steve Tindall, back when Joe was here, and it was a disaster, the way
he approached it. We’re going to take a much different approach. And that was back in Gary
Mulley and Schmidt days. He’s different. We can bring in a third party to look at it or use a
DSAC subcommittee. He’d strongly urge DSAC to get a subcommittee together to review the
findings before we take the fee schedule to the board.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
• The time it takes will be industry driven. If we see a spike in service, you’ll see a
change in service.
17
May 1, 2024
Page 15 of 18
• Rich Long is here until Nov. 1, when he retires, and Mr. French is uncertain if his
position will be filled. When John left, he could only negotiate to a certain point
because then it would be fiscally irresponsible of Mr. French to throw around this
money like it was endless.
• We’re stretching the money.
• You’ve seen building improvements and things on the capital side that we’re finishing
up now that were approved four years ago. It took that long to get the clerk to pay a
contractor.
Mr. French said he’ll bring this back to the DSAC next month and he plans to get it on the
board agenda. He believes he has the support of most commissioners, except Commissioner
McDaniel. But he’s hoping the DSAC will help by supporting this.
Chairman Varian asked when the last time a fee study was done.
Mr. French believed it was about seven years ago with a third-party contractor that
recommended increasing fees and we reduced them.
Chairman Varian said it’s always irked him that we’re an enterprise fund. We pay for it and
are willing to pay for it, and we shouldn’t be cut 10%. It always irks me whenever it’s across
the board, but we are paying for this. We’re willing to pay for it. We want to make sure
everybody in this building gets paid properly.
Mr. French said he can’t be the only voice championing that message, but he always
champions it. He appreciates the chair reminding him.
Mr. Mulhere noted that it goes back to Neil Dorrill.
Mr. French responded:
• Thanks to everyone on the DSAC for believing in and trusting him. He won’t let you
down.
• We’re the only county group that’s taken on more affordable housing policy. Hannah,
on the AHAC, and Bob Mulhere are now volunteering for that. It used to be monthly
fighting and Mark Strain dropped off and so did Schmitt because the AHAC was just
arguing. This is the best AHAC he’s ever seen and now they’re meeting every other
month and we’ve dedicated staff to them. They enjoy being here and we love having
them because we’re able to answer questions to avoid more work and can explain what
was said in a meeting.
• Tom Iandimarino is now getting help with Code Enforcement after cases were being
kicked out of court. We brought them in-house because we can adjust it and fix it.
We’re the only group in the County Manager’s agency doing this. This isn’t about
making more money for staff. This is about getting the right people in the right jobs and
training people to replace them.
• He tried to leave once, works at the pleasure of the community, and needs to do
something.
• Your fee schedules went through on the fire district. If not for our staff, Cheryl Soter,
this wouldn’t have happened. Working with the CBIA, we took a unified fee structure
approach so Greater Naples is no different from North Naples. That way, when you’re
quoting your contract, it’s there and covers their bill. We went back and corrected all
18
May 1, 2024
Page 16 of 18
the interlocals’ work, presented it to their board and they accepted it. The only
signature we’re waiting for now is Immokalee.
• We changed the fee schedule so you no longer pay half of Shawn Hanson’s (Greater
Naples Fire District) salary, you pay 100%. The fees went up enough based on our
calculations and activity on the fire side for Greater Naples so it should cover that, as
well as staff within that area, including Tom Mastroberto (county Fire Plan Review)
and other employees there so that’s been a good model. He spoke with Ricardo Eloy
(North Collier Fire Control & Rescue District) about it last night and everybody seems
happy about what we did. It’s coming to the board at this meeting or the next because
they’re already asking for money and currently, he can’t pay her more than half.
Mr. Curl said about nine months ago, he and Jim Boughton brought to his attention the
difficulties getting information about older plans that were scanned. He requested a plan two
weeks ago, waited a few days, and didn’t get what he requested, a county-stamped site plan.
