DSAC Agenda 01/07/2009 R
""
-^
DSAC
Meeting
January 7, 2009
3:30 PM
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Development Services
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
January 7,2009
3:30 p.m.
Conference Room 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 Request Form," list the topic they wish to address, and
hand it to the Staff member seated at the table 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
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.
I. Call to order - Chairman
II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of Minutes from December 3, 2008 Meeting
IV. Staff Announcements/Updates
A. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt
. Discuss possible work hour reduction
. Review times - Building and Planning
. Budget
B^ Transportation Division Update - Nick Casalanguida
C^ Public Utilities Division Update - Phil Gramatges
D^ Fire Review Update - Ed Riley
V. Old Business
A Road Impact Fee Comparison chart - Nick C
B^ Dates for LDC 2009 Cycle - see attached executive summary w/proposed dates discussed at the December 2,
2008 BCC meeting (item 16A8)
C^ Review of DSAC municipal code (functions, powers and duties) regarding future agenda items
VI. New Business
A Chairman and Vice Chairman for 2009
B^ Time change for meetings
VII. Public Speakers
VIII. Committee Member Comments
IX. Adjourn
Next Meetina Dates
February 4,2009 CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30 pm
March 4, 2009 CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30 pm
April 1, 2009 CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30 pm
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review,
Engineering and Environmental Services Department,
and Comprehensive Planning Department
Financial Impact of the Decrease in Fund 131 Activities
General Background
The Community Development and Environmental Services (CDES) Division is responsible for
providing information and services associated with building permits, inspections, investigations,
development plans, and land use petitions for properties located within the unincorporated areas
of Collier County. The Division provides guidance for the long-term use of land and public
facilities to assure quality growth and enhance thc community's quality of life, pursuant to local
ordinances and Florida State growth management laws. Services are provided to the community
relative to long range land use planning, regulatory and governmental oversight of development
within Collier County through competent and professional enforcement of the Collier County
Growth Management Plan, the Land Development Code, the Code of Laws and Ordinances and
the Florida Building Codes, enforcement, management and collection of the county impact fee
program, regulatory oversight of private utilities and cable lranchises within Collier County and
current and long range plans to protect and enhance the County's water, native habitats, and
wildlife resources.
The Division's services are provided by the following primary departments; Administration,
Engineering and Environmental Services Department, Comprehensive Planning Department,
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review, Building Review and Permitting
Department, Code Enlorcement Department, and CDES-Operations and Regulatory
management.
Ad valorem taxes, grants, contracts, building permit and development lees, and utility franchise
fees fund the departments within the Community Development and Environmental Services
Division. Over the past 4 years CDES has adapted to the demands of the industry during the
permitting peaks in FY05 and FY06 and have since taken action and initiated significant cost
cutting measures to adapt to the downturn in developmcnt activities and to the recent economic
crisis from FY07 into FY09, The total operating budget for FY 05 was $58.2 million and the
total number of authorized full time equivalent (FTE) positions in the division was 255.5 FTE.
As permitting demand and land use services grew in the county, our budget dropped slightly in
FY06 to $53 million with the reassignment of some lunctions to othcr dcpartments in the county
but our authorized FTE jumped to 287. In FY 07 the budget and FTF count rose to $61 million
and 3 11 FTE.
CDES began to react to the downturn in the industry in mid 2007 and in doing so prepared and
presented a $40.6 million budget for [-,Y08 with an authorized staff of 297 but funded only 261
positions by freezing funding on 36 positions in reaction to the 28% reduction in building permit
activities and the 38% reduction in land use activities. Similarly. I,)J' FY09 thc total budget
Confidentidl
1/5/2009
decreased an additional 21% to $31.9 million (46% reduction from the FY05 budget) and the
staff was further reduced to 211 funded FTE with 88 frozen positions for the FY09 in response to
a further 25% reduction of revenue in the Building Review and Permitting Fund, Fund 113, and a
27% reduction of revenue in our zoning and land use and development fund, Fund 131.
Only 2 months into the FY09 budget and CDES is taking additional measures to reduce the staff
cost burden and in doing so we have reduced the FTE count in our Zoning and Land
Development and Engineering/Environmental Review Fund (Fund 131) an additional 6 FTE.
The purpose of this paper is to focus specifically on the activities within the organizations that
operate under Fund 131 (Zoning and Land Use Development Fees) and evaluate further
measures that may be required to "right size" the organizations in this fund; those organizations
are the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review and the Engineering and
Environmental Services Department.
The fundamental cause of the current financial crisis is that there is insufficient revenue to
support current operations and the current workload that needs to be processed through staff
reviews and through the public hearing process and to support the assessed allocations and
transfers from Fund 131 to support external supporting operations.
Fund 131 Budgeted Monthly Operating Costs and Fee Revenue, also historical Fund 131 FTE
counts:
FY 09 Budgeted Revenue and Expenses
Revenue
fee revenue
transfers into fund
reserve usage
annual
$6,495,000
$560,000
$640 000
$7,695,000
monthlv
$541,250
$46,667
$53,333
$641,250
Expenses
personal service
operating
allocation
transfers out of fund
annual
$5,303,000
$790,000
$1,082,000
$520.000
$7,695,000
monthlv
$441,917
$65,833
$90,167
$43.333
$641,250
Actual Fee Revenue
Sept $328,000
Oct $401,000
Nov $205,000
I average $311,333 I
Current Revenue Shortfall
Monthly Fee Revenue Shortfall to Budget
Monthly Savings Implemented to-date FY 09
Remaining Monthly
Shortfall
$230,000
-$130,000 operating and personnel reductions
$100,000
ContidentlL11
211S/200f)
Bude:eted Allocations. Below are the current budgeted allocations for FY09. Based on the reduction in revenue, the
CDES staff is working with the budget office to reduce some or most of these allocations based on a proportionate
share ofthe reduced revenue.
Fund 113 Transfers and Allocations Fund 131 Tran~rers and Allo~tions
Receivinll Area Amount :ws Receivinsz Area dmlu!II! :ws
Annual Audit $8,477 Allocation Annual Audit $6,274 Allocation
Building Use $4,137 Allocation
Client System Support $7,758 Allocation Allocation
Commissioners $83,577 Allocation
$56,460
$54,566
Facilities Management $229,715
Finance $67,298 Allocation Fiilance
Fleet Management $15,509 Allocation Fleet Management
Group Health $4,296 Allocation Group Health Allocation
Human Resources $42,668 Allocation Human Resources Allocation
Internal Audit $3,690 Allocation
IT-GIS $4,967 Allocation
IT - Network $154,339 Allocation
IT - Security/Audit $22,929 Allocation
IT - Telephone $4,638 Allocation
Maint of Government
Complex $101,433 Allocation Maint of Government Complex $17,790 Allocation
OMS $16,428 Allocation OMB $13,925 Allocation
Property & Casualty $16,292 Allocation Property & Casualty $1,345 Allocation
Purchasing - POs $9,126 Allocation Purchasing $25,341 Allocation
Security Services ($13,536) Allocation Security Services $4,823 Allocation
Transfer to 001 - HR Rep $92,400 Transfer
Transfer to 301 - Countywide
Capital Projects $39,400 Transfer
Workers Comp $490 Allocation Workers Comp Allocation
Comp Planning Transfer
County Capital Projects
Total Allocation
Total Transfers
$ 911,500.00
$ 131,800.00
$ 1,043,300.00
Total Allocation Budgeted
Total Transfers Budgeted
Total:
$ 1,076,226.45
$ 515500 00
$1,591,726.45
Total:
Confidentii]l
FJnqe J
1/5/2009
Fund 131 Funded FTE
FY06
FY07
FYOS
Budget FY09
Current
Zoning
26
35
35
23
19
Engineering
(Plan Review and Inspection)
27
29
31
20
19
Current Fund 131 Departments
This section is a review of the current major departmental organizations within Fund 131, a
summary of current workload, and concluding with an assessment of one feasible alternative for
minimal staffing to maintain core functions.
Department of Zoninl! and Land Development Review - Current Orf!anization
FTE Count
Fund 131: 19
Fund Ill: 4
Planning and Zoning
Administration
Operations Analyst
Glenda Smith
Department of Zoning and
Land Development Review
Director
Susan Istenes
/
....
.
n a e eam
Planner
Danelle Carrel
Principal Planner
Kay Deselem
Planner
Craig Davis
,
\
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
\ )
,-----------'"
Fund 111 Positions
Planning and Land Use
Planning Manager
Ray Bellows
Zoning and Site Plan
Review
Planning Manager
Ross Gochenaur
Planning
Technician
Ivette Monroig
Principal Planner
Nancy Gundlach
Senior Planner
AShley Caserta
Planning
Technician
Lea Derance
Principal Planner
Melissa Zone
Senior Planner
Michael Sewyer
Administrative
Assistant
Cheri Rollins
nnclpa anner
and Fast Track
Coordinator
Cher I Soter
/
I
I Plemner
I ChrlstinaWilbughby
I
I
I
I
I
\
Front Counter
Planning TeCh
JanLopata
,
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
Administrative
Assistant
Sharron Phillips
Principal Planner
John David Moss
Planning
Technician
Heather Remirez
Landscape ArchitecU
Architectural Review
Bruce McNail
- ~
Fund n 1-Positions
COllfidentid!
4
1/5/2009
The Zoning Department is responsible tor the implementation of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan as required under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. This Plan is
implemented through the application of the Collier County Land Development Code and
Subdivision Regulations as required in Chapter 177, Florida Statutes. The enterprise-funded
portion of the Zoning Department is responsible for providing planning and zoning assistance to
the general public and is staff liaison to the Planning Commission, the Historic and
Archaeological Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Technical assistance is
provided to the Development Services Advisory Committee and to several Board appointed
advisory committees.
Planning and Land Use Section - Responsible for staff analysis and evaluation of all land use
petitions and responsible for preparing and presenting staff analysis of all petitions to the EAC,
CCPC and BCC or BZA. Activities include all rezoning actions such as PUD, PUD
amendments, PUD extensions, and all land use variances.
