Loading...
DSAC Minutes 08/02/2000 RAugust 2, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, August 2, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, as the governing board of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION, at the Conference Room "F", Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: DALAS D. DISNEY CHARLES MORGAN ABBOTT R. BRUCE ANDERSON, ESQ. ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP MARCO A. ESPINAR BLAIR A. FOLEY BRIAN E. JONES DINO J. LONGO THOMAS MASTERS, P.E. THOMAS R. PEEK C. PERRY PEEPLES VINCENT A. CAUTERO JACK CROGNALE TOM KUCK ROBERT MULHERE RON NINO ED PERICO PATRICK G. WHITE, ESQ. DAVID ELLIS MATT BIXLER ED RILEY Page I August 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Since we have a quorum we'll go ahead and start. I will call to order the August 2rid, 2000 meeting of the Development Services Advisory Committee. The first item is do we have any additions to the agenda, anyone? Mr. Cautero? MR. CAUTERO: Just one addition I'd like to propose to you under old business and I would propose it is Item 4D, as in David, a discussion with the committee on the status of the activities of the office of the fire code official and the fire code official, Mr. Riley, is here today, tonight, and that we've talked about in the past. And I'd like to bring you up to date on what has been happening with the task force that was formed and some discussion with the board of county commissioners yesterday. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. Any other revisions to the agenda? No one? MR. PEEK: Move approval. MR. LONGO: You so move, and second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All those in favor, say aye, please. Any opposed? None? All right. The next item is the approval of our minutes of the July 5, 2000 meeting. Are there any revisions to it before we get the motion for approval? Any changes? Is there a motion for approval? MR. MASTERS: Motion to approve. MR. PEEK: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All those in favor, say aye, please.. None opposed? Okay. Item 3A, Staff Announcements Summary of the Ordinance Amendments. Mr. Cautero-- MR. CAUTERO: Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: -- could you bring us up to date? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. You have a sheet in your packet after the minutes showing the standard summary proposal and its amendments which have been approved by the board of county commissioners over the past few months. Page 2 August 2, 2000 Nothing new here. It's basically the same as last month but there is one item that I did want to talk to you about. Yesterday the board of county commissioners continued an item that is one that presented a little bit of difficulty for us because it fell in between your two meetings times, between your July meeting and your August meeting, and that was a revision to the impact ordinances in dealing with golf course impact fees. We're trying to tighten up the language pursuant to the audit that the Clerk of Courts performed earlier this year and found that our procedures in collecting impact -- transportation impact fees for golf courses was lacking. And we -- you probably read the article in the paper or had heard about it. There was a little over $2 million that the Clerk had calculated that we hadn't collected in the span of a little over two years. We have made great strides in fixing the system and interpreting the ordinance as well as collecting most of those impact fee moneys that were due to the county. And the County Attorney's office, in working with our staff, had reached an agreement that an ordinance amendment was necessary. Unfortunately, it wasn't drafted in full until after, or in a form where we can present it to you until after your July meeting but prior to today's meeting. The good news is the ordinance was continued and we will have a chance to get your input. Those are one of the things that is unfortunate because your ordinance does call for your review of those kinds of ordinances. The ordinance attempts to identify the point at which the golf course impact fee is collected and I'll be very brief because I don't want this to dominate the meeting and also to talk about alternative fee calculations. We are having a disagreement right now with the Clerk of Court on the exact wording of some definitions; specifically, the definition of building permit. We have come to define a building permit in this county for as long as the codes were in effect as the certificate or the document that you receive in order to construct a building or a vertical structure. Page 3 August 2, 2000 The problem with the golf course is you're talking about development that doesn't necessarily involve a structure even if a golf course is constructed. That is not part of the golf course. A clubhouse is constructed but it is not part of the actual permit approval for the golf course necessarily. So, you're talking about horizontal development; moving dirt, putting in a drainage system, putting in utilities and so forth. That does not require a building permit. The approval is in a site development plan or it could be a site improvement plan or it could be a preliminary work authorization. And those of you in the consulting field, especially engineering, are pretty much aware of that. So, therein lies the issue and that's the purpose of what the ordinance amendment is about. This is a temporary and interim ordinance amendment prior to the omnibus ordinance amendment that would take place in October when all of the impact fees are consolidated to a set of new guidelines that the consultant has been charged with. So, that ordinance amendment was continued yesterday. We received no discussion and we will revise that ordinance as soon as we can. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And you said that that will come back around to us so we'll have an opportunity to see that, Vince? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. We plan to bring it to your subcommittee and I would like to recommend that your land development regulation subcommittee and/or your construction committee meet this month and we'd like to bring those drafts to your -- to at least one of those committees, maybe both, and then here it is September. The earliest we could go is September 12th to the board. We may not do that either. It could be later, depending on the language that we've agreed to with the Clerk, but unfortunately we were in one of those boxes where we went through several drafts and we didn't have anything that we are able to present until after your meeting had already taken place. We could have called the meeting of your subcommittee but -- to do that, but I felt a little uncomfortable doing that because the full committee would have not necessarily had disclosure and it wouldn't -- you know, I just felt uncomfortable with that because I didn't think it was my place to call a meeting of your Page 4 August 2, 2000 subcommittee without the full committee being aware that -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So, we'll run it through subcommittees and then bring it back here to full committee next -- MR. CAUTERO: September. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. MR. CAUTERO'. The earliest the board could hear it would be after your meeting anyway. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. The reporter reminds me that please identify as we go around so that -- if I don't do it prior so that we can get it -- everybody identified on the record. Okay. You have 3B, Miscellaneous Items. MR. CAUTERO: Yes. Just one announcement. I'd like to introduce Patrick White, who is our newest addition to the staff. He's an Assistant County Attorney. We talked about this position before, the position David Weigel and I had talked about months ago and the board approved. Patrick is an Assistant County Attorney who will be housed in this building permanently working in development services matters and he most recently was with the County Attorney's office as an assistant in Lee County. So, he's very much familiar with the issues in the region and has hit the ground running already in helping us with some development applications and ordinance amendments and just general work, especially in the growth management plan, and we're pleased to have him. I just wanted to introduce him to everybody. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Patrick introduced himself at the beginning of the meeting. Welcome, Patrick. MR. WHITE: Thank you. And anybody who did not get one of my business cards, I'm handing them out. MR. ABBOTT: I've got room on my card here. MR. WHITE: That's what I was saying earlier. They're free for those who -- but I'm looking forward to working with you all because certainly I understand that our office hasn't had the opportunity to work with you before and I think they're getting in on the ground floor, if you will, of what's going on in terms of regulations in the mind set of the development community is essential. Page 5 August 2, 2000 So, hopefully we'll have a, as Vince put it, permanent working relationship and I appreciate the opportunity to let me sit in. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Welcome. Thank you for being here. Anything else under miscellaneous? MR. CAUTERO: Just one other item. There's a vacancy on the committee that was created when Mr. Dillon resigned. It has been advertised. The closing deadline is August 18th, so I will have resumes for you at your September meeting. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. Thank you, Vince. Moving on then to old business, Item 4A, Budget and Building Expansion? MR. CAUTERO: Thank you again, Mr. Disney. The continuation of the item last month or the month before -- I'm losing track of time here -- I have some sheets in your budget -- excuse me -- in your booklet that talk about the revenue and appropriations in the community development fund and this is an issue that we spoke about when we talked about the potential fee increase in order to make up the shortfall for expanded. I'd like to put just a couple of sheets up on the overhead to talk about that. We met with the CBIA round table on Monday and had a very productive meeting and we talked earlier about the possibility of spending more than $5 million in cash for the building expansion and that number was recommended by the finance committee. Again, for those of you who weren't here or just as a reminder, the finance committee made that recommendation prior to these numbers being finalized. That meeting was held a long time ago, several months ago, and that number was floated to the board of county commissioners and it is reflected in the appropriation revenue sheets. That's why your operating cost goes down approximately $10,000,000 from here to here, from the forecast to the current service. Again, a little bit of a refresher. The adopted budget is self-explanatory. The forecast is what we anticipate spending prior to September -- to October 1st of this year and the current service is the proposed budget, so that's -- that's the little primer on the terminology we use in Collier County in the budget process. Expanded are additional programs in the fiscal year. Current Page 6 August 2, 2000 services is normal, is a continuation of the programs that we have in place. It's not to be confused with base level. Some of you may have heard that term and you may hear us use it in budget hearings. That's also an important term. Base level of those -- base level of those programs that are the minimum that are needed to be provided to meet state mandate, federal government mandate or local ordinance. That's not for discussion right here, but I just wanted you to be aware of that. Expanded services are those above and beyond. So, what we've told you at the last meeting was that these expanded services in the various departments or sections that make up the development services function, we are going to have $1.7 million and change needed in new appropriations next year. Again, that is provided that only five million was spent on the building expansion. The finance committee was -- was very much amenable to revising that and so was the county manager, so I would like you to talk about that today. I know you will, and we're prepared to entertain a recommendation and possibly spend more money, which would lower the debt service burden. That number comes down. The budget director tells me that number would come down about $150,000 if we spent six million instead of five million. In a moment we'll get into some of the specifics about the building expansion cost. Jack Crognale from facilities management was kind enough to come today as there is some document in here on how they arrived at that but I will tell you that's relative of this discussion or almost relative. And here's why. We know the project is going to cost over six million. We know that. I mean, I don't think anybody can argue that when we build a garage and expand this building 40,000 square feet. We know we're going to be over that. If we spend that in cash, the loan then is up to whatever else we need, and we're estimating up to not to exceed three and a half more million dollars. So, that affects the debt service, not the outlay in the cash. So, that number could come down each year and that's good because then this expanded number comes Page 7 August 2, 2000 down. But let's say for argument sake we do borrow three and a half million. This number then comes down $150,000, so you're talking about 1.61 million. I have to give you some new information that's not reflected on this sheet. It's already outdated because of yesterday's board meeting. The board approved the program to -- that they've been talking about for two years now and they charged me with coming back with numbers on three different occasions. And yesterday we came back with final numbers and the board approved it unanimously, an aggressive housing and development services program in Immokalee to coordinate with -- to coordinate a multi -- sorry -- a multidepartment program