He got a survey with no county stamp that didn’t even show the whole property. It was
worthless. Records staff isn’t getting what’s needed, but Diane Lynch found it in about three
hours and apologized that it took so long. He didn’t pay any money for his request so maybe
that’s the problem, it’s free.
Mr. Stark apologized.
Mr. Curl said he didn’t need an apology. There are tags and ways to search.
Mr. Stark said they’ll do better. He’ll look into what’s causing the problem. Maybe more
training is needed.
j. Zoning Division – [Mike Bosi, Director]
(No report)
6. New Business
(None)
7. Old Business
A discussion ensued about state 404 environmental permits being transferred from the state
DEP to the federal ACE:
• The 404 mess has been in the paper.
• The same criteria about water that was applied by the state that was found
unconstitutional is now being handled by the Army Corps of Engineers.
• There was a 9-0 ruling last week.
• When the DEP assumed that responsibility, they were not using the same criteria.
That’s probably not going to change even with an appeal.
• When Mr. Valle was doing work in Golden Gate Estates, they were applying it that
way, where you had a drainage ditch from an ag field that connected to the end of the
canal. All of a sudden that became water of the state and it’s clearly not what the final
court decided. He thought those ag ditch permits that people were having to go through
from DEP were now going to away.
• Mr. Espinar said you’re talking about two different things. One of them is what the
Supreme Court rules were and changed to the current one. That’s where connectivity
19
May 1, 2024
Page 17 of 18
comes in. That’s the definition of changes. What you’re referring to is the pending
court case. The judge ruled that the DEP had not been enforcing the law as it should
have been, specifically for the Endangered Species Act. That’s where the hang-up has
been. There are some law firms he can talk to.
• Mr. Espinar said the latest ruling from Tallahassee was appealed by the state. On April
23, the appeals judge said they didn’t make their case. As of now, applications and
everything went back to the Army Corps. They didn’t like that the workload was being
delegated to the state. The state employees are easier and faster. He believes the DEP
shot themselves in the foot. He believes they were enforcing the law more stringently
than the feds.
• Mr. Sterk said not everybody is resubmitting to the Corps. They sacrificed species for
wetlands.
• They hung their hat on the Endangered Species Act and demolished the program the
state had in place. Mr. Espinar said they shot themselves in the foot because
environmentally, DEP was claiming farm fields, anything, and everything. By returning
404 permits to the Army Corp, it may alleviate some of that. The Corps downsized their
work stack because DEP was handling it and now it’s all going back to the Corps.
• Mr. Espinar has an application that’s been pending since June. He just sent an email to
them and can’t get anything out of them.
• Mr. Sterk said you’re going to have people in Utah reviewing your application and
they’re not going to step foot here, so you’re not going to have site visits.
• Mr. Espinar said some of the applications are being forwarded to Jacksonville for
review.
8. Committee Member Comments
Chairman Varian noted that the DSAC usually doesn’t hold a meeting around the July 4th
holiday.
[A discussion ensued and the DSAC decided not to meet on July 3.]
Mr. Valle told the DSAC:
• The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 9-0 decision about impact fees, calling it a
taking. He wonders how that’s going to be viewed in Florida because there’s some
language with a direct proportional rate.
• Maybe at the next meeting County Manager Amy Patterson could talk to us about what
they see from that standpoint, if they’ve got any thoughts on it yet. He’s sure county
attorneys statewide are looking at that.
• It’s us and California. Let’s say the Supreme Court case came out of California and
they’ve reverted it back, but they’ve said that you have to have a direct nexus, not just a
rational nexus, and it has to be proportional. So the guy was buying a 1,400- 1,600-
square-foot mobile home and was getting charged $23,000 in road impact fees and
fought it over the last five years, which ended in a 9-0 decision.
Action Item: Staff was asked to see if County Manager Amy Patterson could address the
impact of the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling about impact fees.
9. Adjourn
20
May 1, 2024
Page 18 of 18
Future Meeting Dates:
3 p.m. June 5, 2024
3 p.m. July 3, 2024 – CANCELLED
3 p.m. August 7, 2024
Mr. Mulhere made a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously, 13-0.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order of the chairman at 4:18 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
__________________________________
Blair Foley, Vice-Chairman
These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on ___________, as presented
(choose one) ______, or as amended _____.