Zoning and Site Plan Review - Responsible lor assuring compliance with the LDC of all Site
Development Plans, amendments to Site Development Plans, Insubstantial changes to Site
Development Plans, Site Improvement Plans, Boat Dock Extension requests, Zoning Letters,
Commercial Building Permit Review, Street Name Change Requests and Front Counter
Customer Service.
LDC Section - Responsible lor managing and overseeing the Collier County Land Development
Code and managing and controlling amendments to the Land Development Code pursuant to the
Code and state statutes.
Current workload
PLANNER PETITIONS
ACTIVE * INACTIVE** MISC. *** TOTAL
RAY BlJ.l,OWS; 0 2 0 2
KAYD~l!llI 25 0 5 30
.
NANCY.~eH 23 0 1 24
JOHN D.AVll'i MQ$s 19 0 1 20
MELISSA ZOf\/~ 23 1 24
TOTALS 90 3 7 100
* Active projects are defined as projects that are under review and activity continues to take place
** Inactive projects ore defined as projects that have been continued by the Bee or on hold by the
applicant; those in which the applicant has not responded to review comments for ot least ninety (90) dOYSi
those in which there has been no activity for at least ninety (90) days.
*** PPL, ADA, A VA, ete.
C()nfidenti;ll
;)
1/5/2009
Below is a chart displaying the number of active petitions for the past three years. Workload has
continued to grow throughout 2006 and 2007 and remained relatively constant through 2007 and
into 2008. And, attached at Tab A are specific charts that display workload as assigned to the
Principal Planners.
110
Total Land Use Petitions/Projects assigned to Principal Planners
Jenuary 2005 - November 2008
90
~
'"
'0'70
-
a..
--
~50
.8
E
~30
10
-10
Review Timelines.
Zoning Petitions
Generally it takes 8 to 12 months for a land use petition to work through the system. The total
time is a function of the complexity of the petition as well as the mandatory meetings and
required public hearings. As displayed above, the Principal Planners have anywhere from 20 to
25 active petitions that they analyze. statT and manage. Staff assessment, analysis and
evaluations generally take 3 to 5 months and are dependent primarily on the applicant's timely
response to staff comments and re-submittals. The analysis includes a Comprehensive Plan
consistency review performed by the Comprehensive Planning staff and a transportation
analysis. In the Jollowing 4 to 6 months, tbe petitioner is then required to conduct a
Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) to advise the public of the intent of the petition prior
to the requisite public hearing. With the elimination of the Ncighborhood Information
Coordinator and the Administrative Assistant positions, thc assigned Principal Planners now
attend the NIM. Over the following 4 to 6 months the petitions then procccd through the
required hearings. Dcpending on environmental impacts and where required pursuant to the
LDC, petitions proceed through the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). The EAC mccts
only once a month and thc respective petitions arc queued at Icast 3 weeks prior to the mceting.
Following the EAC, petitions then procecd througb the Collier County Planning Commission
(CepC), a body that meets twice a month. Items arc then returned to the CCPC on the consent
agcnda at a subsequent mecting to assurc accuracy in the applicable recommendation and
ordinance bcing forwarded to the Hoard of County Commissioners (BCe) or the Board of
Confideilti;l!
r-;
1/S/2Clon
Zoning Appeals (BZA) for final review and hearing. Due to the lead time for finalizing the
respective agenda item Executive Summary, the BCC/BZA hearing dates are usually scheduled a
minimum of 3 to 4 weeks following the CCPC public hearing.
SDP, SDPI and SIP reviews
Fundamentally, the performance standard for site plan review is 30 days from submittal. Plans
are routed through staff to conduct reviews pursuant to the applicable development criteria as
defined in the LDC and the respective PUD where applicable and encompass all aspects of the
proposed project such as proposed or allowed uses, landscaping, parking, water management,
transportation, architectural, environmental impacts and allocation of required preserves, fire
code review, engineering and utilities. As noted at Tab B, the average total time considering
staff reviews, re-submittal of corrections and follow-on staff reviews ranges from as little as 3
months to as long as 8 to 12 months.
Department of Zoninl!: and Land Development Review -- Core Orl!anization
In an effort to reduce the fiscal burden on Fund 131, one consideration is reduce the current
staffing by 5 FTE to create a "Core Organization" to remain operationally ready to expand to
support future growth and development.
FTE Count
Fund 131: 14
Fund 111: 4
Impact on Review Times
The most significant impact is the reduction in planners and the reduction and doubling up of
technical staff reviews. Basically, this change would result in a 25% reduction of one staff
Principal Planner and the reallocation of 20 to 25 petitions to the three remaining staff resulting
in the estimated delay of these petitions for the required public hearings.
In addition, considering the amount of time staff spends in the respective public meetings
shepherding their assigned petitions through the public process and the costs in preparing the
applicable staff reports, if the staff is reduced as shown above, I would recommend that the
CCPC hearings be reduced from two to one hearing a month. Such a move would reduce by
50% the annual costs of these meetings (staff time, stall reports, verbatim minutes, etc,) but
would increase significantly (at least 50%) the time to process a pctition from intake to
completion.
Confidential
i
1!5/2009
Eng:ineerine: and Environmental Services Department -- Current Orf!anization
FTE Count:
Fund 131: 24
Fund Ill: 4
Fund 00 I: 2
Engineering and
Environmental Services
Department
Director
Billlorenz
Engineering and Project
Review
Engineering Manager
Sian Chrzanowski
Environmental Review
Principal Environmental
Manager
Susan Mason
Senior
Environmental
Specialist
Steve Lenber er
Senior Engineer
(Engineering and Storm
Water)
Steve Seal
Sf. Site Plans Reviewe
(Preliminary and Final
Plats)
John Houldsworlh
Site Plan Reviewer
(ExcavationslWells)
Bill Spencer
Senior
Environmental
Specialist
SummerAra ua
Site Plan Reviewer
(Transportalionand
ADA)
Russ Muller
Site Plan Reviewer
(Utilities)
Craig Callis
Environmental
Specialist
ChrisD'arco
Registered Land
Surveyor
Steve Higgins
Sile and Field
Inspections
Manager
Rudy Moss
Utilities Conveyance
Technician
Jodi Hugers
Environmental
Specialist
Andrew Kelly
--+
,
~- ,
i S~:nlotEnYirtlr1~?~tal
I . $~a!l~t..
I .($~.PrQJtK;tS)
I Laur!lROY$
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
ErWllUI1rnertat~epali$1
(SPIiI:\:iaf,PrtlJftCillr
K1rsleriWlkle
!
, -'
- - - Fund-l11- --
PUD Monitoring
SeniorPlanner/Manager
Maryann Devanas
....--....
,
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
, ,
, -
- - - -FundOOj- --
,-+
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
,
Planning Technician
Kelly Carroll
~--
,
QI'
err'(lJ'Cll1i'!1~
_ell"
Barbara......
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
,
f:
iWtIrilrilrieritar
_ell"
jaM PeMtll:tiiio
''---Fun"dl11----
Emdneerinl! and Environmental Services Devartmenl
This Department was formed in 2008 by combining the two separate departments of Engineering
Services and Environmental Services. In addition, the PUD monitoring function was created in
FY 07 and added to this department. The purpose of the Engineering Section is to oversee the
implementation of the Land Development Code and Subdivision Regulations in a competent,
accurate, expeditious, cost e!lective and courteous manner and to provide efficient review and
approval of subdivision, SDPs, SIPs and Insubstantial Changes and to provide inspection
services of inli'astructure construction to assure compliance with county standards. The purpose
of the Environmental Review Section is to ensure that all land use and development activities
con/OrIn to the environmental requirements of the Growth Management Plan and the Land
Development Code and to maintain the environmental sections of the LDC.
C:onfidet!tial
LJ
1/hl2Cl0D
Review Time1ines
Engineering and Project Review and Inspections
Project review times for this section are the same as noted above for Zoning. The unique aspect
of this organization is that they also conduct all the "800 Series" preliminary and final site
inspections prior to issuing final approval lor a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building
Director. As is often the case, payment for these inspections was received many years earlier
when the project received its initial approval, and similarly, the same for preliminary and final
acceptance of residential subdivisions. These are all prepaid services that the staff is obligated to
support when the developer applies for the final review and inspection of subdivision plats. As
shown at Tab C and reprinted below, the downturn in permitting activities has had a dramatic
impact on the number of required residential and commercial site inspections. Even with the
current reduced staffing, the department is maintaining a near 100% inspection rate within the 24
hour standard.
Residential, Commercial and Mise Engineering inspections
1,800
- Commercial Inspections
-Residential
1,600
Mise
1,400
800
1,200
1,000
600
400
200
o
,~-~.,--~
#~ ..,0:/' ..,0:/' ..,0:/' ..,0. #~ #~ #~ #~ -rf' o. d' o. #' #' #' 0' &- o~ -rf' o~
..,,0\ o~ orJ. 0'\\ ",,0\ o.s ~ 0'\\ ",,0\ ov. or}.~ o'\\~ ",o,,p o-J. rJ'\ 0'\\ .."d.-9 o~..p rJ',..p 0'\\ ..,,0'-6'
Environmental Review
Review times for the environmental section have bcen reduced to 85% within 30 days trom the
previously established 95% within 30 days with the currcnt stafling. The unique aspect of this
organization is that they conduct reviews of all plans and plats, conduct site visits to verify and
validate submittal information and perlorm all reviews of all the cnvironmental elements of all
land use petitions to include site evaluations. As displayed at Tab C, this staff element has not
experienced the same level of diminished workload as seen in other staff elemcnts. Workload
has remained relatively constant ovcr the past several years. Much of this is attributable to the
fact that the sites that have been developed over the past lCw years were some of the most
environmentally sensitive areas in the county and wcre the sites that were bypassed in the early
years of the county's growth patterns.
