The URL can be used to link to this page

DSAC Backup 07/01/2009 R Office of the Fire Code Official Summary of Pian Review Activity May-09 Architectural Reviews Sprinkler Reviews Underground Reviews Fuel & LP Gas Reviews Hoods & FSUP Reviews Alarm Reviews SOP Reviews Total # 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 FCO: 5/1/2009 NfSA Conference, Orlando 5/19/2009 Fire-Rated Partitions, 1 CEU, Naples 5/19/2009 Fire-Rated Partitions, 1 CEU, Naples Participant Jackie de la Osa Jackie de la Osa Linda Rutkoski 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 Office of the Fire Code Official 2800N. Horseshoe Dr Naples, FL 34104 JULLf 427 58 9 6 11 105 50 ... 20 33 4 Fast Track Architectural 5 Tents 9 0.45 11.5 Hrs 18.42 Hrs 3.17 Hrs 11.42 Hrs 7.17 Hrs 5.5 Hrs 2 4 ( 2 Reviews) ) J-mfJ Fire Plan r~eview - Time Frame Summary May-09 Number Average #of 1st % of 1st Percentages of Number of Time In Reviews Reviews Within Time Reviews Days Days Approved Approved Frames Architectural Reviews Total 427 270 0.63 1st Review 312 193 0.62 232 74% 100/10 Days 4 Day Max 2nd Review 80 52 0.65 100/3 Days 3rd Review 25 17 0,68 100/3 Days 4th Review 9 8 0.89 100/3 Days 5th Review 1 0 0,00 100/3 Days Total 2-5 Reviews 115 77 0.67 100/3 Days 3 Day Max Fire 50rinkler Reviews Total 58 85 1.47 1st Review 32 55 172 17 53% 100/10 Days 4 Day Max 2nd Review ,. 17 1.21 10013 Days 3rdReview 10 12 1.20 10013 Days 4th Review 2 1 0.50 100/3 Days Total 2-4 Reviews 26 30 115 100/3 Days 3 Day Max Underoround Reviews Total 9 15 1.67 1st Review 5 10 2.00 3 60% 100/10 Days 3 Day Max 2nd Review 3 4 1.33 100/30ay5 3rdReview 1 1 1.00 100/30ays 101312-3 Reviews 4 5 1.25 100/3 Days 2 Day Max Fuel & LP Gas Reviews Total . 4 0.67 1st Review 4 1 0.25 75% 100/10 Days 1 Day Max 2nd Review 1 1 1.00 10013 Days 3rdReview 1 2 2.00 100/3 Days Total 2.3 Reviews 2 3 1.50 100/3 Days 2 Day Max Hood & FSUP Reviews Total 11 . 0.73 1st Review 3 3 1.00 0 0% 100/10 Days 2 Day Max 2nd Review 6 3 0.50 10013 Days 3rdReview 1 0 0.00 100/3 Days 41hReview 1 2 2.00 10013 Days Total 2-4 Reviews 8 5 0.63 100/3 Days 2 Day Max Fire Alarm Reviews Total 105 83 0.79 1st Review 60 51 0.85 33 55~. 100/10 Days 3 Day Max 2nd Review 32 23 072 10013 Days 3rdReview 10 5 0.50 10013 Days 41hReview 3 . 1.33 10013 Days Total 2-4 Reviews 45 32 0,71 100/3 Days 2 Day Max -= 1st Review 418 313 0.75 288 69% 100/10 Days Corrections 200 152 0.76 100/3 Days Overall Totals 61. 46' 0.75 OfficeoftheFireCodeOWcial 2800N,HorseshoeDr Naples,FL34104 7er Coun~V 'k Community Development and Environmental Services Proposed FY 20 I 0 Budget Workshop Request t(H Guidance EY 20] 0 Budget Challenge fhe two C'[lES Enterprise Funds. Building Pcnnits Fund 113, rind Land Use Fund] 31. operate completely on permit and application fce revcmlC. Since pcrmitling and application activity began to decline in FY :lOOt). the r~nterpnsc Funds have been h)sing money. Simply stated. the cost f()[ pnwHling s.crviccs has exceeded fix rCVl:~nl1C j~)r those services. One reason costs have exceeded revenue is hecause many fees arc collected at applic;;llion. \vith \vork on~wing for many months, soin limes of declining acti\'ity the expenses can occur in a later time period th8n the revenue. Second, as described ill this hriefing, costs OIl a per-unil hasis have jncrca~ed since the last round of fce increases, and these (;pst increases were mandated outside (lfCDFS wllh no balancing revenue mercases inSide orCDES Clue In the signillcant level of reserves in both funds, by design and based on approved budgets over the past three years the ~hortfall cd' funds has been made up ror by tne lIse of rcscn'es, rhe current economic crisis has dramatically accelerated the n";~erve hurn f(lh.