21
April 29, 2024
Page 1 of 5
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ROW HANDBOOK UPDATES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
Naples, Florida,
April 29, 2024
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for
the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2 P.M. in REGULAR
SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Community Department Building, Conference
Room #609/610, 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Blair Foley, Chairman
John English
Chris Mitchell
ALSO PRESENT:
Jaime Cook, Director, Development Review
Joshua Hildebrand, County Consultant, Johnson Engineering
Lucia Martin, Project Manager I
Alexandra Casanova, Management Analyst I
22
April 29, 2024
Page 2 of 5
Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording
from the Collier County Growth Management Community Department.
1. Call to Order: Ms. Cook called the meeting to order at 2 p.m.
2. Approve Agenda
(No changes/approved)
3. New Business
a. Proposed ROW Handbook
Ms. Cook: Last time in August when we met, we went through all the chapters and
were left with appendices. Mr. English has been making some progress updating the comments
from the August meeting. Today, we want to focus on getting through the two appendices, which
is straightforward. Appendix C, which is all the details, warrants discussion and input. If there is
anything we didn't discuss or we need clarification on from last time, we want to have those
discussions as well.
Mr. Hildebrand provided a summary as follows:
For note-keeping, reference the page number at the very bottom of each page.
Again, this is your meeting. If you want to take it in a different direction as we get through
the last two appendices, that's perfectly fine. We can do a recap of some of the items we
talked about from the chapters after we get through the appendices.
Mr. Hildebrand: Page 83d are comments that we received from different entities. The first one:
The following additional information shall, upon request, be supplied to the County if the
proposed work involves alteration of a public drainage facility or work that involves or is
adjacent to Water and Sewer District assets.
Mr. Foley: Could you give me some input on the choice of word – adjacent – on ‘work that
involves or is adjacent to Water and Sewer District assets.’ That is subject to interpretation;
immediately adjacent would be directly connected to – I am curious why that word, adjacent, was
chosen. Maybe just give me an example as to why.
Mr. Martin: My guess would be from Public Utilities protecting their assets – meeting their
damage prevention criteria.
Mr. Hildebrand: I can go back after the meeting and see where that recommendation came from.
Mr. Mitchell: It is interesting they didn't add any criteria, they just said if it's adjacent to, so it
doesn’t have a lot of teeth.
Action Item: Further clarification of the word adjacent.
Mr. English: Page 83, Section e3 – regarding following current FDOT standards. Does DOT
have a lot of relevant irrigation and landscape standards? We use them all the time for drainage
and paving, for instance, but not landscape and irrigation.
Mr. Hildebrand: I believe the intent of that comment was to make sure that there are no sight
triangle issues, but that could be further clarified. That's a good comment. They don't have a lot of
23
April 29, 2024
Page 3 of 5
specific landscaping criteria except for the size of landscaping materials of driveways and median
openings to make sure there are no site issues.
Mr. English: If there was site visibility or maintenance of traffic issues, DOT standards should be
followed but add something more specific. If I told my landscape architect, you need to use DOT
standards for his landscaping irrigation he would look at me and say what are you talking about?
Action Item: Further clarification on the intent of FDOT standards.
Mr. Mitchell: Page 85 Item 17 Permits – the length of the permit and the general permits. Where
is that defined?
Mr. English: The permit will expire 180 days after the issuance of the permit unless authorized in
the specific instance for a longer or shorter period. If the work has not been done or completed by
the expiration date, there will be a renewal fee that you can extend 90 days.