ConfideI11i,:CII
9
1/:5/2009
:: 90%
.~
~ 80%
~
c
>. 70%
~
~
2 60%
-"
~
E 50%
o
"
II) 40%
.~
~
~ 30%
'"
:ii 20%
~
~
~
10%
0%
~<:::.~ ,," 5>'" ,,'" 5>'" ,,'" ~<:::.ta ,,'" ~ ~ 5>~ ~ ~~ ~ 5>'" ,,'" 5>'" ,,'" ~<:::.'tJ
" ~if> " ,,~ ~ " ~if> ~ \"~ ~ " ~if> " ,,~ ~
00 0" ...~ \ ..." 00 "," ...~ ..." 00 "," ...~ \ ..." 00
100%
Enl!ineerinl! and Environmental Services Department -- Core Orf!anization
Similar to Zoning, reorganize this staff to create an optimal organization to remain operationally
ready to expand to support future growth and development, a reduction of 6 FTE overall, 7
from current Fund 131 staffing and the addition of I FTE in Fund 111.
FTE Count:
Fund 131: 17
Fund 111: 5
Fund 001: 2
Comprehensive Planninl! Department - "Current" Orf!anization
Performs comprehensive community long range planning functions and activities for the county
consistent with state and Board planning initiatives, as outlined in the County's Growth
Managcment Plan (GMP) and as mandated by pertincnt Florida Statutes and the Florida
Administrative Code (FAC); provides planning technical assistance to and interpret the GMP lor
various agencics, departments and organizations within County govcrnment and thc community;
manage and implement the County Stewardship Credit System and Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) Program; and undertake community spccitic planning studies, surveys and
improvement plans in response to community bascd initiatives.
Summary of some of the signilicant activitics Population estimates; Annual Industrial,
Commercial and Economic Profile; FlAM Modcl, Interactive Cirowth Model; GMP and GMP
Amendments; Annual ClE; Annual AlJIR; EAR; School Board Revicw; RLSA and RMFU
planning and planning compliancc; Ccnsus; Redistricting; Fast of95l Study.
Confidential
10
1/5/2009
The department is primarily a Fund 111 funded activity but it does receive income from Fund
131 for its staffing and review comprehensive plan activities in support of the Zoning
Department and earns Fund 131 income from private submittals for GMP amendments. This
year's allocated transfers from Fund 131 to support zoning and comprehensive planning
activities are approximately $230,000. In an effort to reduce the allocation, one proposal could
be to reduce the Comp Planning staff by 2 FTE.
FTE Count
Fund 111--12
Comprehensive Planning r!~
Department
Director
Randy Cohnen
Redevelopment Growth Management
Manager Manager
Mike Basi David Weeks
L- L-
Principal Planner - Principal Planner I-
Michele Mosca Corby Schmidt
Principal Planner Senior Planner
Thomas Marcia Kendall I-
Greenwood
P,ineipal Planne, ~ Senior Planner I-
BethYang Lesslie Persia
Principal Planner
Carolina Valera
Principal Planner -
Mike DeRuntz
Planning
Technician
Ekna Guevara
Conclusion
Reorganizing to a ('ore organization will result in reducing the total of 43 Fund 131 FTE to 31
Fund 131 FTE or a reduction of 12 Fund 131 FTE.
Fund 131
Fund III
Fund 001
Total
Comp
Planning
"Current"
12
12
C:oi\fidcnti211
11
1/!i/2009
Options and Savings Comparison
Currently CDES has 43 FTE funded within the Zoning and Engineering / Environmental
Departments under Fund 131, though some of that FTE count is currently being funded by
supplemental funding from the CDES CityView project funds and from Fund 111 for work
deemed to be in support of general fund operations. As displayed above, if revenue continues to
decline, at the conclusion of the CityView project the Fund 131 FTE for both departments can be
reduced to 31 FTE (14 in Zoning and 17 in Engineer/Environmental) under a Core Organization
scenario; however, with those organizations our customers - the development industry as well as
the residents of Collier County -- will have to accept a significant degradation in services.
Restated, the underlying problem is that the revenue being generated under the existing fee
schedule coupled with the reduced workload is not sufficient to support current operations.
Tab D contains charts of both Fund 113 and Fund 131 reserves and remaining non-operating
commitments for FY 09, along with charts of historic average monthly fee revenue. Fund 131
reserves, which are well below budget, have been reduced to such a level that they just cover the
remaining reduced non-operating commitments for FY 09, and immediate further action is
warranted.
Actions Taken Entering into the 2nd Quarter FY 2009:
Monthly savings of approximately $130,000 have been realized by relocating 10% of the FY 09
budgeted workforce to positions outside of Fund 131, reducing transfer expenses with the
reduction in required services, and by totally eliminating operating spending for any non-
reimbursed activity.
Additional Options:
If fee revenue remains at levels averaged over the past three months, and considering current
Fund 131 reserve levels, approximately $100,000 per month in additional savings are required.
1. Limit CCPC hearings to one per month in order to reduce the costs associated with
supporting the planning commission.
2. Initiate an across-the-board 36 or 32 hour work weeks.
3. Initiate selective 2 or 4 week furloughs tor targeted staffs.
4. Implement actions now to reduce thc organization to the core staff organization for Fund
131 activities.
5. Initiate actions now for an across-the-board fee increase for all land use activities or focus
specifically on areas where we know that the lees being charged for services are
significantly below the cost ofthe serviccs provided. Fees have not been adjusted since
2003 and simply applying tbe annual COLA for the past five years a fee increase 01'20%
to 25% may be justified.
t:onfldf';nlial
f::laq,} 12
1/5/2009
Option Savings:
Approximate Savings from Discussed Options
Options
Limit CCPC Hearings
Initiate 36 Hour Workweek
Initiate 32 Hour Workweek
32 Hour Workweek with I Day Closed
1 Week Furlough Rotating over 4 wks
2 Week Furlough Rotating over 8 wks
Continually Rotating Furloughs
Reducing Staff to Core Levels
Further Reducing Staff to Skeletal
25% across the Board Fee Increase
50% Across the Board Fee Increase
Confic1elltial
Monthlv Savings
$5,000 principal benefit allowing staf/reallocation
$37,000
$75,000
$80,000
$10,000 annualized over remainder qfFY, $90,000 once
$20,000 annualized over remainder of FY, $180,000 once
$93,000
$85,000
$40,000
$75,000
$150,000
13
11GI200n
Tab A
Principal Planner Projects
and
Schedule of Current Activities
Confidential
F),'1nt~ .:4
1/5/200n
VA
VA
VA
SV
RZ
PUDZ
PUDZ
PUDZ
PUDZ
PUDA
PUDA
PUDA
PDI
CU
CU
<.."U
CU
CU
cu
eu
.Jobn D.,'ld Moss, Prbll1p01 PlallDft.
pmdbtgP,'oJt<IS.s of Novtlnbtl. 14,2008
E_altd Thot 10 C'ompltUoll
UNo hlollths to Complffioll
o 1
D~08 Jan09
2
Fob09
3 4
Mar09 Apr09
AugOD
5
MaV09
6
JUn09
7
JulO9
8
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
POI
PUDA
PUDA
PUDA
PUDZ
PUDZ
PUDZ
PUlE
RZ
SV
VA
VA
VA
2
4
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
6.5
7
o
2
4
4
4.5
7.5
7.5
3.5
1
4
4
5.5
1/1109
3/15/09
3/1 /09
3/1 /09
3/1/09
4/1/09
5/1 /09
6/1/09
I 117108
1/1/09
3/15/09
3/1/09
4/1/09
6/1/09
6/1 /09
3/1/09
12/15/08
3/15/09
3/15/09
5/1/09
CU Conditional Use
PDr Insubstantial Change to PUD
PUDA PUD Amendment
PUDZ Planned Unit Development Rezone
RZ Rezone
SV Sign Variance
VA Variance
Total Number of Projects = 20
C()iifldenti~ll
15
1/5i200~)
Z..
VA
VA
RZ
P..
P..
P..
P..
P.
P.
P..
P.
pl"
DR!
DR!
CU
CU
CU
cu
OecOrP
cu
CU
CU
CU
DRI
DRI
PE
PUDA
PUDA
PUDZ
PUDZ
PlIDZ
PlIDZ
Cont:denti;il
Kay Deselem, Principal Planner
Pending Projects as of November 14. 2008
Estimated Time to Completion
aNa. Monthi to..
Ja.109
2Fe~
Oct09
Ma109 lPr09 6 Mavd9 JU'l.o9 9 Jul0910 Aud<<Jg
Nov09 Oec09 Jan10 Febl0
Sip09 13
14
6.5
1.5
1.5
8
5/2]/09
12/15/08
12/15/08
7/21/09
12
unknown--see
comments
Hearing dates can only be set after notification from the
Regional Planning Council; usually takes at least 1.5 years
from submittal to final hearin s
Hearing dates can only be set after notification from the
Regional Planning Council; usually takes at least 1.5 years
from submittal to final hearin IS
12
unknown--sce
comments
0.5
11/18/08
9
unknown--see
comments
Waiting for applicant to resubmit; another NIM must be
held prior to hearings. Petition has until Jan to resubmit (6
mos).
Petitioner needs to resubm it to address Transportation
comments, but the NIM is set for 12/11. Depending upon
resuhmittal date, the hearing dates may need to be bumped
out
DRI issue pending; Joe extended the rcsuhmittal time--
allowing the petitioner to resolve that issue with the state
prior to resubmittal. Joe did not include a deadline for
doing that.
6
assigned dates may
not be met--see
comments
9
unknown--see
comments
6.5
12
3
5/21109
unknown--see
COlIlllli:nts
2/ I 0109
pun needs to be heard with it companion DRI project
1.\1(:WI6
lJ5/200H
unknowll--see Waiting for applicant to resubmit; also, a NIM must be
PUDZ 9 comments held prior to hearings. Petitioner has until Jan to resubmit
(6 mos).
PUDZA 3.5 3/110/2009
unknown--see Waiting for applicant to resubmit; also, a NIM must be
PUDZ-A 9 comments held prior to hearings. Petitioner has until Jan to resubmit
(6 mos).
RZ 6 unknown--see Project just came in this week. The process letter to
comments establish dates has not vet been prepared.