~ and even with the dramatic steps implemented by the division over the pasl 18 months. reserves arc projected to 11m out in F'Y 2010 in the BuiJding Permit Fund 113. and the:y h:lve essentially alrc<:lt.ty run out in thl~ LOBd Use Fund 1] 1. Since the FY 2007 budget, CDES has reduced its annual budget by $32,341,400 (58.4%.), has eliminated 1] 9 positions, has stopped all capital expenses and non-essential operating t.~xpenses, and has placed Its entire Enterprise Fund staIr on 12 hour workweeks with a corresponding 20~,;) pay cut. CDES History of Fe<,; lrI!J:9ascs While there has been a fairly steady -,,{ream of adjustments to the CDr~s fce schedule over the years, the majority (.fthosc have been language n:vislolb alld ihe occasional creatIOn of 3 nc\".fcc to support a nevvly cn<.lcted activity fhese are the major!!:.'c and expense changes enacted through revisions to the lee o[chnance . 1089' (.'reatlon or ilK '\mc-slop shop'" which created the CUITcnl C'DES structure, and Initial fee set-ups and amounts. . 1996: Moving of Planning Department funct.ions out of Fundl11 and inlOFutld 113 by the Bee' The then in place Board tumed down a fee increase for these nc\\' to Fund 1 ! 3 Land Use cl)sls. whIch \vere prcvlOusly panially supported by tax revenue, and required that huildlng permit revenue subsidize t.he Imld use activities pcrfoflllcd hy the Planning Department. From 1996 to 2001 the Planmng Departmen1 included the ClIrrent Planmng Section, the COl1lprehensive Planning: Scchol1, Environmental Revic\v and Engineering Revic\v and all zoning and comprehensive planning, engineering. and t'l1vironmentall<ll1d use petition and plan n::\'ic\\': operations were pref()rmed in t.his department. . 2003: /:\s grov,/th escalated and stafl,ng gre\.\' lp supporl the demands of the industry and the c\)mnlUnity coupled \\iith the ac.cul11tliatcd cffeel of the addiltonal annual costs since the additions to Fund 113 mitiatcd in 1996, in Armllhc Bpard [lasses the tlrst ree increase sine;; 19X9. Va]u3lion tahles an:~ update from the 19S8 table~ to the 201l:! tables, and rC-ll1spcctinn re(;~ increase by $25. To resolve a ncgiltive Clerk audit and legal action initiated h)' the Development industry and suhsequclltly" a mandate by state st;)tutc, in November aIli,and Ilse funclions were split imo a 11e\vly created Fund 131 ,\\"ith a large increase in lnnd nse plannmg and zoning and rdated land use plan rCVIC\V permitting fees Hlld a :::0% decrease in Building permit jt~es fhesc are the lasT rTlCrC;lSes III pcrmil tl:CS tj-lf" new constmcrion. and fhe last lfh:n'iJSeS in the tlwjorily of land use apphcatin}) fces, . 2007: Rc\'ctluC neutral Upd;-ltHl[!: oi'\':Jlualinn f<lhles, revemH;.' ncutn,ll changes 111 Building Permit fee caku 18tion rnetll()(.lolugy" . ZOOS: Increase in mini)!" penl1it fees, primarily swimming pools, tel a p~iy"-pCr-lllsrection fee structure. Increase in Contractor l_iccl1sing t{;CS Workload Ch,mg9> <1!1cl,,'it<liung Ch'l}1&9> QY9LItms \Vbilc there IS much vanalion at the individual :)clivity level, one of the simplest and more valuable comparisons of staffing levels is the tntal number ofpcnnils issued h.y Ihe Building Depanrnenl and the overall stafTing levels in the Enterprise Funds (hmd ] I J and Fund 131 L '\lmost all Enterprise Fund aClrvity that is SllPP0l1Cd by fees, ifin the 7,oning, Engineering. EnvironmentaL or fJuildlTlg sections. leads to the eventual issuance of building pemlits. 