where new staff members are hired to set up a permanent office in Immokalee to work with property owners and substandard housing and also to work with all the mobile home parks in order to bring these mobile home parks into compliance with the land development code, which is going to require a very detailed and involved effort on our part. We told the board members that the first year of costs for that program and then in ongoing costs would be approximately $577,000, but just under 200,000 of that would come from ad valorem taxes because there will be code enforcement officers involved. The majority of that in the $370,000 range would come from this fund because that's exactly what those employees would be doing. They would be working in the development services area reviewing site plans. We would take some money in but we don't have an estimate of how much money we're going to be taking in. We anticipate very little. And that money probably wouldn't come in for the first two years. The first year or so is going to be prep, preparation for the program. It will involve building inspections, it will involve site development plan review, it will involve working with property owners to have them apply for site development plan review and so forth. It's a development services office, if you will, in Immokalee. So, you have to -- you take one fifty off that, you add three seventy, you're about $2 million. Page 8 August 2, 2000 We -- we told you at the last meeting that the 15 percent fee increase would bring in about 1.4 million. So, that still isn't enough. However, one of the things we talked with the CBIA about, and they were amenable, there are things we -- there are different things we can do if the committee is still amenable to looking at the fee structure to make up for the expanded rather than taking it out of reserves. And the reason we're having the discussion again, for those of you who weren't here, as a reminder, is we could go into the reserves, but keep in mind we have GIS and we're going to be spending approximately two to $3 million over the next few years which always was anticipated from out of reserves, a very appropriate use of the reserve funds. That's what the committee was anticipating. That's what the community is anticipating, using that money, a very good use of the funds. Ongoing costs to maintain it into the future would come from future reserves that we build up if we take more money in than we spend but we wouldn't anticipate new people paying for the GIS. It's everyone else. Like the scanning equipment that Bob purchased for the records room, you were very clear about the fact you wanted at least the purchase of the equipment and the training for the employees to get up to speed to come from reserves and then a surcharge would be for use in the future. The same concept with GIS. The bottom line is yes, we can use reserves. Nobody is saying we can't. But we're going to run out in two to three years, maybe four years, if we spend all of the money that we need to on the building expansion, the debt service back even with rent coming in. We anticipate that that reserve money -- that reserve will -- will eventually be eaten up. Why? Because you have the GIS money that we're going to have to spend, plus I have to make up that two million a year somewhere because this is the amount of money that we're bringing in. If this number was higher, it wouldn't be a factor, but we're anticipating 10.5 -- excuse me -- that's the appropriation. The revenue number is actually 200,000 less than that, that 10.5 and the expanded service, as you can see, as a component of that. So, there are different ways to tackle the problem. And one Page 9 August 2, 2000 that we talked about, which we did visit with this group about on one occasion previously, was the use of valuation tables that are current from the Southern Building Code Congress and not the current tables that we're using, which are about 12 years -- MR. MULHERE: 12 years old. MR. CAUTERO: -- 12 years old, would serve our purpose. I can't tell you that, you know, we're going to come here in good conscience a few years ago and say we need to get rid of those. Why? Because look how much money, you know, we're making, we anticipate making from those tables $7 million, plus some money in Immokalee, $7.2 million. That's a lot of money. We could look at a combination of those tables, plus proportionate fee increases in the development review function area and the building permit area would let the tables take over, we can do that calculation. Our recommendation isn't to tell you today we need this percent fee increase. We don't want to say that to you today, because if we do, it would probably be about 18 percent. What I would like to say is that we need to raise somewhere between 15 and 20 percent in order to make up that $2 million shortfall for next year rather than dip into reserves only because of the anticipated expenses. We're only having this discussion because of the building expansion, the Immokalee program and GIS. It's the only reason why we're having it. It's not because I need more money in the bank. I think three to $4 million is a very good number in the bank but, again, keep in mind, it's two million bucks a year that we're going to have to spend to administer the programs the board has asked us to administer without the revenue coming in to match that. So, what I'd like you to do is maybe you can form a temporary subcommittee, not just bring it to one of your subcommittees, and have as many members as possible on it or have special meetings if the whole group wants to be involved and actually go over the numbers from the SCCI tables and Ed could do some calculations and show what we anticipate that coming in as and then maybe do some kind of a calculation along those lines and leave it open ended and say we need to strive towards this. This is what we're going to do. Page 10 August 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So, you want an ad hoc committee. MR. CAUTERO: I'd like an ad hoc committee. I'd like to recommend you an ad hoc committee for this purpose. But one of the things we don't want to discount is looking at those valuation tables and seeing what they may bring in. I think it's an all or no proposition in terms of whether you use that number or not but that doesn't mean we can't control the percentages either. Those tables could bring in more than 15, 18 percent alone in the building area. Well, then, we can just temper that a little bit if the committee feels that's too high as an example. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. There were some questions. Mr. Duane first, please. MR. DUANE: Vince, a few years ago the road management department was principally funded through general revenue funds and I think I recall that we shifted some of those -- MR. CAUTERO: Yes. MR. DUANE: -- costs over to this department. Then I believe the environmental department needs to be funded through general funds and we put some of those, that funding, on to development services, and I'm all for trying to do anything we can for Immokalee, but $400,000 to come out of, you know, this departments', you know, surplus fund to work through future revenue increases for something arguably to benefit the community as a whole, am I missing something? Is that not something that might not be as viable for the general taxpayer to -- to pay a little more than just a third of that as opposed to development services making up the lion's share of the difference? MR. CAUTERO.' Well, if I understood your question correctly, stop me if I'm wrong, I believe you're asking whether or not the program in Immokalee is -- is properly funded from the development services fund with the community development fund. And I would say that that is an appropriate use of those funds but I think the -- MR. DUANE: Is or isn't? MR. CAUTERO: Is. MR. DUANE: Is. MR. CAUTERO: But I think the, quote, point of your question as to what may not be an appropriate use of the funds right here Page11 August 2, 2000 and that's what you're talking about. These -- these are the numbers right here and what is coming out, almost $1.7 million per year, from this fund into other departments and that goes back to the project. The board had to be worked on in 1996 or 1997 when the commission said we want as much of your division to be funded by that fund as possible. And I said, well, there are specific uses for those funds. The state statute is very clear that you can only use building permit funds to support the enforcement of the code and the development services function is -- is basically Ron's section and Tom's section. That's -- that's what I call the development services function in the planning department and they have their own funds that they rely on. They are not whole. They're almost there because of the -- the work that we've done with those fees, adjustments we've made. We've cut some corners. That was a charge the county manager gave me five years ago, try to make that department, if you will, that function, as self-sustaining as you possibly can. We are not there yet but we're in much better shape than we were when I came in five years ago. Some money from the building portion of that fund, there are two components of that fund, is the development review component, which is all the money you pay for the current planning section and the engineering section, and then there's the building department component, which is the lion's share, which is the $7 million and change. The one unique thing about this community is when this fund was set up, I -- I was told, and I believe it to be true from people I talked to, they knew that. They knew the building permit fund was going to bring in the lion's share, but they threw it all into one pot. And that's when the development services department was formed. We talked about this before, not only at this meeting but in private. If you're going to make that whole, you're going to look at, in my opinion, substantial fee increases in the development review side. And every time we've said that, that has been the end of the discussion here. And it's -- well -- MR. DUANE: You have to understand my point. Page 12 August 2, 2000 MR. CAUTERO: Yes. MR. DUANE: Every time we need more money, we just -- MR. CAUTERO: Right, but-- MR. DUANE: - and we shift the funds around and now it's adding up. MR. CAUTERO: It is adding up and we have to do something about it. And I was afraid of this when the board asked for this in 1996 or '97. The board charged me with telling them what functions in these other departments; housing, natural resources, comprehensive planning and even a piece of code enforcement are related to new growth and development. And I said, well, here are the functions that they provide and here are the functions that they provide to support some of the work that's being done in development services. And the board took that, and it was 445,000 then, and the board raised it to 745,000, and now it's 1.7 million. MR. DUANE: Does that include the 400,000 or not? MR. CAUTERO: For Immokalee? MR. DUANE: Yeah. MR. CAUTERO: No. MR. DUANE: Now it's two million. I don't want to belabor the point but that's a good thing for -- MR. CAUTERO: But -- but I think that answer -- I think the remark you made does need to be further refined in all fairness. The Immokalee program, I believe, is appropriately funded by the Community Development fund because that's exactly what those people are going to be doing. They're going to be doing the same thing; Tom's people, Ron's people and Ed's people do in Immokalee except for code enforcement. But the board was very clear because we recommended that. We said, do not fund the code enforcement function from this fund. The program is 570,000 and change. 200,000 of that is coming from tax dollars, the rest from this fund. So, I think you -- for the purposes of the discussion we're having right now, I really think you need to take the Immokalee program off the table. That's the key number. That goes to other departments. That's something we have to deal with, whether we like it or not, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with it but I work for the county Page 13 August 2, 2000 commission and that's what they've charged me with, dealing with that. MR. ABBOTT: I came in a little late on this. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Abbott. MR. ABBOTT: What was the discussion that -- what was their justification? MR. CAUTERO: For what? MR. ABBOTT: For adding the burden on us with the 1.2 or whatever. Is this close to -- MR. CAUTERO: It was based on an analysis that Mike Smykowski and I did four or five years ago where they asked me to determine what percentages of what departments were working in conjunction with or supporting development services functions. MR. ABBOTT: I understand that part. MR. CAUTERO: Okay. MR. ABBOTT: You said this came just recently at this latest county commission meeting? MR. CAUTERO: That was yesterday. MR. ABBOTT: I'm losing something here. MR. CAUTERO: Yeah. I think the piece you missed was the board motioned yesterday to approve our report that they asked for on the Immokalee housing program setting up a permit office in Immokalee and we recommended seven staff members at a cost of $577,000 per year. Actually, that number is going to come down the second year a little bit even with inflation because that includes new vehicles and equipment that are one time expenses, but 200,000 of that is coming out of tax dollars. The rest of it -- so, this number -- I think you missed this part. This number, if we spent six million in cash instead of five -- MR. ABBOTT: Yeah, I came in right on that. MR. CAUTERO: Okay. This number comes down 150,000 because that number comes down 150,000 but then you've got to add 377,000, so you're at two million. Subtract one fifty but then add three seventy-seven. MR. ABBOTT: Right. MR. CAUTERO: So, you're at two million. Can we use reserves? Absolutely. Absolutely. But we're using it every year and we're going to have GIS and unless we Page 14 August 2, 2000 see some dramatic increase in permanent activity above and beyond what we've seen in the last few years, we're going to run out of money in three or four years. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, Vince, you're looking for an ad hoc committee. I don't know if there are other specific questions that anybody has at this point to -- to try to clarify. Maybe we could -- we could ask for volunteers for an ad hoc committee to go through this, this budget, on a line item basis and try to sort through that or, as a suggestion, anybody else wants to bring back something, we'll entertain it. Any volunteers for an ad hoc committee to review this -- this -- this budget and how to -- how to resolve the issue long term? MR. DUANE: I think you're going to have to draft us. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I can do that. MR. PEEK: I'll volunteer. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All right. We've got Tom Peek, Brian Jones. MR. JONES: Question. Vince, would you be able to assist us at this ad hoc meeting? MR. CAUTERO: Oh, absolutely. Oh, sure. MR. DUANE: You're on your own. MR. CAUTERO: We anticipate that this committee will actually roll up their sleeves and sit around going page by page and line by line over the fees. So, if I can just go over that committee again, the members? Mr. Peek, Mr. Jones. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Dino Longo. I'll volunteer for it. Anyone else? Mr. Abbott. MR. ABBOTT: All right. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. MR. MASTERS: If Charlie is doing it, that's enough. MR. ABBOTT: We're always in the same mud hole. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Brian Jones. The development services, this Immokalee project, we're decentralizing the development services review by having a separate review, plans review people over there on -- I'm assuming that's a full-time basis? MR. CAUTERO: It's a very good question. I wouldn't necessarily say we're doing that and here's why. If someone Page 15 August 2, 2000 comes in off the street, that staff would be prepared to review the work. We're equipped to do that now in the Immokalee office by opening it two days? MR. MUI. HERE: Three days a week. MR. CAUTERO: Three days a week. And then if anybody has a permanent application that they submitted at the Immokalee office, it goes through the same process that people would go through here. That's still going to be maintained. However, this staff would be able to perform that function if we need them. This -- this staff is going to really be centralized on one project. That doesn't mean somebody walking in off the street with a brand new home construction or commercial couldn't use these -- these five or six staff members that will be working out there, five actually in development services to code enforcement. They will be charged with the affordable housing issue and eliminating as much as we possibly can substandard housing. That's going to be their charge. There's going to be two code enforcement investigators, multicertified inspector, a planner, a staff supervisor, who is going to be a working supervisor out there and two customer service individuals to handle the paperwork. Their charge is to work on a very detailed program that will involve working with mobile home park owners and property owners in order to rehabilitate structures or demolish structures or move structures and so forth. The board is very serious about that. They want us to start red tagging people that have homes that are not up to code and they want us to work on a program, relocate families that live in substandard housing. MR. JONES: The costs -- I'm somewhat concerned with the cost impact of -- of having a full -- a full staff over there for the amount -- my feeling is that it may be kind of like the Maytag man over there. The people are going to be there, ready to do that with very, very little to do -- MR. CAUTERO: No, no, no. People aren't going to come to them. They're going to go out into the community. We know exactly where we have to go. And I apologize if I was remiss in not explaining that to you. This will not be customer driven by the customers themselves. Page 16 August 2, 2000 This program is initiated by the staff. We know who the 95 owners are, the 95 mobile home parks. So, we've already started working with some of the property owners in that regard. And some of them said, we can't comply with some of your demands in your ordinances unless you give us incentives. We even went that far as to tell the board what incentive we have to give some of the property owners before official code enforcement action takes place. This will involve surveying the community, a very detailed survey that will take about a year of all the substandard homes, and actually going in and creating the work. These people are not going to be waiting for applicants to come to their door. We're actually going to be initiating the work which is going to be controversial. MR. ABBOTT: Do you have bullet proof vests in the budget? MR. CAUTERO: I believe they had already ordered those. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: The relocation costs, are those included in that budgeted amount? MR. CAUTERO: No. ANDERSON: And where is that money going to come MR. from? MR. CAUTERO: I don't know. MR. ANDERSON: Shouldn't that be factored in this program before we start throwing people out on the street? MR. CAUTERO: We hadn't planned in the first year that that's even going to happen, so that's one of the reasons why we didn't tackle that. Secondly, we, in not only looking at that cost figure, which we need to, you're absolutely correct, we plan on -- on testing the waters and working with as many agencies as we possibly can, including Harvest for Humanity and Habitat for Humanity in the community, the newly formed Community Development Corporation and the Empowerment Alliance. It's those four organizations that we hope to enter into partnerships with. We've already had some preliminary discussions with Habitat about temporary housing for individuals. We anticipate there will be no relocation costs in the first year, so that's something we have to look at as we go down the Page 17 August 2, 2000 line. But we can tell you certainty that that first year cost is $577,000. I may be a little off but that's the ball park. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Go ahead. Mr. Peek? MR. PEEK: Tom Peek. Do we need to set a meeting date for that ad hoc committee? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. I'd like to -- if you'd like to do that now that would be perfect, rather than us call you all and asking you to look at your calendars. If we can do that now, that will be great. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. PEEK: How soon will you be prepared for us? CAUTERO: A week or ten days. PEEK: How about next Wednesday afternoon at night? MULHERE: Wednesday night? That's fine. PEEK: How long do you want us for? CAUTERO: The first meeting, probably an hour and a half. MR. ABBOTT: 3:30 then? We have the rural fringe committee meeting. That starts at four. MR. CAUTERO: We can go into another conference room. MR. MULHERE: We can take another conference room. That's good timing. August 9th at 3:30. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you, Tom. I had that on my list. MR. PEEK: What's the date? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: August 9th. MR. PEEK: Do we need to reserve other dates now? MR. CAUTERO: Sure. That would be a good idea. Oh, I don't -- you mean as backup dates or just for additional work? MR. PEEK: For additional work. MR. CAUTERO: I think we can wait until August 9th to do that because we're not -- this isn't eminent. I don't have to have this to the board September 12th. Are you on the committee, Perry? MR. PEEPLES: No. MR. ABBOTT: Yeah, he is. He's taking my place. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Let me run through the committee members. Tom Masters, Brian Jones -- MR. MASTERS: No, Peek. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I'm sorry. Tom Peek. MR. PEEK: I'd be happy to have Tom Masters show up. MR. ABBOTT: This is how it works. Page18 August 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Wrong Tom. Sorry. Tom Peek, Brian Jones, Dino Longo, Charlie Abbott and Dalas Disney. And we're going to meet Wednesday, August the 9th, 3:30 p.m. MR. CAUTERO: Probably in C. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Conference Room C. MR. CAUTERO: If the conference room is not -- we'll go -- we'll pick another venue. MR. ABBOTT: And all members are invited to attend? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All members are invited. If you wish to come, please feel free. Okay. If there's nothing else on that issue, then we'll move along. 4B, Municipal Code Corporation. There wasn't anything in our packets on that. MR. CAUTERO: No, there wasn't because we didn't have anything in writing but we do have some verbal information I'd like to share with you. The issue, I think, centered around whether or not we were able to get hard copies quicker from Municipal Code Corporation. For those of you on the subscription lists, when the ordinances were amended, the issue of the internet came up as to whether or not we'd be able to access the information on the web quicker and what some of the rules and regulations are. Patrick has had some communication with them and worked with them closely in Lee County. He can share some thoughts with us and then maybe we can get some further direction from the committee. MR. WHITE: One of the problems that Lee had was that there was a significant lag between the point in time in which an ordinance will be promulgated and then it will be subsequently published in the hard copy. My experience is that there really isn't any greater expediency or an earlier time that you get those on the web because I believe that they used the published pages to create the web site. Now, that may or may not be the case in Collier. We need to review that factually by contacting the Municipal Code, plus there is the opportunity for us to look at the contract we have and the next revision or annual renewal of that contract to see if Page 19 August 2, 2000 there's some opportunity to put them into a time certain that they'd have to have publication out, otherwise there'd be some type of a penalty. In other words, if we had the hard copy within 60 days from the date of it being passed by the board or us getting them the information they need to have. But short of that at this point, I'm not sure there's more we can add to that. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you, Patrick. MR. WHITE: Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I think your purpose there was precisely what Mr. Anderson was asking to happen. MR. MULHERE: Could I add something? Bob Mulhere. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yes, sir. MR. MULHERE: I recall that when we negotiated with Municipal Code to have Collier County's land development code placed on the web, the Municipal Code web page, there was a commitment and I -- I'd have to agree with Patrick. I don't know if it was contractual or not, and we can -- we can check. Don Blalock on my staff negotiated that arrangement. But I believe there was a commitment and I think 60 days was the time frame, that within 60 days of receipt they would have that available on the web. But I do think Patrick's right, that they're probably not living up to that because my guess is they're waiting until they've got the document and then that's what they're using to update the web page. It makes sense. One thing I thought that we could commit to here, and I mentioned this to Vince in the short term, until we can perhaps get a little higher level of service out of them, is that we certainly could -- something we do internally is provide all of you with a copy of the board's amendment package, the ordinance amendment, that would be delivered to the board. Now, that would not be codified. That's what Municipal Code Corporation does, but at least you would have the amendment. You would see how the new language -- and you can do what we do, which is place it into our LDC until we get that codified version. MR. DUANE: Those could be -- I brought this up last week because I was thinking there had to be a better way to distribute Page 20 August 2, 2000 this information so we could make copies for the general public and sell them if they wanted them. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I'm sure we could. It's public information. What we can't make copies of is the Municipal Code codified information, other than a copy of pages but -- MR. WHITE: Patrick White. That's true. The ordinances themselves are available on the Clerk of Court's page and has the actual ordinance and they can be printed a page at a time and, quote-unquote, downloaded, but that's really not an efficient means when you've got an LDC package that may have, you know, tens of pages in it. But -- and the copy quality isn't great but there's also the public records aspect of getting it from the Clerk as hard copy paying the per page cost. If that's something the county is willing to do, kind of in the business of providing public records, then we can look at what the costs would be. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. So, we'll follow through with that? MR. MULHERE: I think -- you know, that's an interim improvement until we can look at the Municipal Code to perhaps develop, you know, a higher level of service from them. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Mr. Duane, are you okay with that? MR. DUANE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Thank you. Item C, Vince, is FEMA meeting update. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you. Before we talk about the actual memo that's in your packet, let me say that we received word from the city manager of Naples that the city does no longer wish to participate in the interlocal agreement with us for the flood plane management coordinator position which was funded half by all the county and half by the City of Naples to pay for Bob Devlen's salary. However, the city manager did notice us after he wrote a letter -- he sent us a separate letter stating that this project on the flood insurance rate map update or firm -- firms, as we call them, he would see that -- Bob would see that project through so we would be able to utilize him in that regard. Page 21 August 2, 2000 So, I just wanted to make you aware of that. We do have a -- a solution though. Ed has been in contact with a former employee who is willing to come back and take the position at the part-time salary and is also certified in planning review, so we might be able to make this a win-win for all of us in having to work some overtime in that regard. The memo is self-explanatory, that Bob Devlen has written, in your packet. It looks like the consultants are at an impasse. Apparently the comment period will not begin until late March or early 01, which is good news because of all the work that has been taking place. And on Page 2 of the memorandum, it looks like Devaki and Tomacello were at that impasse and the technical reasons for that impasse and the work they were doing is in here. Ed might be able to answer a few questions about it, but it doesn't look like we have anything new to report to you other than what's in here. I think we have some -- some engineers that are in disagreement right now over the amendments. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any questions or comments from the committee on this issue? Yeah. MR. LONGO: Vince, when's it take effect for Bob Devlen? I mean, is he -- MR. CAUTERO: September 4th would be the actual completion date or the end date. However, the city manager said anything related to this project we still have Bob's services, but if there's any new projects and so forth, we'll be giving it to the employee that Ed hires and that employee would be brought up to speed as well on this project. But September 4th is the -- is the date that we no longer have the agreement with City of Naples, so the money that we're spending for next year that we -- that's in our budget we'll be able to use to pay -- so it's transparent. We'll be able to just pay that employee that money. MR. LONGO: Is Bob still going to work for the city? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. Bob -- good question. I'm sorry. The reason that Mr. Rambosk gave is that they have other assignments that they want Bob to work on in the city. He's their employee. He's not ours. So, they can break the agreement. We could break the agreement with them, too, at Page 22 August 2, 2000 any time. He's their employee; therefore, they broke the agreement, which means they no longer require our funding and they've given him additional responsibilities. MR. LONGO: And is the title for your guy going to be Compliance Management Coordinator for the county? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. MR. LONGO: So, you'll work with Devlen on this particular project. MR. CAUTERO: Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. If there are no other questions, we'll go to our added item, D, and that is a discussion on the fire code official activities. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you. As this committee is aware this is an issue that we've discussed before and even at subcommittees. A task force was formed by CBIA and the fire -- MR. RILEY: Fire Marshals and the Fire Code Official's Office. MR. CAUTERO: Okay. As Mr. Riley has indicated, the Fire Code Official's Office and the Fire Marshals of Collier County formed a task force in conjunction with CBIA to look at the whole issue of fire plan review. There had been issues in terms of backlog and turnaround time and so forth that affects the entire process. It isn't a one-sided thing. As you know, Ed -- for those of you who don't know, when Ed was hired, I guess, about a month and a half, two months ago -- MR. RILEY: Almost three months ago. MR. CAUTERO: Three months ago. Time flies -- MR. RILEY: Time flies when you're having fun. MR. CAUTERO: From Fort Myers to serve as new Fire Code Official to replace Wayne Bryan. And I thought it would be a good idea if we talked a little about the issue today and you have a chance to meet Ed and see him and talk about what is happening in that area. We wrote a report to the board at their request. We wrote a memorandum that was attached to a very brief executive summary and basically talked about the turnaround times. The board didn't want to discuss it. They just accepted the report and went on. So, I'll let Ed say a few words about some of the progress Page 23 August 2, 2000 they've made with the task force. MR. RILEY: So far we've identified some of the issues. The CBIA has given me some rough guidelines on a level of service that they would like to see. I put together what it would take to -- to provide that level of service in terms of manpower, et cetera. I gave them a budget of how much it would cost to do that and we are still in the process of going through on how to -- to fund that. The current funding source is not adequate to add the additional staff that's necessary. I will be adding -- I've already got the approval in the current budget handled by what we have coming in. Now I can put one person on. I've been -- I'm the fifth person in line now. Four have turned me down so I'm down to the bottom of the list. The salary that we've had to go to is high to try and bring somebody in. Hopefully I'll have an answer by Friday because that individual is coming here to visit the facility, look around and we'll see if I can get that person on. That person does not bring us to the level of service without a considerable amount of overtime, which is what we're expending now, a considerable amount of overtime to keep up. So, I still need one additional staff member above that for plan review. That should get us to where we can meet the level of service as outlined or described by the CBIA, which is basically a two-week turnaround first review and two-day turnaround on re-reviews or resubmittals. That's 95 percent of the initial reviews. And just for your information, I ran our log for the month of July. Our average turnaround was 2.33 days. We have two plans that took ten days, ten working days to review, one at nine, and the rest were seven days or less. But that was a considerable amount of overtime in order to accomplish that. Bob is doing the lion's share of the plans. I'm also doing plan review, which is taking away from some of the other duties that I need to do, so it's imperative I get somebody else in as soon as possible so that I can work on other issues with the utilities committee and we're looking at changing the STP requirements, submittals, so that we can streamline that and cut down on any substantial changes. We're looking at a utilities committee. We're trying to look at Page 24 August 2, 2000 the land development code, the utilities code and FTA 1141 where we have inconsistencies between those codes, put that all together in a single document so you don't have to reference back and