VA I goes to BCC 12/2/08
VA 2 1/9/09
ZLTR 2 1/9/09
Total Number of Projects::::: 20
CU Conditional Use
DRI Development of Regional Impact
PE Parking Exemption
PUDA PUD
Amendment
PUDZ Planned Unit Development Rezone
PUDZA PUD to PUD Rezone
RZ Rezone
VA Variance
ZlTR Zoning Verification
(.:onfidenti81
17
1/fj/200Q
PU.A
PU.A
Mellzza Zone, Principal Planner
Pending Projects as or November 14. 2008 I aNa M ooths to Completion I
Estimated Time to Completion
VA
PU.Z
PU.Z
PU.Z
PU.Z
CUE
cu
CU
cu
cu
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Jano9 Fab09 Martl9 Apr09 May09 Juno9 Jul09 Aug09 Sep09 Oct09 Nov1l9
Dec09
ell
ell
eu
ell
ellE
PlIDA
PlIDA
PlIDZ
PlIDZ
PlIDZ
PlIDZ
VA
8
I
6
6
7
5
10
8
3
6
9
6
7/15/2009
12115/2009
5/6/2009
5/6/2009
6/1 0/2009
4/8/2009
9/16/2009
7/15/2009
2/24/2009
5/6/2009
8/20/2009
5/6/2009
Total Number of Projects :::
12
CU Conditional
U,e
CUE Conditional Use Extension
PUDA PUD Amendment
PUDZ Planned Unif Development
Rezone
VA Variance
-
Contidelltial
Still under review
Waiting for applicant to resubmit and resolve issue with neighbor
Waiting for applicant to resubmit
Applicant has added additional acreage, new submittal required
Agent needs to revise RPUD to MPUD
Waiting for applicant to resubmit
Waiting for resubmittal
Waiting for applicant to resubmit
18
1/5/2009
sv
sv
sv
sv
sv
sv
sv
PUDZ
PUDZ
PUDZ
PUDZ
PUDEX
PUDEX
PUDA
PMC
NUA
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
~
1
Nancy Gundlach. Principal Planner
Pending Projects as of November 14. 2008
Estimated Time to Completion
I DNo Months to Completion I
o 1 234 5 6 7 a 9
DeeOa Ja-.09 Feb09 Mar09 Apr09 May09 Jun09 Jul09 Aug09
NoV09 Dee09 JanlO
10 11
Sep09 Od09
12
13
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
NUA
PMC
PUDA
PUDEX
PUDEX
PUDZ
PlJDZ
PlJDZ
PlJDZ
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
Confldelltial
.I
.I
12
2
8
I
12
.1.5
12
2
4
4.5
6.5
18
.1.5
2
4
5.5
5.5
5
5
2/1/2009
2/1/2009
1/1/2009
7/1/2009
12/1/2008
2/ 1S/2009
CU Conditional Use
NUA Non-Conforming Use Alteration
PMC PUD Minor Change
PUDA PUD Amendment
PUDEX PUD Extension
PUDZ Planned Unit Development Rezone
SV Sign Variance
l/1/20()9
.I/1S/2009
4/1/2009
6/1/2009
5/1S/201O
2/ 1S/2009
1/1/2009
.I/1/2IHI9
4/1S/2009
4/ 1S/2 009
4/1/2009
4/l/2009
Total Number of Projects:::: 21
!),lqoi9
1/fjf200~J
Tab B
Site Plans (SOP, SOP A, SIP)
Current Workload
and
Estimated Time of Completion
Ci)llfidential
:20
"1/Ci!2fJ09
. .. . . . - . : . . : : . . . .
. . .
.. >'Cfl~.,' iSliI.. I~~ .~~. ~"l'tiIi
Number of Months to Comoletion
SOP 3 2 3 2
SOP 3 2 3 3
SOP 6 2 3 5
SOP 6 5 3 5
SOP 6 5 3 7
SOP 6 8 3 8
SOP 7 8 5 8
SOP 7 8 5 8
SOP 7 8 8
SOP 8 11 8
SOP 8 11 8
SOP 8 11 9
SOP 8 12 10
SOP 9 12 12
SOP 10
SOP 10
SOP 10
SOP 10
Mike Sawver Craia Davis AShlev Caserta Christine Willouahbv
SDPA 3 2 4 7
SDPA 3 5 5 7
SDPA 3 8 7 9
SDPA 4 8 7 9
SDPA 4 11 8 9
SDPA 4 11 8
SDPA 4 11 8
SDPA 4 11 8
SDPA 4 11 8
SDPA 6 11 10
SDPA 6 11
SDPA 6 12
SDPA 6
SDPA 8
SDPA 8
SDPA 8
SDPA 9
SDPA 10
SDPA 11
Christine WiIIOUllhbv Craio Ashlev Mike SaWver
SIP 2 8 7 6
SIP 2 8 9 6
SIP 3
BD 2
BD 1
C:onfidential
Site Plans - SOP, SDPA, SIP. Pending as of November 14, 2008
Planners and Senior Planners
F'nqe 21
1/6/2009
'TA'L
No. of SOP No. of SDPA No. of SIP Boat Dock Petitions PE"'PINP
PROJECTS
1 month 2 2
months 4 1 2 7
3 months 9 3 1 1 14
months 0 7 7
5 months 6 2 8
months 4 4 2 10
7 months 4 4 1 9
months 14 10 2 26
months 2 4 1 7
1 0 months 5 2 7
11 months 3 8 11
12 months 3 1 4
OTAL 54 46 9 3 112
TOTAL NUMBER PROJECTS BY APPLICA'TION TYPE
No. of Proiects Christine Wiilouahbv Craio Davis Mike Sawyer Ashley Caserta TOTAL
SOP 18 14 14 8 54
SDPA 5 12 19 10 46
SIP 3 2 2 2 9
SO 3 3
Confldei1tial
22
1/5/2009
SOP
SOP
SOP
SOP
SDP
SDP
SOP
SOP
SOP
0
(;onficJentiEll
Site Development Plans
Pending as of November 14. 2008
Estimated nme to Completion (shown In months)
OAshleyCas€'rta
OMlke Sawyer
.Cralg Davis
aChnstineWlllooghby
1 2
-Jan09
3
4 5
Apr09
6
.Jan10
7 8
.Ju109
9
10 oclJ9 12
13
>~3
1 !5/200D
Tab C
Engineering/ Environmental
Schedule of Current Activities
Confidential
F)(i~Je ?4
1/5/200()
Environmental Review
I~
1600
1400
1200
~ 1000
~
'5 800
.
~
E
, 600
Z
400
200
0
FY06
-----^-,
Environmental Review Activities
i. Wetlands Determ 1 i
OGMP ,
I!!I EnvPermlts
o Build Permits (113)
. Zon/Eng Reviews
FY06
FY07
FY08
____J
Fiscal Year
I
160
140
.c 120
-
"
0
:;;
~ 100
<l>
c.
Ii 80
e
,a..
-
0 60
:;;
.c
E 40
:J
Z
20
0
Total Projects Logged-in for Environmental Review
October 2003 - October 2008
(\') (J.o l", C O:l ~ O..Q I.. c: O:l '" O..Q ... C: 0> co (J..Q I.. r:: OJ"'- (J..o I.. C 0) co
c::> IV IV Q..::J::J'O 11I <Z.I 0.':';:'0 CD lV Q.:::r;:,o IV w Q..::r;:,o CV CD o..::l::ro
tr Q LL. <(' ~ <(' ti' Q LJ.. <(' .., "" ti' c LL. <(' """) <(' tf C 1.1.. <(' .., <e:(' rl Q Ll.. or:{ .., <(' t-
00000 0
C(;llfldCl,ti;JI
?S
1J!')/:200n
:: 90%
~
~ 80%
~
c
>- 70%
~
~
~ 60%
'"
~
E 50%
o
u
In 40%
.!
~
;: 30%
'"
~ 20%
~
, ~
a... 10%
100%
0%
~ ~ * ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~
C(}= <::)q.v' <<~ 't-q.... )V~ 't-v~ Cv <::)q.v' <<~ 't-q.... )V~ 't-v~ cc.> <::)'l,,<f <<~ 't-q.....
'1>"
,,~
,
,,"
0>;
..."
~~r:o
<::?
Notes:
Staffing
FY05: 5 Reviewers plus Supervisor
FY06: 8 Reviewers plus Supervisor
FY07: 6 Reviewers plus Supervisor
FY08: 4 Reviewers plus Supervisor (Current)
Confidcliti;ll
r)(H]e :26
1/5/2000
Engineering Review
Engineering Review Activities
3500
3000
~ 2500
CIl
'>
CIl
~ 2000
...
0
~ 1500
CIl
.Q
E 1000
::l
Z
500
0
FY05
'OSIPI
III SIP
IBPlDZ
. PPLA
olCP
.FP
,
o SDPA
CI CNSTR
.SOPI
OPPL
. SOP
FY06
FY07
FY08
Fiscal year
100
. 80
.
.~
> 60
~
'"
'0
~ 40
~
E
,
z 20
0
Engineering Review
SUF'!!! PF'lf!\ SIF' SIF'I IS lep itA IF' CNSTfi
-.On Time Reviews
"Late Reviews
~.,~~~~~~,,~,~.
Week
COI"lfidential
F)Dqe ;1/
1/5/2009
Preliminary and Final Acceptances
140
120
'C
CIl 100
III
:g
0 80
0
...
Q.
... 60
CIl
..c
E 40
::::I
Z
20
0
FY05 FY06 FY07
Fiscal Year
FY08
Notes:
Staffing
FY05: 9 Reviewers plus Engr. Manager
FY06: 9 Reviewers plus Engr. Manager
FY07: 9 Reviewers plus Engr. Manager
FY08: 7 Reviewers plus Engr. Manager (Current)
Conlidentii-.11
?8
1 ibl2UOn
Engineering Inspections
Residential, Commercial and Mise Engineering inspections
1,800
-Commercial Inspections
-Residential
1,600
Mise
1,400
800
1,200
1,000
600
400
200
o
~~-_.
#''' -I' #'" D" -I' D" D" D" #''' #'" D" D" #'" D~ #'~ D~ # D" D" #'" D"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I : :::~.,. r/o of On Time and Late 801 Series Building Inspections
10D
""
o
, !