'Therc hal'i been ~omc lag in sl<,dTing levels responding 1:0 changes in activity levels due to the time involved lel implemcnt personnel actions. but overall there has been a very close tracking together of stnffing ievels :lnd \NorkloHll The charI and graph bciow use [,oy 2004 (the last fee increase) ;1S <'1 basel iuc. and rncasun:s the percentage changes over time in t.he number of funded FTEs at the slarl of each fiscal year. find the acrunl numher i.Jfpcrmits issued in the prevIous year. C:nrrently, asF"\' 2m 0 dpproachcs, swHlng levels per permit issued arc \vithinY1,o of Vi"hat they \vcre ill f)T 2004 ! a lime of much concern anout pertuit tunwHlund times). ELscalY~^~r FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FYIO Fun.(j.~d FTEs 161 167 199 215 185 137 105 pgro}!.t~Jl;s ued 30.100 32,800 37.500 46.100 29,400 20,600 18,600 Percentage of Permits and Enterprise Fond FTEs Compared to Base or FY 2004 160%, 80'>'~) 140% 120% 1000;', 60% 40% FY04 Fy% FY06 FYOI r:Y08 FY09 FY10 FT[$ Funded P'!lrni!s Is~>ucd Personnel Cost (rrnwth nveLIi.m~ Thc large nH~jnriry of costs \vithin the CDESrntcrpnse Funds are related to personnel, such as salary, health insurance, retirement, elC. These costs ranged. from approximately 7(Y~/0 ofCDI~S total costs in r'v 7.004, to morc than 90l;,o currently (due to the near elimination ofmanj' operating and capItal expensesl_ \Vhile, as discussed earlier, the \vorkload per individual staffmcmher has rcma1l1cd constant, the average ,~ost of that stalfmembcr has: incrcast--:d mark(~d]y since the last fee increase in FY 20n4. 'The principal rCClson 1()1" this personnel cost increase is the series of COLA '$ and lllcrit incre~lses approved by the Board. "vvhich arc list(~d belol,v. and \vhicn represent an accumulated 40~'() increase in sa[arlcs (and s;ll;:lry fied personnel expenses) sinceFY 2004. \Vhik in tax supported funds the illCrt~nSc ill prOptTt)/ valuations covered these increased expenses during this time period, \vith 110 fee increases CDES absorbed these rersonneJ cost increases with no support. Accumulated Fiscal Year Tvoe Increase Percent Increase 2004 COLA 2,80% 28%1 Avg Merit 200%, 49% 2005 COLA ;'>,10% ? 1~;, Avg Merit 2,OOI7f' 92'};, 2006 COlnA 390"(;, 135"/;. Avg Merit 22S(il, 16,0'-'/,,\ 2007 COLA 4,7Q'j(. 21.5% A vg Mont 4.BO'/\, 21_3%) 2008 COLA 4,100:(, 32.5% AV(J Merit 140% 34_4"/" 2009 COLA 4,20%. 4D,()'% AV~J Merit G,OWit, 40.0% During Ihls period CDJ:S[~T1tcrprise Fund average total personnel costs per employee increased from $64,943 h) $84,762, a 3()(l,>;j increase, I'his increase is Jess that tht~ 40l};1 Board approved amount due In variatIOns c.aused hy the large amounts ofCDES turnover from staff level chal1g..~s ;1 Average Enterprise Fund FTE Total Cost ll90,O(){1 'MJ5JJ!)O $80.000 $7,~,nm $7(LOOO $65.000 ,'f,60,I)()O $55000 550.000 $45,000 $4(,000 FY04 FY05 rYOf, ,",VIr! 0;)'0$ 0;'1'0:) FYI{) Thc net effect of this personnel expense increase is lhilt in FY 2004 the average total Enterprise Fund personnel cost per penn!t issued was $347, cUITcntlyit has rose to $478 per permit issued. "1"hr$ personnd cost includes the entire development process, from the initiallanclust:" application to the 'tlnal building Inspection and cCltlficatc ofoceupnllcy. \Vhile the total personnel eosts are S478 per permit. a number that includes none of the CDES operating expenses associated with issuing the permit, the tot(ll fee revenue collccled across the entire approval process, from land use application 10 the las1 building IIlSpcctiOIl, only amounts tn $405 per permit issued Bottom line -- The current./i:'es that C'DES i', charging do nO/fidl)' cover itv pcrsofmcl expenses. and none o(lhe oper"l;nJ.!; and capi/aj C.