Mr. Mitchell: I want to talk about the completion and turn lane improvements prior to accessing
the site. If we have that and adhere to that, then the 180 days isn't that big a deal because they're
going to want to get that done and get it out of the way. But if there is no correlation to the access
for the site and the completion of the turn lanes and certification prior to getting access – which
again think about it, if that is the only access and you're going to turn over a turn lane and you're
putting all this heavy equipment on it, it's probably not the smartest thing that we've dictated to be
done. Also, if you're not doing that, the 180 days could languish because they put it at the end of
it, they'll rock it, they'll do all the other improvements, but they won't certify it until the end
because you've got a bunch of heavy equipment coming through there and damaging asphalt,
could damage the curb, that they will repair at that point in time.
Mr. English: I think that's one of the single largest issues or challenges we face. We talked about
it last time. Everybody struggles with it. Do we want to make that a separate point – the lifespan
of the permit. We have had cases where there's a sidewalk in the right-of-way out front of a
project. That's where the water main is. We need to take out 20 feet of sidewalk to make the hot
tap but then we need to leave a jumper on, and depending on the specifics of any given project,
there is a period before you can tie the water line in. You need to go through a process. You need
to get to a point where it's qualified to test. Then you test and have it certified. Then you schedule
a tie-in before you can repour 20 feet of sidewalk and we've had cases where the projects are
sitting there with a backflow preventer sitting where a sidewalk needs to be repoured. Everything
else is done. Does the permit still need to be valid for that? That's a long period of time.
Further discussion ensued:
Extenuating circumstances – such as a hurricane or recession
Keeping track so that the permit does not expire
Is the fee structure something to look into
Commercial development versus single family – two different right-of-way permits
Different permitting if it is a STP or PPL – different timeframes
Have a different checkmark on the application with different timeframes
Continue to have this discussion and see where it can go
It is an exception and not the rule for a commercial permit to be open for years
Make it reasonable, compromise
Residential is covered; commercial is not – find a resolution to the 180 days versus STP
and PPL periods
24
April 29, 2024
Page 4 of 5
Get an exemption for a mobilization in to start clearing, then start working on the turn
lane
Pave a temporary turn lane, not certifying it complete, which won’t require relocation of
utilities, drainage – it’s a throw-away access to get into the site
Have the people that made the decision come to DSAC and explain the reasoning
This is worthy of an organized meeting to determine what the issues are and how to craft
language and regulations that are reasonable and functional
Mr. Hildebrand: Moving forward:
Page 158 – No changes/approved.
Pages 159-160 – No changes/approved.
Pages 163-164 - No changes/approved.
Page 165-171 - No changes/approved.
Action Item: Page 161 – Industrial-Commercial-Multi Family: Change the 30’ to 25’ ROW Permit
Section
Action Item: Pages 172-173 – Swale Drain Inlet: No Reason to Keep These Pages
Pages 176, 177, 179 – No changes/approved.
Pages 180-181 – discussion ensued regarding ASPHALT DRIVE DETAIL
Pertains to residential driveway connections
Why use SP if it is not verified or inspected
Asphalt driveways need not be permitted in Collier County, only driveway access in the
right-of-way
Does the applicant provide a density test on that part of the driveway
Is this being provided as general guidance
Brick paver driveways must be permitted
Different technologies – grass strips and permeable materials – do we want to capture it
here and if so, how do we do that
Driveways, concrete, or pavers, could stop 20’ from the property line to the connection to
the street which is not uniform
It does say asphalt, concrete, or pavers – include them or come up with a variance
process; come up with alternatives; alternative methods as determined by the engineers –
give flexibility to the homeowners
Why have details – for residential, there is a hole in the process; we are trying to protect
the county’s assets of the right-of-way by having driveways correctly constructed
Keep it relatively simple for people that want to build a house
No Specific Action Taken
Pages 184-185 – No changes/approved.
Mr. Hildebrand: The proposed changes to the indexes at the back, it sounds like we're in general
agreement that a lot of them can be removed and simply referencing the FDOT current indexes in
general. We heard some feedback. We'll go back and double check that one we talked about. I'm
not sure why there was a request to save it, but we'll go back and revisit that.
25
April 29, 2024
Page 5 of 5
And then there's going to be some internal discussions regarding driveway types. I think that was
a good discussion. We got through what we needed to make it through the initial changes to the
right-of-way manual.