: ~ '.' ~
<, j
Ld ~
, ~
* ' ~
60
'0
2{)
Notes:
Starting
FY05: Inspectors plus rnspcctions Supervisor
FY06: II Inspectors plus Inspections Supervisor
FY07: 8 Inspectors plus Inspections Supervisor
FY08: 5 Inspectors plus lnspcctions Supcrvisor (Currcnt)
Confidentii'll
2q
"1/5/2009
Tab 0
Reserves and Fee Revenue
Confidential
::10
j/S!2.00rJ
Fund 113 Reserves and Non.Qperating Obligations as of Dee 15, 2008
Fund 113 FY081 FY09 Aetual Reserves
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
tSijuc.oroa.>-c-srna.1jiju -Oroa.>- :)rno.1:5
o z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 z ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
Obliaation
H:!alth Insurance
Budqet
$811,093
Paid
to Date
$811,093
Remainina
$0
Indirect Allocation
$911,500
$537,750
$373,750
Transfers:
Fund 001 HR
Fund 210 Garage Debt
Fund 301 Capital
$92,400 $23,100
$253,700 $200,100
$39400 $9 850
$2,108,093 $1.587,893
$69,300
$47,600
$29 550
$520,200
Reserves
$2,064,876
Reserves after Oblioations
$1,544,676
Confidetltial
F';'lqc- 3'(
115/20IJ9
Fund 131 Reserves and Non.Operating Obligations as of Dee 15, 2008
--I
Fund 131 FY08 I FY09 Actual Reserves
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
~
t5 > u
o ~ r3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C D " "- ~ c '3 rn ~ " > ~ C D m "- ~ c '3 rn ~ "
m . m " " . 0 m . m -" " .
, CL " << " , , << if) 0 z 0 , CL " << " , << if) 0
.-... -...-- --------- ---- __n_____ -----
Paid
Olliaation Budaet to Date Remainina ProoCEed in f\bv Plan
Health Insurance $616,020 $0 $616,020 $482,549 reduction of 60 to 47 FTEs
Indirect Allocation $1,082,500 $270,625 $811,875 $211,875 reduction to $482,500
Transfers:
Fund 101 Transportation $247,900 $0 $247,900 $247,900
Fund 111 Comp Planning $232,200 $116,100 $116,100 $116,100
Fund 301 Capital $35,400 $8,850 $26,550 $26,550
Debt to Fund 113 $966.000 iQ $966.000 .$Q request to waive debt
$3,180,020 $395,575 $2,784,445 $1,084,974
Reserves $1,036,945 $1,036,945
Reserves after ObliQations .$1,747,500 .$48,029
Confidentidl
q
11til2009
Fe~ -~::enu: in Fund 1~~---l
Budget I Actual Average Monthly
$900,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
L
I
,
$0
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06
FY 07
FYOB YlD
FY 09
$800,000
Fund 131 Revenue Jan 2006 to Present
$1,400,000
$1.200,000
$1,000,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
.,." ~ ~ ./
,.~ ,." .".....-"'..,,.;...
.,.... ':,. _~- .'~ .~' ,_ "" ,..,- .....',...y. ,," ,..' ,...? .r-,.,
/
"'" ,..-....:.,....
Confid(:lntial
TJ
1/(iI2D09
Office of the Fire Code Official
Summary of Plan Review Activity
November-08
Architectural Reviews
Sprinkler Reviews
Underground Reviews
Fuel & LP Gas Reviews
Hoods & FSUP Reviews
Alarm Reviews
SOP Reviews
Totar # of Plans Reviewed
Number of Work Days
Average # of Plans Reviewed per Day
ASAP Reviews per Building Department
Total # of ASAP Reviews*:
Total ASAP Reviews per Day
*Overtime Reviews are not included in this figure
Scheduled Meetings/Hours
Ed
Bob:
Jackie
Ricco:
Ken
Maggie:
Classes and Seminars attended by FCQ
11/3-11/6 FFMfA Annual Conference, Ft Myers
11/3-11/6 FFMIA Annual Conference, Ft Myers
11/3-1116 FFMIA Annual Conference, Ft Myers
11/20-11/21 Electrical Contractors licensing Board-Dee Statement, Tallahassee
11/20-11/21 Electrical Contractors Licensing Board-Dee Statement. Tallahassee
Total Overtime Hours for the Fire Code Office
*Overtime Hours Reimbursed by Contractors
In addition to the above-mentioned tasks, The Fire Code Official's Office fields
numerous phone calls, walk-ins, field inspections and impromptu meetings
Cfficeoflhe FireCodeOflicial
2800N. HCfseshoeDr
N"plw",FL34104
567
94
20
6
21
117
57
882
17
52
2 Fire Damage - Walk-In
1 Roof Structure- Walk+ln
6 Architectural Fast Track Projects
13 Tents
2 Fire Alarm Fast Track
24
1
9.5 Hrs.
11.17 Hrs
3.33 Hrs
4.75 Hrs
9.67 Hrs
183 Hrs
Participant
Ed Riley
Robert Salvaggio
Ricco Longo
Ed Riley
Ricco Longo
18
36 (18 Reviews)
Fire Plan Review - Time Frame Summary
November-08
Number Average #of 1st "loaf 1st Percentages
of Number of Time in Reviews Reviews Within Time
Reviews Days Days Approved Approved Frames
Architectural Reviews
Total 567 922 1.63
1st Review 359 729 1.98 282 76% 100110 Days 9 Day Max
2nd Review 127 123 0.97 99/3 Days
3rd Review 41 37 0.90 100/3 Days
4th Review 19 22 1.16 100/3 Days
5th Review 10 9 0.90 100/3 Days
6th Review 1 2 2.00 100/3 Days
Total 2-6 Reviews 198 193 0.97 99.5/3 Days 5 Day Max
Fire Scrinkler Reviews
Total 94 318 3.38
1st Review 56 248 4.43 24 43% 100/10 Days 10 Day Max
2nd Review 27 54 2,00 96/3 Days
3rd Review 7 12 1.71 86/3 Days
4th Review 3 4 1.33 100/3 Days
5th Review 1 0 0.00 100/3 Days
Total 2-5 Reviews 38 70 1.84 9713 Days 7 Day Max
Underaround Reviews
Total 20 82 4.10
1st Review 20 82 4.10 6 30% 100/10 Days 6 Day Max
Total 2nd Review 0 0 0,00
Fuel & LP Gas Reviews
Total . 27 4.50
1st Review 5 27 5.40 4 80% 100/10 Days 9 Day Max
3rd Review 1 0 0.00 100/3 Days
Total 3rd Review 1 0 000 100/3 Days o Day Max
Hood & FSUP Reviews
Total 21 34 1.62
1st Review 12 25 2.08 8 67% 100/10 Days 6 Day Max
2nd Review 7 7 1.00 100/3 Days
3rd Review 2 2 1,00 100/3 Days
Total 2.3 Reviews 9 9 100 100/3 Days 2 Day Max
Fire Alarm Reviews
Total 117 177 1.51
1st Review 62 126 2.03 31 50% 100110 Days 6 Day Max
2nd Review 39 3. 0.97 100/3 Days
3rd Review 14 12 0.86 100/3 Days
4th Review 2 1 0.50 100/3 Days
Total 2-4 Reviews 55 51 0,93 10013 Days 3 Day Max
Summarv
1st Review 524 1237 2.36 355 68% 100110 Days
Corrections 301 323 1.07 99/3 Days
Overall Totals 825 1560 1.89
Officsorthef'"eCodeOHiciJI
2800N, HorsesnoeDr
Naple"FL34104
ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE COMPARISON
LAND USE
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY <1500 Sq. Ft.
SINGLE F AMIL Y 1.500 to 2,499 Sq. Ft.
SINGLE F AMIL Y 2,500 Sq. Fl. or Larger
MULTI.FAMILY 1-IOStorles'
MULTI-FAMILY >10 Stories
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY
CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOUSE
HIGH. RISE CONDOMINIUM
MOBILE HOME
RETIREMENT COMMUNITY
kQQQ!NQ
HOTEL
MOTEL
ALL SUITES HOTEL'
RV PARK
R!~CREi\IlQ.N
GOLF COURSE
MOVIE THEATER
MARINA
DANCE STUDIOS/GYMNASTICS'
CURRENT
RATE
PROPOSED
RATE
1/1/2007
RATE
Rate was etTective..Q!JOI06 and
i.$. 19J% l.~.~.~.lh~!Rs.YrI~!l!_rl:tt~-,
Dwelling Unit $8,247.62 $8,668.00 $6,359.00
I.hn:llmg Unit $11,522.55 $11.760.00 $8,884.00
Dwelling Unit $12,819.55 $13,130.00 $9,884.00
Dwelling Unit $8,220.39 $7,464.00 $6,338.00
Dwelling Unit $4,954.54 $4,784.00 $3,820.00
Dv.ellingUnil $1,032.41 $1,347.00 $796.00
Dwelling Unit $7,858.52 $8,738.00 $6,059.00
Dwelling Unit $5,488.90 $6,246.00 $4,232.00
Dwelling Unll $5,361.80 $4,314.00 $4,134.00
Dwelling Unll $2,913.06 $3,75400 $2,246.00
Per Room $7,765.14 $6,578.00 $5,987.00
Per Room $4,964.92 $4,22200 $3,828.00
Per Room $4,526.53 $3,891.00 $3,490.00
Per Sile $4,280.10 $2,299.00 $3,300.00
18 Hnles $1,043,392.40 5850,022.00 5840,466.00
Per Screen 554,978.53 $46,217.00 $42,389.00
Per BCllh $4,643.26 $3,980.00 $3,580.00
Pcr 1,000 sf $13,451.19 $11,33900 $10,371.00
1 NsIlJ:!JJ]QN.S
IIOSPITAL Per 1,000 sf $18,414.81 520,382.00 514,198.00
NURSING HOME PCI fkd $1,486.36 $1,261.00 $1,146.00
CIIURCII Pcr 1,000 sf 510,404.53 $8,619.00 58,022.00
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Per Slwknt $1,111.53 $1,00500 $857.00
MIDDLE SCHOOL Per Sludenl $1,540.84 $1,439.00 $1,188.00
HIGH SCHOOL Per Stuuent SI,740.57 51,526.00 $1,342.00
tJNIVERSITY/JR. COLLEGE <7,501 Students' Per Slmkon! S2,926.03 $2,688.00 $2,256.00
UNIVERSITY/JR. COLLEGE >7,500 Students' Per SlUdcnt S2,153JJ2 $2,001.00 51,660.00
DA Y CARE l'erSlll\knt 51,232t5 $1,4,j5.00 S950.00
Q.EtlCI;
OFFICE 50.000 Sq. Ft. or Less
OFEICE 50,00 I-I 00,000 Sq. Ft.