\j1CI1SeS ass()c'iatcd with l'onducr;lIg ils husincs,\', Llt;J~n~~J.J)p_crating and Capital CQ~,tc" As part of its cost cutting measure&, CDES has eliminated or greatly reduced a Vi3ricty of capita! ilnd operating expenses. fhc exp(,~nscs arc necessary for the ongoing operation ofCDf"S. and rhe cuts are only deferring: the expenses 10 a later date. Once construction activity hegins to increase. i.n the event of and HI response to a natural dis,lstCr. ('DF'S wil! need to stop deferring: InLH:h of these expenses. \\l,th n{) rcrna1l1ing reserves, (,DES \vill h;:wc no funding source for these items. . No vehicle replacements, including those vehicles recommcnded for rcpJacemcnt by Heel. SInce very early F\. 2007 . No purchasing of nc\v C(lmputcrs or any lcclmicaJ support equipment. . ('omplcic elimination of new furnJture and capita! offict., equipment purchases. . Across the bonn:l operating cost decreases, lllcluding elimination (1f"trailling expenses. . FJiminalion of Cl11CrgCJ1C:Y contmgency reserves llsed to fund the organizati()]1 in times of no fee revenue. such as hurricane nx~o\'ery periods. 4 rIDnD~~~t..S,c;Y~nJ)ou.lLPJ;1.n.Q.L:::\~Jhw In the Appendi x sect ion of this hrid:lng is a copy of the J30arcl approved fee action from 1996. a churl nf comparative bllllding permit fees acro~s various Florida jurisdictions. dnd recently published news articles about Itx: increases ill other local Junsdicti(l!ls At the June 29!;' Budget .Workshop CDES will hnve representatives oflhe private sC"ct('r firms currently conducting rate studies oflhe CDES fee structure. Representatives from those I1Il11S will be able to address ally' questIons the Board may h<lVL and take any Board input. nn the J(.'c study mcthodolngy and forrmn of a potential ft:e increase proposal projecIed to be final1zed nod rcady t()I Board consideratJOn this fi.\ll At the JUIlC 291hBudget Workshop, CDES \vil! he looking J()[ Board guidanu: as to the appropri<lteness of its seven rOm! plan of action to address the current ltmding needs: \vithin CDES: 1. Board review and c(ll1sidcratlon of lee incrCilscs th~.ll corne III trom our t\\'o oul-sourced tee studies. These studies will include indu'.try parllcipation, and all industry mpm will hf; presented to the Board, Fu]] supporting dal<-l 1'01' each individual recommendation \vill he pfl;;scnted to the Board. Any reduction of the level uf proposed fee increases would have to be bal;U1eed \V'ith lax Suppnl1 or thc elimination of services. Those lask items identified hy the studies as currently baying no assigned fee hasis \\:ould require a new J(~e. tax support. or would need tu he eliminated. Any recommcndatiptl contained \vithin the studIes tn [mvcr .Jny spec ilk ft:es will also bl' presented W the Board, 2. Approval for a Fund 131 loan fmm Fund 1] L executed this fiscal year, to cover ()utstanding indirect allocation and health insurance expenses ($].45 l11rllionL I'his loan WIll alknv r;.und 131 In transfer funds In cover the5C l'usts conlained in Fund 00]. \-\lith it fee Ilh:rcas..:, Fund 13] \viU he able to begin repaying this loan m }:y 201C! 3. Consideration in Septclnher of a pm posed annual indexing of C[)[~S bl1ikhng and land use fees, te be tIed to the percentage of County apPHH/cd annual pcrscll111cl expense inCre;\Sl:s. Suc,h an indexing proposal ;:vould include proVIsions f0f annual DSAC review and mpl1t, along \vlth annual formaJBonrd conSIderation 4, Annual !<x rcvic\\-.s which target rCSCf\'t~ leveL; nt :1 to (1 months of opcrming expenses, \vith a ice adjustment proposal processes bejng triggered ifrL'servL:s cxcL:ed or hl11 hciow target Jimits, 5. CDES uTill ,\/ork with HR and where required, the Purchasing DCpclrtmcnl, \0 create a fonl1al re- stafting plan, ,'vhich utilIzes temporary, oUlsourced, and pan-time employees \.vhercvcr practical as a first hiring strategy until increast:~d workloads arc funy established. I'hc proposed re-stafting plan will be suhmitted to DSAC !