Points made by the Board:
We need to have a discussion with all the players involved with the turn lane. It is a very big
issue.
It's important to find out what is the genesis of it. Let's find out where it came from and what
are the concerns. There could be good alternatives.
Ms. Cook: Point well taken, and we're happy to have those discussions. Would you want to see
all these changes that you have recommended from the previous meeting and today’s meeting
brought back to you in a subcommittee or full committee?
We will have our internal conversations and send the information to you by email about both the
permit timeframe and the turn lane issues. We could send it to you at the beginning of June. That
should give you give you time to review, digest, and think about things. We can then schedule the
next meeting in August. We will then have time to update it before it goes to the full committee.
4. Public Comments
None.
5. Adjourn
Future Meeting Date: August, TBD
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
the order of the Chairman at 3:30 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE
___________________________
Blair Foley, Chairman
These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on ________________ as presented (choose
one) ________, or as amended _________.
26
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
May 2024
Monthly Statistics
Growth Management Community
Development Department 1May 2024 27
Building Plan Review Statistics
Growth Management Community
Development Department 2
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-245,317 5,237 4,555 5,173 3,706 3,693 4,051 3,694 4,111 3,878 4,861 4,339 4,809 4,487 4,059 4,616 4,028 3,966 3,657 3,557 3,595 3,876 4,279 4,979 5,088 All Permits Applied by Month
ROW Residential, 108
Building, 718
Solar, 66
Mechanical, 924
Well Permits, 110
Bldg Add/Alt, 433
Pool, 167
Roof, 452
Gas, 202 Plumbing, 299 Electrical, 387
Aluminum Structure, 214
Fence, 209
Shutters/Doors/Windows, 758
Bldg New 1&2 Res, 185
Top 15 of 35 Building Permit Types Applied
May 2024 28
Building Plan Review Statistics
Growth Management Community
Development Department 3
$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
$400,000,000
$450,000,000
May-22Aug-22Nov-22Feb-23May-23Aug-23Nov-23Feb-24May-24Monthly 1 & 2 Family Total
Construction Value by Applied Date
1&2 Family
$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
$400,000,000
$450,000,000
May-22Aug-22Nov-22Feb-23May-23Aug-23Nov-23Feb-24May-24Monthly Multi-family & Commercial Total
Construction Value by Applied Date
Multi-family Commercial
$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
$400,000,000
$450,000,000
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Monthly Total Construction Value by Applied Date
1&2 Family Multi-family Commercial
May 2024 29
Building Plan Review Statistics
Growth Management Community
Development Department 4
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24May-
22
Jun-
22
Jul-
22
Aug-
22
Sep-
22
Oct-
22
Nov-
22
Dec-
22
Jan-
23
Feb-
23
Mar-
23
Apr-
23
May-
23
Jun-
23
Jul-
23
Aug-
23
Sep-
23
Oct-
23
Nov-
23
Dec-
23
Jan-
24
Feb-
24
Mar-
24
Apr-
24
May-
24
Commercial 4 7 4 4 4 6 8 2 8 1 6 6 6 3 4 7 9 2 3 2 1 4 4 5 8
Multi-family 1 8 2 2 3 10 29 7 3 1 3 22 3 1 7 4 15 3 4 5 2 11 3 4 4
1&2 Family 284 316 248 280 234 279 212 219 195 211 246 168 243 221 234 258 240 245 165 183 103 252 174 191 267
New Construction Building Permits Issued by Month
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
May-22Jul-22Sep-22Nov-22Jan-23Mar-23May-23Jul-23Sep-23Nov-23Jan-24Mar-24May-24New Multi-family Building
Permits Issued by Month
May 2024
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
May-22Jul-22Sep-22Nov-22Jan-23Mar-23May-23Jul-23Sep-23Nov-23Jan-24Mar-24May-24New Commercial Building
Permits Issued by Month
30
Building Inspections Statistics
Growth Management Community