OFFICF 100.001-200,000 Sq. 1'1.
OFFICE 200,00 !.400,000 Sq. FI.
OFFICE "IIJO,OOO 1'1
MEDICAL OFFICE
Per 1.000 sf $20,074.97 $16,763.00 $15,478.00
Ft;;r I Jj()O sf $17,019.23 SI4,2S7.00 $13,122.00
I'er I/!OO sl $14,413,56 $12,115.00 SII,II:J.OO
j't;f l,iJ(\II:oI $12.20607 $10,296.00 S9.'111.00
Fn 1 ,0110 ~r $11,054.13 $9,143.00 $3,52300
!"o l/'I,:(j:;f $47,585.63 540.517.00 $36,689.00
ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE COMPARISON
[.AND USE
RETAIL
SPECIAL TY RETAIL
RETAIL 50,000-100,000 Sq. Ft.
RETAIL 50,001-100,000 Sq. Ft.
RETAIL 100,001-150,000 Sq. Ft.
RETAIL 150,001-200,000 Sq. Ft.
RETAIL 200,001-400,000 Sq. Ft.
RETAIL 400,001-600,000 Sq. Ft.
RETAIL 600,001-1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
RETAIL> I ,000,000 Sq. Ft.
FURNITURE STORE'
PHARMACYIDRUG STORE
HOME IMPROVEMENT SUPERSTORE
RESTAURANT - High Turnover"
RESTAURANT - Quality"
RESTAURANT - Drive-tn
GASOLINE/SERVICE STATION
SUPERMARKET
QUICK LUBE
CONVENIENCE STORE
CONVENIENCE STORE w/Gas Pumps
TIRE STORE
NEW/1JSED AUTO SALES
LUXURY AUTO SALES
flANKlSA VINGS: Walk-In
BANKlSA VINGS: Drive-In
SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH
AUTOMATED CAR WASil'
INDUSIRtAL
GENERAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
BUSINESS PARK
MINI- WAREHOUSE
CURRENT
RATE
PROPOSED
RATE
I l1120Q7
Mn;
Per 1.000 sf $28.517.14 $26,877.00 $21,98700
Per ],UOO sf $18,097.04 $19,823.00 $13,953.00
Per 1,000 sf $17,1 t 7.81 $20,041.00 $13,198.00
Per 1,000 sf $16,486.17 $18,661.00 $12,711.00
Per 1.000 sf $16,385.00 $17,883.00 $12.633.00
Per ],000 sf $15,195.65 $16,893.00 $11,716.00
Per 1,000 sf $16,487.46 $16,847.00 $12.712.00
Per 1,000 sf $17,608.07 $18,255.00 $13,576.00
Per 1,000 sf $21,508.15 $19,187.00 $16,583.00
Per 1.000 sf $4,025.89 $3,545.00 $3,104.00
Per I,OUO sf $17.260.48 $13,958.00 $13,308.00
Per 1.000 sf $17,141.15 $9,901.00 $13,216.00
Pef Seal $2,735.38 $2,440.00 $2.109.00
Per Seal $1,849.53 $1,553.00 $1,426.00
Pt'f 1,000 sf $171.093.76 $137,444.00 $131,915.00
Per fuel Pos $9,791.05 $8,221.00 $7,549.00
Per l,t)(JO sf $21.713.08 $26,570.00 $16,741.00
Per Bay $17,491.34 $14,522.00 $13,486.00
Per 1,000 .,t $116.656.07 $97,63600 $89,943.00
Per F tiel PO:>. $48,734.78 $37,652.00 $37,575.00
Per Bay $13,04523 $10,93000 $10,058.00
Per 1,000 sf $33,637.70 $27,131.00 $25,935.00
Per J ,000 ~r $17,920.65 $14,996.00 $13,817.00
Per 1.000 sf $55,381.90 $39,429.00 $42,700.00
Per I,(JUO sf $108,545.93 $40,158.00 $83,690.00
Per Buy $43,976.08 $36,36700 $33,906.00
Per 1,000 sf $47,062.95 $39,06600 $36,286.00
Per 1,O(}()sf $9,1 76.28 $7,73200 $7.075.00
Per I,oon q $16,855.81 $14,021.00 $12,996.00
Per 1,000 "f $1,770AI $1,436.00 $1,365.00
""New Land Use in 2008 Study. tll!2007 rate calculated using 2006 Study
URate is per seat in 2008 stlJdy. Rate currently per 1,000 sq. fl. 1/ lf20()? rale calculated using 2006 Study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To request that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve a single Land
Development Code (LDC) amendment cycle for the 2009 calendar year to consider a
limited scope of amendments to the LDC as follows: to remove the administrative
provisions from the LDC and establish a separate Administrative Code; to consider the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based Environmental amendments that were
continued by the BCC from the 2008 Cycle I; to consider amendments to the School Board
review process as required by adoption of the 2008 GMP amendments; to consider an
amendment to the Nonconformities section of the LDC continued from the 2008 cycle I; to
consider the proposed architectural design deviation process for Immokalee as
acknowledged by the BCC; to consider the amendments to the Wellfield protection
regulations as directed by the BCC; to consider amendments to specify how to calculate
shorelines subject to conservation easements or the like when calculating the number of
boat slips per the Manatee Protection Plan, as directed by the BCC; and to consider any
amendments to the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) if there are any at that time,
OBJECTIVE:
To request that the Board of County Commissioners (BCe) approve a single Land Development
Code (LDC) amendment cycle for the 2009 calendar year to begin on March I, 2009 and ending
on December 31, 2009, as amended, for a total of one (I) LDC amendment cycle of a pre-
defined scope in 2009.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The purpose of this request is to set forth the number of cycles, the time frame and the content
for the proposed 2009 LDC amendment cycle. Amendments to the Collier County Land
Development Code may be made not more than two times during any calendar year as scheduled
by the County Manager, except amendments to this Code may be made more often than twice
during the calendar year if the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, by at least a
super-majority vote, directs that additional amendments be made for specific purposes.
The 2008 LDC cycle recently ended on October 30, 2008. During that cycle approximately 12
amendments were not adopted and were subsequently continued for various reasons. Many of
these are continued amendments which arc amendments to environmental review subject matter
areas and are the 2004 EAR-based GMP amendments tbat were adopted by the BCC and had an
effective date of May 24. 2007. Most of thc EAR-based (iMP amendments stated that witbin
onc year of the amendment. the County will adopt tbe appropriate land development regulations
to implement the respective policies. This was to be completed in the 2008 cycle, however the
Board voted to continue the amendments to the next (2009) cycle for further review of the
amendments by stall and intercsted members of the public. Furthermore, at the .June 24, 2008
BCC meeting under "Discussion Items" the 8CC considered the possibility of limiting LDC
amendments in 2009 to those that arc EAR-based and those that arc "good for business" per a
written request (see attached letter dated June 12, 2008) initiated by tbe Development Services
Advisory Committee (DSAC).
Additionally, staff is currently engaged in the revision of the LDC sign code, which will be heard
in early 2009, as a result of the legal settlement in the Bonita Media, LLC vs. Collier County
Code Enforcement Board. Given these facts, staff recognizes that it is imperative to have one
regular 2009 amendment cycle in order to hear those EAR-based amendments to meet the
statutory requirements of Florida law and to consider the other amendments that were continued
by the BCC or have a similar status as noted in the title above. Furthermore, staff has also been
working diligently towards meeting the intent of the strategic plan in making the development
application review process and the LDC more user friendly. Specifically, in a continuation of
the update to the LDC. Collier County has retained the law firm of White & Smith, LLC to assist
with this process. Following an initial reconnaissance phase, the County identified its
development review procedures as a priority for updating and consolidation. In particular, the
County has directed that the law firm move forward with development of the Administrative
Code as a companion to the LDC. The establishment and implementation of an
Administrative Code has the following advantages:
I. Improved Readability - much of the LDC's substantive content is riddled with application
requirements and procedural matters that lengthen the text and arc of little interest to a lay
audience. Cleaning out these provision will provide greater focus for individual regulations,
and will reduce the sheer length and size of the Land Development Code.
2. Development Review Streamlining - an Administrative Code consolidates the procedural
aspect of the LDC in a single document. Applicants, design consultants, and administrative
staff can find procedural steps. Fees and torms in a single reference document.
3. Updating - When the County recodified and reorganized the 1991 LDC in 2004 (Ordinance
No. 04-41) some provisions were inadvertently omitted. The update will carryall of the
current and former procedures torward so that the County staff and applicants can easily
determine what a given process requires and future updates can be easily accomplished.
4. Document Design and Web-based enhancements -- An Administrative code can otfer a
more user-friendly layout, with white space on pages, embedded illustrations, and plain
English text.
5. Maintenance - changes to thc LDC require legislativc action by the County and a lag time
for incorporation into the Municode websitc. An Administrative Code allows the County to
avoid this long delay. The Department can maintain a separate Administrative Code, and
enter changes or amendments directly into the document's electronic code.
Staff is proposing the general timeline lor the LDC cycle as follows. Specitic dates for bearings
will be locked in at a later time once hearing room availability is contirmed and scbcdulcs with
the various board appointed advisory committees and the BCC are coordinated.
)
January, 2009 - March, 2009
Staff prepares amendments and coordinates drafts with outside interest groups where applicable.
March, 2009 - June 1,2009
Staff analyzes draft amendments with staff work groups and continues coordination with outside
interest groups.
June 1,2009
Last day to submit draft amendments to Zoning Department.
June 1,2009 - July, 2009
Staff prepares documents for hearings and advertising.