()r review and i.nput and then submitl(~d to the Board for revic'iv. On an on-going baSIS. the Board through their existing budget <luthority Will bc able 10 monitor. rc..stafflnf! efforts, 0, CDES \vill work \,-,jlh DSAC on urdaling Iht:~ wrgcb l(Jr turnaround times This \vill include co:\1 0stimates, with associated fee adjustments, t()r any changes to the turnaround times \vhich \1,.'il1 serve as the hase kvcl incorporated into Sept ILx~ increase proposals, Such pcrJ(Jrmauc(' slandanJs \vill be 1'()l1"mdizcd. and C[)L"S will cxpl()n.:~ with I)SAC' the possihility of lt1(;orporating incerliivcs and penalties wi1hin the fee schedule for exceeding or DIll meeting sLlch per11:XrmiflCe standards. 7. Ajoint DSAC and CDES review of potential cost s<Jvings from potential process changes. \-vith recommendations beil1!! fon-vardcd h) the Board lor consideration. These changes arc iikcly to include changes 10 the code as our pwccsses arc lied directly Ii.") necessary procedures to assure code c(lmpliatlcc. Potcntial cosf savings would he tied directly to either pcrl()rmancc improvements or fee decreases. nlld would be lmplcmented as approved hy the Board. , Appendix Items . 1996 Fee Executive SummarY - . Comparative Building Permit Fees . Cape Coral Fee Increase Article . EXlIC....u..w;,.w; w... .'" - _... ~y PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 95-6<42 WHICH ESTABLISHED A FEE SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES AS PROVIDED FOR IN DIVISION 1.10 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. OBJECTIVE: To have the Boord of County Commissioners approve on amendment to the fee schedule for bundlng permit and development review fees. CONSIDERATIONS: When the Development Services Department's One-Stop- Shop permitting function was implemented In 1989, the budget for the fiscal year included increased building permit fees and staff development review fees. There were also new fees Instltvl.9d for utmty review. water management review. and permllting and inspection of resIdential wells. . Since 1989. the Development ServICes Advisory Committee (DSAC) has discussed. on numerous occasions. the approprloteness of funding vorlous functions within the Community Development and Environmental Services Division from either building permit revenue and development review fees or from ad valorem taxes (general government functions). WIthin the post three years. the DSAC has sfated thaf the funcfions supported currently by permits/fees represent fhe appropriate allocation of the development community's contribution to the Community Development and Envronmental Services Division budget During the FY 97 budget wort<shops. the BCC directed staff to evaluate the building and development permit fees generated and determine the amount of funds needed from this source If ad valorem toxes {Funds 001 and 1111 were not utilized in the Community Develapment and Environmental Services Division. During this discussion. the BCC members recognized that It may not be appropriate to fund 011 Community Development functlo,s from permit revenues/fees. However. the expressed Intent was to fund Commun1ty Development functions. to the maximum extent possible. from toes. The BCC made the policy decision to fund portions of programs In the Natural Resources. Planning Services. HUI. and the Graphics Section (tradltlonally funded by ad valorem tax dollarsl from the fee supported Community Development Fund (113). The amount fransferred was a net $726.900. At that point, staff indicated that a fee increase might be needed to absorb these oddllional . costs. :r~) DEe 1 7 1996 ....