Development Department 5
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-2428,704 25,797 25,202 27,873 22,432 21,415 23,966 24,523 24,601 23,400 27,189 23,497 25,741 24,769 22,477 26,462 22,460 25,463 23,917 22,068 23,926 23,645 24,159 24,751 23,695 Building Inspections
Structural,
9,551
Well, 87
Electrical,
4,898
Gas, 638
Plumbing,
3,310
Pollution Control, 33
Mechanical, 2,626
ROW, 419
Land Development,
1,985
Types of Building Inspections
May 2024 31
Building Inspections Statistics
Growth Management Community
Development Department 6
HOA Notified/Phase 1,
392
Milestone Not Due Yet,
424
Phase 2 Required, 2
Milestone
Completed, 147
Milestone Inspection Status
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
MarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMay2023 2024
1 1
5 2
32
12 6 8
3
1 6 5
14
36 34
Milestones Received by Month
May 2024 32
Land Development Services Statistics
Growth Management Community
Development Department 7
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24173 176 175 176 152 138 124 155 184 192 319 287 215 198 194 222 189 190 200 179 197 193 181 188 215 All Land Development Applications Applied by Month
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Zoning Verification
Letter
Short-Term Vacation
Rental Registration
Vegetation Removal
Permit
Site Development Plan
Insubstantial Change
Special Event Permit
165
152
138
116
80
Top 5 Land Development Applications Applied within
the Last 6 Months
May 2024 33
Land Development Services Statistics
Growth Management Community
Development Department 8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-2436352123271831182635333032303027273621212832293030Pre-application Meetings by Month
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-2412 15 8 8 13 7 16 13 30 16 17 11 11 11 16 2 16 6 6 5 9 10 13 8 8 69545286615155525370707355486174857757665136596752Front Zoning Counter Permits Applied by Month
Temporary Use Commercial Certificates
May 2024 34
Land Development Services Statistics
Growth Management Community
Development Department 9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-243 3 3
1 1
2 2
4
0 0
6
2
1 1
3
1
0
4
3
0
1 1
4
0
1
Number of New Subdivisions Recorded per Month
Number of SubdivisionsYearly Totals
Pages
2020 – 152
2021 – 188
2022 – 175
2023 – 100
2024 YTD – 120
Yearly Totals
Lots
2021 – 1353
2022 – 3100
2023 – 1212
2024 YTD – 596
Yearly Totals
Subdivisions
2020 – 25
2021 – 33
2022 – 29
2023 – 21
2024 YTD – 7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-2410
3
12
9 9 11 9
27
0 0
24
9
1
14
21
1 0
11
19
0
5
2
35
32
46
Number of PagesPlat Pages Recorded per Month
May 2024 35
Land Development Services Statistics
Growth Management Community
Development Department 10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-2418788834101982066121057876102849Monthly Total of Subdivision Applications
(PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-2419 16 14 16 8 12 6 9 4 8 10 11 22 29 14 10 10 9 11 10 16 7 14 19 7 Monthly Total of Subdivision Re-submittals/Corrections
(PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month
May 2024 36
Land Development Services Statistics
Growth Management Community
Development Department 11
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-2429 34 32 38 34 29 24 33 36 30 41 44 48 31 33 40 36 30 35 37 40 35 43 38 32 Monthly Total of Site Plan Applications
(SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-2439453548264327383132404246463338354629344335405035Monthly Total of Site Plan Re-submittals/Corrections
(SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month
May 2024 37
Reviews for Land Development Services
Growth Management Community
Development Department 12
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-241,318 1,361 1,203 1,426 1,051 1,138 1,065 1,032 1,146 1,134 1,420 1,066 1,389 1,311 1,137 1,240 1,113 1,429 1,032 1,106 1,205 1,167 1,162 1,220 1,163 Number of Land Development Reviews