July, 2009 - September, 2009
Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) and Development Services Advisory Committee
(DSAC) hearings.
August, 2009 - November, 2009
DSAC hearings continued and Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe) hearings start.
November, 2009 - December 15, 2009
Planning Commission hearings continue and Board of County Commissioner hearings start.
December 15,2009 - December 31, 2009
Final approved ordinance preparation and delivery to the Department of Community Affairs.
Typically by March I, 2009 the Zoning stall' will have a draft of many of the proposed
amendments for the 2009 cycle bowever the "ofticial" 2009 cycle cut- otT tor submittal of a
written draft LDC amendment to Zoning statTwill be June 1,2009.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This item is consistent with Chapters 106 and 250 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, the Land Development Code and Section] 63.3] 61 et seq, Florida Statutes. The
approval of the amendment cycle and general timeline is not quasi-judicial and requires a
majority vote.--HF AC
FISCAL IMPACT:
Any private amendments will be subject to the applicable fee of $3,000 per amendment and all
associated advertising costs estimated to be approximately $2,500. All costs will be paid by the
private applicants.
3
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
Staff, as part of the LDC review and vetting process will assess the proposed amendments to the
LDC for consistency with the Growth Management Plan during the review portion of the cycle
(approximately March 1,2009 - June 1,2009).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve a motion by at least a super-
majority vote authorizing a single Land Development Code amendment cycle for 2009 to be
limited to the following subject matter:
]. To remove administrative provisions from the LDC and establish a separate
Administrative Code; and
2. To consider the EAR-based Environmental amendments that were continued by the BCC
from the 2008 Cycle I; and
3. To consider an amendment to the Noncontormities section of the LDC (continued from
the 2008 Cycle I); and
4. To consider the proposed architectural design deviation process for Immokalee (if
submitted by the Immokalee CRA); and
5. To consider the amendments to the Well field protection regulations that were continued
trom the 2008 cycle I unless they are otherwise addressed in some appropriate legat
ordinance; and
6. To consider any amendments to the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) if there are at the
time of the amendment submittal due date (June 1,2009); and
7. To consider any amendments which correct errors or replace omitted text as determined
by the Zoning Department; and
8. To consider the ameudments to the Scbool Board review process in order to implement
the 2008 GMP amendments adopted by the BCC; and
9. To consider the shoreline calculation amendments pursuant to the Manatee Protection
Plan per the direction of the BCC; and
10. To consider any amendments which the Board deems in the best interest of business per
their discussion on June 24, 2008 (see attached minutes) that is given conceptual pre-
approval by thc BCC before the commcncement of the 2009 cycle (March ]. 2009).
Staff further recommends that Board of County Commissioners adopt, at this time, a time line
indicating the start and tinish dates of the cycle (trom March I. 2009 to December 31, 2009)
with the understanding that staff will in early 2009, notify the Board of County Commissioners
of the specific hearing dates for the Environmental Advisory Committee, the DSAC, CCPC and
the 13CC.
Prenared by: Susan M. Istenes, AlCP, Zoning Director
4
~
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
George Hermanson [GeorgeHermanson@hmeng.com]
Wednesday, January 07, 20099:02 AM
pui9J
LDC recommended changes per DSAC
Judy, here are some recommended changes to LOC and CDES procedures from our firm's staff. This is a followup to
recent DSAC discussions on how to improve the environment for development in Collier County. Note that procedural
changes are part of the list. This is important to streamline development review as much as code changes.
In general, our design standards and codes are way too complex. They have evolved over time to address every
complication that arises. The result is more codes to deal with the unintended consequences of the previous code
change.
1. Review fees are simply too high. They should be no more than 2% of construction for SDP's and subdivision
plans. Rezoning fees should be proportionately lower also. In some cases, county review fees are higher than
what we charge to prepare the work. The county only has to review our work, and their fees should be much
lower. Many ancillary fees should be eliminated. The basic fee should cover everything. Fire reviews should be
eliminated unless a fire review is actually necessary.
2. Limit the number of reviewers on applications. SDP's and subdivisions shouldn't have more than 6 or so
reviewers: zoning, engineering, landscaping, utilities. environmental, and transportation are the critical
reviews. Others can be folded into these. This would also reduce staffing requirements and reduce operating
cost commensurate with fee reductions. It would also greatly speed up review times, which is the major
complaint with county reviews.
3. Establish better liaison or coordination with other departments (e.g. transportation) who must review
applications to improve the timeliness of their review and eliminate complications from last-minute staff
comments.
4. Reduce the sidewalk requirements, especially on external roads. A property owner shouldn't be responsible for
building sidewalks that aren't on his property. The county should do this if they want sidewalks.
S. Reduce the requirements for SDPA's and SDPI's. Most SDPA's should be handled as SDPI's, and most SDPI's
should be handled as field changes. Larger tolerances in building square footage should also be allowed without
triggering an SDPA.
6. Reduce or eliminate the requirement for boundary surveys on all submittals. In most cases, a legal description is
sufficient. After all, that's all that appears on someone's deed.
7. Stop requiring the SFWMD permit before SDP or subdivision approval. This could be changed to requiring the
SFWMD permit before construction begins. That's what is used to be.
8. Stop requiring conservation easements over all native vegetation. This should only be required for larger
preserves as part of state and/or federal permits. Also stop requiring preserve management plans on all native
vegetation.
9. For properties undergoing renovation or expansion, reduce the requirements to upgrade existing properties to
current codes. This should apply to the building and site work including landscaping, ADA accessibility,
sidewalks, etc. We should be encouraging improvement of property, not discouraging it by making it too costly.
10. Sites under 10 acres and 2 acres impervious should only require water quality stormwater detention, not the 25-
year storm attenuation (SFWMD rules exempt these sites from their requirements).
11. Stop requiring ADA sidewalks "to the public road." The intent here is to provide ADA access between buildings
and vehicles in the parking lot, not beyond which there is no need for such access.
12. Impact fees are astronomical and discourage growth and development. They are actually more significant in
construction than some of the actual construction features. The county should look at reducing them
(particularly roads) and look for alternate, broader-based funding sources (ad valorem tax, real estate exchange
tax, sales tax, etc.). The requirement for prepayment of 50% of road impact fees should be ended. The cost is
simply too burdensome for builders, developers and lends, and is actually chasing away potential businesses and
industry from the area.
13. Architectural guidelines should be relaxed, especially for site work. Foundation landscaping should be more
flexible to allow narrower landscape strips. Pavers shouldn't be required. Benches and other amenities
shouldn't be required.
14. Architectural guidelines should be relaxed for buildings in industrial parks and similar developments where
architecture is not as important as function. Some industrial parks should be allowed to look like industrial
parks.
15. MANY codes should be changed for the Immokalee area, especially landscaping and architectural guidelines.
This may require a separate code for Immokalee, which may be in progress, but this needs to be on the front
burner as Immokalee may be key to the county's economic growth.
9u~e- 11: lI~~~, 'P. &.
George H. Hermanson, P.E.
Senior Vice President/Principal
Hole Montes, Inc.
Engineering. Planning. Survey
Landscape Architectural Design
(239) 254-2000 - Main Line
(239) 254-2099 - Fax
GeorqeHermanson@hmena.com
950 Encore Way
Naples, FL 34110 USA
Ho/e Montes has been recognized as a Top 500 Design Firm
by Engineering News Record magazine for 2005
Serving Clients Throughout Southwest Florida For More Than 39 Years
2
December 3,2008
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, December 3,2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee in and forthe County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 3:30 P.M, in REGULAR SESSION in Conference
Room #610 in the Collier County Community Development and Environmental
Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: William Varian
Charles Abbott
James Boughton (Absent)
Clay Brooker
Laura Spurgeon Dejohn
Dalas Disney
David Dunnavant
Marco Espinar (Excused)
Blair Foley
George Hermanson
Reed Jarvi
Thomas Masters (Absent)
Robert Mulhere
Reid Schermer
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Administrator, CDES
Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES
Phil Gramatges, Director, Public Utilities
Bob Dunn, Director, Bldg. Review & Permitting
Gary Mullce, CDES, Operations Support Manager
Hill Lorenz, Director, Engineering & Environmental Svcs.
Nick Casalanguida. Director, Transportation/Planning
I'd Riley. Firc Codc Oflicial
Tom Wilks, Operations Director, Public Utilities
I
December 3, 2008
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:40 PM by Chairman William Varian and a
quorum was established.
II. Approval of Agenda
Reid Schermer moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Dalas Disney, Carried
unanimously, 9-0,
III. Approval of Minutes
The following corrections were suggested:
. On Page 6, the motions concerning nominations lor re-appointment were
changed to "Motion carried, "II-Yes" with one abstention,"
Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes of the November 5,2008 Meeting as
amended. Second by Reid Schermer, Carried unanimously, 9-0.
IV. Staff Announcements/Updates
A, CDES Update - Joe Schmitt, Administrator
. Funding is still an issue; there is a shortfall in Fund 131 - Permitting and Land
Use ~ revenue is not sufficient
. Building Department is sustaining
. Either fees or the number of employees must be adjusted
. Fiscal Year 2010 - core organization may be skeletal
. Level of service will be impacted
In response to a question by the Committee, Mr. Schmitt stated the Intake Team
Manager's position was frozen. The "team" consists of one person who reports
to Glenda Smith. The former manager was assigned to Code Enforcement.
(Charles Abbott arrived at 3:47 PM)
. Budget allocations will be re-adjusted and reduced
. BCC approval is not necessary since the budget is being down-sized
VI. New Business
A, Fund 131 Reserves - Gary Mullee, CDES Financial Manager
. The structure of Fund 131 reserves is being reviewed
. Reserve fund was created in 10/2003 ~ initial reserve was $1.66 Million
. The Board of County Commissioners approved the fee resolution
. Previously Fund 113 (Building & Plan Review) was the only fund, and building
permit fecs subsidized land use
. Zoning lees have not been raised since 2003
. 200 projccts started belore 10/13 and the funds were deposited to Fund 113
. The Clerk of Courts declared the "reserves" to be a "loan"
. $700,000 has bcen paid back to Fund 131 at a rate of $1 00,000 per year
. Work donc under Fund 131 is paid tor by thc next applicant
. Business has stopped, rescrves in Fund 131 will run out in 2 n 3 months
2
December 3, 2008
(Mario Valle arrived at 3.55 PM)
. Fund 113 collects fees for prepaid commitments (i.e., inspections)
Joe Schmitt outlined a brief history ofCDES and the funding process/fee schedule
created prior to 2002.