-L- . At the Boord's final budget heorlng on September 18, 1996. stoff was directed to re-evaluate the need for a fee Increase based on actual FY 96 revenues and expenses. A revised tee schedule for FY 97 would be brought to the BCC for approval, after the need for the fee Increase was evaluated. Since the Board concluded their workshOps. staff has met on numeroos occasions wlth Collier Building Industry Officials (CBIA) and twlce wlth the OSAC. At 011 fhe meetings. these groups stated their opposition to rafslng building and development permit fees to fund programs other than those currently funded. Based on FY 96 actual revenues and expenses. 0 surplus In carryforward revenue of approximately $1.1 million was reallzed. This was primarlly the result of revenues received above fhe level forecast in FY 96. Stoff recommends thot this carryforward be utilIZed to fund the programs shifted to Fund 113. Based on FY 96 permit activity. the FY 97 .~lStimoted revenues for bulldlng permits. convenience building permits. peTnit applications. fire plan reviews ond development plan approvals be revised upwardS a net $A8~.250. this Is n2! 0 fee Increase. This action will merely increase FY 97 revenl,es. based on prtar years revenue receipts. However. stoff is recommending new or Increased fees In certain areas. An . explanation of each of these recommendations is listed below: 1. Leffers of zoning/land use. Stoff Is recommending a fee of $25 be assessed to anyone seeking an offICial letter from the Community Development and Environmental Services Division fa, verilication of zoning and/or Iond use of 0 particular parcells) of property. 2. Reinspec1ion fees . Current ff)3S for this service do not adequately compensate the County for se0/lces rendered. I believe the proposed increases to $25 - first: $40 - second: and $50 . third and successive re- inspections, are fair and more appropriately defray associated costs. 3. licensing - Curren fly no charges are assessed to conlroctors for letters of reciprocity prepared by County staff to other counties/cities as well as local registrafion of state certified contractors. We are recom"nenc:fmg fees of $3 and $10 respectively for these services. Based upan staff's research. charges ore assessed in Lee County. Fll'lally, this Division has hcd a long-standing policy of photographing conlro(l)l'S and including these photographs In our files. We ore utilizing 0 digital camera for this fUl'lction and we ore proposing o $2.00 fee to defray the costs oSl,cloted with this function. 4. Copy lees. Xerox copy cosls are not needed in this secfion since they ore il'leluded il'l the miscellaneous secllon. . ~) DEe 17 1996 . .... 2. . . . 5. Research. This Involves reports that are camputer generated and currently are not available on our menu. 6. On-call inspection. During the FY 97 budget process, stoff recommended thof fhe County hire state certified building Inspectors to provide assistance. when needed. should stoff not be able to provide Inspection servlces on 0 "timed" request basis. Stoff Is working with the Purchasing Deportment to secure resumes of interested parties. Our plan Is to charge $40 fa on 0n-c01l Inspection and pay the inspector $20 per inspection. 7. Registration of rental dwelling units. The initio I registration fee of $15 and the annual renewal of $10 Is recommended to off.setthe costs of this program. A minimum housing code ordinance omendment was approved on November 26 (Ordinance 1196-76). FISCAL IMPACT: The attached table shows the FY 97 odopted budget revenues and costs In Fund 113 and tfle proposed appropriations and revenues based on the recommendations Ir. this executive summary. The proposed appropriations column Includes the Community Development Fund (113) support fo.. 0 portion of Natural Resources. Planning Serw:es. HUI. and the Graphics Section for $726.900. The proposed revenue shows the replacement of the prior fee increases of $726.900 os the funding source with 0 combinallon of increasing FY 97 selected budget revenues $<189.200 based c.) historical levels and Increased carryforward of approximately $1.1 mmlon. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Thatlhe Bool(j of County Commissions approve the fee increases and/or new ees proposed nnd aU assocloted budget amendments. PREPARED BY: 7t:ii?l-;:f. ~ DATE: v.neent^.CO~efO.^d.mn~or Community Oev, & Env. Svcs. Olvlslon REVIEWED BY: DATE: w, NeR Domll. County Menoge' :~)I DEe 17 1996 . .....~ ~ '" ~ <0 L " '" C cw Z :;:: 00 Vi I 2 r 2 ~ :;:: <f o >.c U ::J en <D ~ ;z l.L Vi '= I- :;:: >.c cr: d w en CL 0 <D 0 Z q " e < c: c; >.c L C - '" :-g ~ L ro on c: '3: aJ .9. ~ :2 ~ ~ ~ v: c .-1 :~ ~ L .0 - [: C o '" u 0 <U U Q. <U ro <U U ~ ~ o z ~ ~ 00 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 m ~ 0 00 C W 00 m ~ m N rl N ~ ~ m 00 ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ rl 0 ~ 00 ~ 0 co I'- f'-..~ oq NO'" .q- M M N ..-l q 00 00 00 r--.~ ":t ~" oq ~~~~~~NNNNNNN~~~M~M~ ~~0~~~~~~~~~~~0~0~~~ o o 'I ~I ..-<~ I V> o o ,-; '" rl o 0 o 0 o 0 '" 0 N N v; if> V> o 0 If) 0 o 0 N q rl 0 V", 0 MOO 0 .-l N N N V). <../) V') 4./) 000 C q 0 0 C? Ui d Ui ..-l ~ 0 N ,-I rl rl I'" N rl m "' i if, V} V} U1 VI N m v; o 61 o a a a 0 ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ R: ~I ~ I ~ o a a " rl o I' 0 o \D 0 6000 o w 0 .-l f'.IN o o c:i " rl v. V). 'V} V). V} '\rr if> V> V> V> o o rl "' fd o 0 0 0 0 o q 0 0 q a Ui 0 0 l.f) o l.f) f'.- (Vi N M N N o '" a q ~ 0 o l.f) ci U) W 0 '" N -i: o rl m rl v'l -u) -V'l- V). '.f} V> v> V> if> o 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 q q o v) 0 0 w> N rl N !"-- N M rl 000 o 0 C: 600 U) 0 0 rl rl N {/} 'i./)- I if. L' q o '" 'C,., <^ i./). -t/'} (/). LI} ,'} ~ a 0 i5 0 q 000 a 0 U) ":1 .-l N '-' 0 0 a q a q ex: 000 lD a N tf) G\ "'t N N ...r. 000 G\ 0 0"\ ~ C t.O N If'! M rl <.0 cr. I co 00 " rn ! a c C', 00 rl Vl V). 'V} if> if> if,. if' V) V, -l.J'r i..f} if> o o <Xi rl I'" I I U) c 0 o 0 o ci a N '" M U) rl M rl V> if> Ui o+~ 0 : 0 0 0 0 M dIu; 0 rl a N 0 0 Ui N Ui 0 Ui 0 ~ 00 d N ~ rl rl ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ l.f) ~ ~ 0 00 ~ 00 rl rl rl'-;" .-l~ rl 000 N q q rl 00 Ui "'t N 0 rl rl rl <::.1' o::s' q-' ONI.DNOO'lr--OOr---Ml.DroQ..-IONO"lO u"\ (Y') M 0 .q <'-l <'-l 00 00 I"-- "" I...D i""I 0 U"'l M oQ' 0 rl rl rl .-I 0 0 0 Ci1 O'l O'l 00 00 CO 00 r--. r--. I..D q ~rl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ v)'v)v)V"'l-iJ"}~V). 00 "" ..., 0' a a co co 8 c:i "" if> v; V"> if> a <:) c:i '" if> <:) 0 0 0 a 8 8 0 8 8 8 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 <:) 0 q 0 z :?: c:i 0 c:i '" v; '" c:i c:i oi .,; c:i '" c:i 0 0 a '" "- "- '" co '" ..., "- " co m u'1 ..., ..., ..., '" :r: <! ~ cc <! ;;; v; if> V>- V>- v, if> V>- V> v; V"> V>- V>- "- ;;; <! 0 0 0 '" <:) <:) 0 <:) :5 <:) <:) a 0 "- 0 0 a "'; 0 a a q 0 0 q u w c:i a en "" en 0 '" m .,; <:) '" a -' v; CD 0 '" '" "- en "- en, "- " 0' 0 '" w Z ..., ..., ..., w w Vi v; v; V} v; if, V"> V> v; v; V"> v; '= t- w ;;; d 0 0 <:) <:) '" 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 cc 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 q '" 0 0 w v; c:i en N 0 cD 0 en '" ci u-i c:i 0 "- 0 '" N M en 0 0 N '" .. 00 c" '" \D 0 ..., ..., M ..., ..., ..., Z 0 "j if> V> if> V> V> v; v; v; V>- cr, if> V> '" <! -' '" '" u'1 '" '" 8 '" 0 0 :;) ..., 0 co '" "- q 0 00 0 N c:i co 00 '" "" en ui w ..., "" N ..., "- 00 en N M ..., N V>- V>- V> if> V> V>- v; V> 00 '" :5 0 '" m '" '" 0 "- c:i ci a c:i 00 '" '" en rl m rl ..., ..., v; if> 11> V> V>- a a a '" 0 '" '" '" '" '" a is 8 '" <:) <:) <:) '" '" '" co "- a 00 0 a <:) a '" q a a a 0 c:i '" ui oJ m cD "- c:i "" "- a '" ci en 0 c:i <f c:i '" rl M "" "" "" "- '" "- "" co N .. co '" '" 00 '" 00 '" 00 "- co '" co "- co co '" co LI'I '" co "" '" N c-i <:) '" ui "" .