Ontime, 97.0
Late,
3.0
Percent Ontime for the
Month
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350 327
119 85 71 56
Top 5 Land Development
Reviews- May 2024
May 2024 38
Land Development Services Statistics
Growth Management Community
Development Department 13
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Total Applied Construction Valuation Estimate
Construction Estimate Utility Estimate
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Inspections per monthSite & Utility Inspections
Final Subdivision Inspection Final Utility Inspection
Preliminary Subdivision Inspection Tie In Inspection
May 2024 39
Fire Review Statistics
Growth Management Community
Development Department 14
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24DaysPlanning Fire Review Average Number of Days
May-
22
Jun-
22
Jul-
22
Aug-
22
Sep-
22
Oct-
22
Nov-
22
Dec-
22
Jan-
23
Feb-
23
Mar-
23
Apr-
23
May-
23
Jun-
23
Jul-
23
Aug-
23
Sep-
23
Oct-
23
Nov-
23
Dec-
23
Jan-
24
Feb-
24
Mar-
24
Apr-
24
May-
24
North Collier 43 48 36 31 29 55 27 41 42 28 46 25 47 56 54 50 37 52 48 57 60 57 37 44 40
Collier County(Greater Naples)59 56 65 73 41 57 46 62 56 68 70 63 82 91 43 43 60 62 50 39 56 53 60 75 61
Total Number of Building Fire Reviews by Month
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24DaysBuilding Fire Review Average Number of Days
May-
22
Jun-
22
Jul-
22
Aug-
22
Sep-
22
Oct-
22
Nov-
22
Dec-
22
Jan-
23
Feb-
23
Mar-
23
Apr-
23
May-
23
Jun-
23
Jul-
23
Aug-
23
Sep-
23
Oct-
23
Nov-
23
Dec-
23
Jan-
24
Feb-
24
Mar-
24
Apr-
24
May-
24
North Collier 777 855 637 800 525 466 449 391 444 450 583 490 692 650 627 636 525 616 543 411 459 406 508 581 684
Collier County (Greater Naples)576 623 383 481 350 422 317 374 347 448 539 408 500 447 391 428 397 442 395 403 382 429 425 552 517
Fire District
Fire District
May 2024 40
105/2024 Growth Management Community
Development Department
May
2024 Code Enforcement
Monthly Statistics
41
Code Enforcement Reports
05/2024
Growth Management Community
Development Department 2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-2421732389255123402169219820352843243421362450Code Inspections Per Month
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24504498493490467501524513665513479504Cases Opened Per Month
42
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
2023 2024
1388
560
4907
1521
Origin of Case
Code
Investigator
initiated
cases by FY
Complaint
initiated
Cases by FY
Code Enforcement Reports
05/2024
Growth Management Community
Development Department 3
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Bayshore Immokalee
33 8
2285
3226
CRA Case Opened Monthly Monthly Case Opened
Total Cases Opened
43
Code Enforcement Reports
05/2024
Growth Management Community
Development Department 4
Animals, 5
Accessory Use, 16
Land Use , 51
Noise, 7
Nuisance Abatement, 82Occupational
Licensing, 9
Parking
Enforcement,
17
Property
Maintenance, 59
Right of Way, 14
Signs, 19
Site Development,
136
Vehicles, 44
Vegetation
Requirements, 22
April 22, 2024 – May 21, 2024 Highlights
•Cases opened: 504
•Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: 260
•Property inspections: 2136
•Lien searches requested: 590
Top 15 Code Cases by Category
44
1
12
1 1
10
25
14
5
9 12
6
15 16
10
20
13
9
10
5
8
7
2
10
0
5
10
15
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Nov-23 Dec-23 Jan-24 Feb-24 Mar-24 Apr-24 RequestsBusiness DaysResponse Time -Letters of Availability
Requests Completed Minimum Average Maximum Requests Received 45
3
6
14
10
3
82
4
3
4
2
5
2
5
4
8
8
1
40
19
9
17
19
21
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Nov-23 Dec-23 Jan-24 Feb-24 Mar-24 Apr-24 RequestsBusiness DaysResponse Time -FDEP Permits
Requests Completed Initial Review Time Revision Review Time Director Approval Time Requests Received 46