. Not enough money was set aside in Fund 131; will approach Board of County
Commissioners to request rebalancing the reserves in Funds 131
There was a discussion concerning the CBIA lawsuit. Under Florida Statutes,
building fees can only pay for the services provided under the building permit. The
law has been in effect since 2004. In the past, building permit fees partially
supported Engineering and Zoning. The building permit fees were artificially raised
but when the Funds were split, the building permit fees were reduced. A suggestion
was made by the Committee to "tag" fees received for pre-paid services and to not
deposit the fees into Reserves. Another suggestion was to examine the efficiency of
the current process and to compare it to other Counties.
(Robert Mulhere arrived at 4:05 PM)
There was further discussion concerning reconciling the Reserves. Options presented
included further reduction of stall: reduced operating hours, and renting space within
the CDES building. Also mentioned was the new software system. Electronic
submittal is not yet an option due to cost. It was noted that Collier County's building
permit fees are among the lowest in comparison to twelve other Counties.
Gary Mullee stated Fund 113 will have reserves through the current Fiscal Year but
Fund 131 reserves will run out in February, 2009.
Chairman Varian confirmed specific recommendations would be presented to the
Committee in the next two months.
IV. Staff Announcements/Updates
C. Public Utilities/Engineering Division Update - Phil Gramatges
. Finances [or next year are being examined
. Public Utilities is funded by rates paid by consumers and Impact Fees
. The 2009 Budget has been analyzed and reduced by $25 Million
. Revenues lor the month are lower than last month
V, Old Business
A, Meter Size Forms - Phil Gramatges
Blair Foley stated there is another process at the Building Permit level utilizing a
similar form with different data which he will provide to Mr. Gramatges before the
next Committee meeting. He suggested adding an "effective date" to the bottom or
the current ((mn to make it easier to distinguish future revisions. Mr. Gramatges
agreed.
]
December 3, 2008
B. Water Surcharge Charts - Discussion
Copies of the charts were distributed to the Committee.
Tom Wides, Operations Director - Public Utilities, provided a brief history of the
rate structure which was expanded to 6 blocks in 2003. The purpose of the inverted
structure is to reinforce conservation. The meter size is not as important as the flow
going through the meter. The average customer used approximately 8,000 gallons
per month. He stated the new Water/Wastewater rates are available on the website.
There was a discussion concerning water used for irrigation, rates, "I.Q." (irrigation
quality) water and dedicated irrigation meters. The Public Utilities contact to obtain
more information regarding irrigation meters is Gilbert Moncivaiz (252-4215).
IV. Staff Announcements/Updates
D, Fire Review Update - Ed Riley, Fire Code Official
. A written report was submitted to Committee members
. Monthly average of reviews remains between 850 - 950 plans
. There is more time to speak to design professionals to correct problems
Chairman Varian mentioned a problem concerning the remodeling of older club houses
which require the addition of fire alarms. He stated the necessity of a full mechanical
plan is a problem when the structure is 15+ years old and no initial plans are available.
Mr, Riley stated the mechanical plan is required to determine the proper fire alarm
components lor the system. One suggestion was involving a mechanical contractor. He
also stated the Building Department will be involved for all renovations over $5,000.00
and will conduct a 61-G Review. He suggested a one-on-one conterence with staff to
review options.
Dalas Disney stated he had recently received calls from Mr. Riley's department staff
asking lor clarification of an issue which avoided rejection of a client's project saving
him time and additional expense which he appreciated.
In response to a question, Mr. Riley replied his department's staff is right-sized and
the department is currently financially stable.
VI. Ncw Business
B. New Building Blocks - "Revisions to Plan Submittal Requirements" - Bob
Dunn and Ed Riley
A copy of the Building Block was distributed to the Committee.
. A round-tablc mceting with contractors has been scheduled to preview the new
software which is expected to be implemented in March/April, 2009
A qucstion was asked about "one revision per permit type." Mr. Riley stated
any item covcred by a building permit (i.e., electrical. mcchanical, architectural)
could be included as part of the "one revision." Sprinkler systcms and lire alarm
systems are separatc horn building permits and would requirc scparate rcvisions. The
trades would bave to coordinate the revisions tor submission at one time.
"
December 3,2008
In response to a question, it was confirmed the General Contractor would serve as the
"applicant of record" and coordinate the trades.
IV. Staff Announcements/Updates
B. Transportation Division Update - Nick Casalanguida
. The 5-year C1E is in process and revenues are projected to be down but the capital
program will remain generally intact
. The Santa Barbara project section of roadway from Copperleafto Green will be
pushed back
. Collier Boulevard is still scheduled for completion on 11/2012 but Golden Gate
might be pushed back a year
. Collier Boulevard (between Davis and 1-75) will start in Fiscal Year 2009
(October or November)
. VanderbiJt is near completion
. 1mmokalee Road is near completion
There was a question concerning landscaping for 1mmokalee Road (up to 951),
Vanderbilt, and Rattlesnake.
Mr, Casalanguida stated the current landscaping budget is $2.9 Million but the
Board of County Commissioners authorized only $1.8 Million and suggested the
Transportation Department accept bids for the project. He further stated the issue is
on-going maintenance and in perpetuity maintenance costs will be included in each
bid. Impact Fees cannot be used for the costs.
VI. New Business
C. Transportation Impact Fee Update - Nick Casalanguida
A copy of the draft report of the Transportation Impact Fee Update Study was
distributed to the Committee.
. Impact Fees are the only revenue stream that funds capital improvement programs
. "Olde Cypress" (going south), the Estates and "Arrowhead" were part of the Trip
Length Study which was conducted to see how far people drive
. The consultant, Tyndale-Oliver, was asked to blend the local numbers with the
State's numbers because Collier's numbers were too high
. Collier County is one of the only Counties that includes Utilities in its Impact
Fees
There was a discussion about why the retail rates increased, lower "pass by and
capture" numbers, and the percentages used for recommended new trips, and
Assisted Living Facilities. Other questions concerned uses and why certain
categorics did not contain subcategories, such as "Specialty Medical."
Mr, Casalanguida stated a pbysician (i.e., psychiatrist) could apply lor an
administrative "specialuse" based on the number of patients seen per day.
It was suggestcd that a sub-class sbould be created. Comments mentioned that
"restrictions werc very tight" and "physicians arc cboosing to open new offices
elsewhere rather than in Collier County due to costs."
It was pointed out full trip generation back-up was not included in the retail study.
5
December 3,2008
Mr, Casalanguida stated new roads are funded by Impact fees, but other municipalities
have additional revenue streams (i.e., tolls, sales tax). The General Fund allocation pays
back loans and pays for operations and maintenance.
There was further discussion concerning why Impact Fees have not been reduced when
costs per lane mile and other costs are lower. Additional information from the
Consultant will be presented to the Committee via email. Figures from some of the
other Counties are being reviewed and updated.
The Report will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on January 13,
and January 27, 2009.
D, LDC Cleanup for the 2009 Cycle
Chairman Varian stated at the last Committee meeting it was suggested that the
Members submit recommendations for the next cycle based on their individual
expertise. It was decided Judy Puig will contact Catherine Fabacher concerning the
Cycle and deadlines. The information will be distributed to the Committee via
email.
VII, Committee Member Comments
A. Discussion of By-Laws - Chairman Varian
Chairman Varian asked the Members to review the thirteen items that comprised the
"functions, powers and duties" of the Municipal Code and if they thought the 2009
Agenda should be adjusted to include the items. He asked the Members to review
Items #6, 7 and 8 specifically.
VI. New Business
D. Transportation Impact Fee Update - Nick Casalanguida
Mr, Casalanguida returned and requested specific action from the Committee
concerning the Report.
George Hermanson moved to accept the Report for purposes of discussion, Second
by Robert Mulhere.
Robert Mulhcre stated the Report may be accepted, but there is no support for
raising Impact Fees and decreases are encouraged.
Reed ,Jarvi stated he did not have enough time to study the Report and would not
support it.
George Hermanson amended his motion to accept the information provided in the
Report but to oppose any increases in Impact Fees, Second by Robert Mulhere,
Motion carried IInanimolls(y, 12-0,
VII. Committec Member Comments
B. Discussion of By-Laws - Chairman Varian
Discussion resumed tocusing on Items 6, 7 and 8. It was suggested to amend the
Agenda to include the items.
(,
December 3, 2008
Chairman Varian stated he would consult with Judy Puig to revise the Agenda
format.
Public Comment:
Chris Straton, President, League of Women Voters of Collier County, introduced
several members of the League in attendance and outlined their functions. She stated the
League's focus for its meetings during the past year has been on Advisory Boards to the
Board of County Commissioners. DSAC was one of four Advisory Boards picked for
study and the basis for asking Chairman Varian to speak at a League meeting.
She stated Collier County has a tradition of soliciting more public comments and
suggested adding the topic of "Public Comments" to the DSAC Agenda.
There was discussion concerning the influence and effectiveness of DSAC, the reluctance
of the BCC to attach any weight to DSAC's recommendations, as well as the composition
of the Committee. It was mentioned that DSAC Minutes are available online.
Clay Brooker stated it would be a good idea to add "Public Comments" to the Agenda.
Chairman Varian stated the topic should also be included in all advertising.
VII, Committee Member Comments
Robert Mulhere stated he attended the BCC meeting on December 2, 2008 and reported
the BCC unanimously approved motions for re-appointment submitted by DSAC.
DSAC Meeting Dates: January 7, 2009 at 3:30 PM
February 4, 2009 at 3:30 PM
March 4, 2009 at 3:30 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chairman at 5:41 PM,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
William Varian, Chairman
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on ___~__
as presented __ . or as amended _~_ __~ _
7