~ " - " E U,. c: " g 0- <i - '" ,," " " Ci '" u c: 0- '0 '" C. :J <! '" ~ . u '" $7.000 $6.500 $6000 $5.500 $5.000 $4.500 $4,000 $3,500 $3.000 $2.500 $2.000 $1.500 $1.000 $500 Total Building Department Costs for A 2,000 Square Foot Single Family Home $0 ~~~~~~1~~~~~~~4~~~3~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~o~t~~~~~~s~~~l'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f~~~~~ ~~~~~~~v~~~~~~~~r~r~~~0~~ifvr~if~~;~~r~r~~vrOr~~0ro t?.......-~.:::;:; '..:;f", 'b>V,c,.........~1l'<)O~ ...."v >t>c,"'l'.......... vv~'"'v ~~ ~ ~.:,:.o .:0 .$' S' ...'Ir .../fJ cl' ;..,fJ 0 'Ir ....0 ,Ib" (I 0 ~ ," 1;'" (b.... ".,,(.j ...q, ../). ,,'rt at.> '" 1t~ q' ",," rQlb c: <:- '=* ~<) 't>Q. q,!:I> ..q't>,:::.;"., 'I1l:;b .t-'1: ~'rf Q.~ cP '1:,,0 .}' 0::;'~ o~~:l '~~(l.4,. ,/' <2:.) ~'Ir oi2 .)~~qo'" ~o~ ~:~<"ft ....00 q, ,Q.o <<.....'" ;;;.0} l:;~ ..../b'" 'b"~,p qO ,J..." 0- v 'V .:;, ,,~..o '1:" ,"' ~ Q ~o ~ C, <;0'1: '0" ':'t-'t> ,,'It... <( .'!o,.'Ir 0 .....'tt 0 ~ ~0 ~'Ir ~ ~" ..\0, 0 0 0 "':' ~ ~~(,~ {.~ i.J~ v Permit fees for single-family home to jump CC:CIA: Increases arc necessary By GRAY ROHRER, grohrer@breezenewspapers,coffi POSTED: May 19,2009 The cost of building, construction and miscellaneous pennits in Cape Coral will go up later this summer, with the blessing of the Cape Coral Construction Industry Association, Cape Coral City Council members unanimously approved two resolutions Monday that will raise the cost or building permits l()r 2,500-square-f()ot single-ramily homes ham $522 to $1,866, Miscellaneous permits will become more expensive July 6, while new construction building permit rees will take elTed Aug, I ,In the midst or one or the worst times for the construction industry, CCCIA representatives said the increases are not as high as previous proposals, and are necessary to prevent the subsidization of the city's Department of Community Development. 11 At the highest rate. it would1vc been 25 percent higher," CCCIA president Becky Switl said, Since the beginning or the fiscal year, about $1.2 million in generall'und monies have been used to covcr DCn costs, prompting city stalIcrs to bring torward an increase in fees that have not changed for morc than eight years,CCCIA executivc director Patti Schnell worked with Assistant Cify Manager and DCD director Carl Schwing, Financial Services Director Mark Mason and othcr city stafTers to ensure the rate increases were equitable, She said she has noticed a sea change in the construction industry's l(lI'Inerly rocky relationship with the eity, "We're all rowing in the Same direction," Schncll said, She credited the economy and Schwing, who took over as DCD director rrom I lector Rivera in August, as the main reasons for the change, "A combination of Carl's leadership and the economy has contribllled to it," Schnell said, In a memo to the CCCIA last month, Schwing did promise his department would provide better, more timely service, He noted that all phone calls made to inspectors bell)!'e 2 p,m, would be returned within one bour, updated phone l1Lunbers for the Building Division starr would be maintained on the eity's Web site and voice mail and e-mail responses would be updated lor vacation or sick days in case builders have an emergency, among other dcclarations of better service, Council members applauded the collaboration of the CCCIA and city stall'. "It's so refresbing to see that thc city has worked with the industry and come to an agreement," Councilmember Gloria Tate said,