forth. I have a meeting tomorrow. I'm the first one to start that, to bring something to the utilities subcommittee to look at to try and streamline that process. I'm working closely with Ed Perico with some other issues. We just moved into a new space that gives Bob some quiet space. He got a room with a door where it's not noisy where he's able to do some better work. There's a lot of things going on, a lot of different areas and obviously it's not going to all happen overnight, but the biggest thing is that we are meeting with the affected individuals such as the alarm industry, fire alarm industry, fire sprinkler industry. We're setting up subcommittees, real close to having a check-off list of information for submittals for fire alarm plans so that we get everybody on the same page. We have several other issues at CBIA that we want to tackle after we get past the staffing and level of service issue including some inspection information. I also want to do educational seminars, if you will, for the fire inspectors and the industry to try and bring everybody up to the same level so that the industries understand what we are looking for consistently and I can get the inspectors in the field looking at the same things the same way so that there is sameness no matter where you go in the county. That's very difficult to do but that's the goal and it's going to take a lot of education. I will say that I meet with the fire inspectors once a month and the fire marshals twice a month, taking information that they have, try to reformulate on how we do things, make decisions and standardizations, and it's come a long way in the last three months but it has a long way to go. But we're committed as is the -- as are the fire districts and the fire marshals to -- to make everything as smooth as possible and provide the level of service that we need to provide. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Foley. MR. FOLEY: Blair Foley. I just wanted to -- I've had the pleasure of working with Mr. Page 25 August 2, 2000 Riley over the last couple of months and I had no idea of all your other commitments and time frames and it's been a pleasure. I know you've been -- you've been stressed and pressed to the limit, but we've had -- we've had several projects, our firm, and you've always had the time to sit down and meet with our engineers at our company, and, you know, if you could add to staff, I think that's a great improvement, in the right direction. But I just wanted to thank you for the work that you've done so far since you've been here. It's definitely noticed from my position. MR. RILEY: One thing I would like to comment on, I -- I recommend that the people who are doing new projects set up a meeting before we start in the preliminary stages where we can go over certain issues. Hydrant placing is a big thing, fire department connection placings is a big thing. And the earlier we can get those things ironed, it makes the progress -- the process goes so much easier later on if we don't have those insubstantial changes. And I find more and more the engineers are doing that right now. They've started to call and started coming in, so it will help make things run smoother. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. Dino has a question. MR. LONGO: Ed, are you prepared to come back to this -- this committee with a budget for your proposed -- MR. RILEY: Not at this time. I've got that information, but we need to go through CBIA yet before I bring it back here. I'm working on that submittal in a -- in a format that we had spoke about and that isn't completed yet. I hope to have that by our next CBIA meeting. So, after that, then I'll bring it to this organization, yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Good. Thank you. I just want to comment that Dino Longo, Charlie Abbott and myself, Mario Lamendola and a number of other folks have been sitting on this committee and it's been very, very productive. Ed's been forthcoming with information that our subcommittee couldn't get many months ago. So, that's -- it's a real pleasure. Thank you, Ed. MR. RILEY: Thank you. MR. CAUTERO: Just one other thing before you go to the Page 26 August 2, 2000 subcommittee reports. The county manager is asking me to work on a project that we're going to be talking to the committee about, at least your -- probably your subcommittee construction code first and then working part and parcel with this whole issue of turnaround time and so forth. You remember a couple of months ago when we all had the serious backlog, which has dissipated for the most part, but still not at the point where we all would like to be due to the impact fee issue when the impact fees were raised in April. The county manager has asked us to work on a tracking system and just using a generic title of development services. Basically, what happened was we added five new staff members that were in the proposed budget that we work with now and four of those people have been hired, three in the inspection area. What the county manager has asked to us do collectively is try to come up with some kind of methodology that we make up and have the board approve where we say here's the intake point on a permit on a given day, Day X. What is the standard that the industry wants to see on what I call the point of first contact? I just made this up. The letter, the first letter. More often than not, people call Ed or his staff or me and say, my permit has been in there for three months. They don't mean from this date to this date. They mean after that when they've had all these comments going back and forth, you know, letter Y, letter Z and letter A and so forth. They've got all this. That's what they're arguing about and talking about over the whole another set of discussion, whole another set of parameters. This is the critical point. So, what Tom Olliff has asked me to do is he said, when you start feeling pressure, when this date starts getting further and further apart, if the industry says -- I'm just making this up, too, based on comments people have said to me and you even heard some of Ed's comments. This seems to be the standard that people want to live with that is acceptable. This is what I've heard in the five years I've been here. There is no quantification. I mean, I've read this in no book, but this is what people say. And I don't mean to make light of it. People have said, we expect some kind -- they say, I want my permit in ten to 15 days. They don't mean that on a Page 27 August 2, 2000 developmental review application. Let me talk to my engineers here. How many site development plans have been approved in ten to 15 days? I don't know. But, what they're saying is, we would like from the day this becomes an official application that you take in to the point where you let my people know what's going on, that seems to be the acceptable point of contact, ten to 15 working days, which is two to three weeks. The same with the building construction permit irregardless of whether it's simultaneous review, when the application is complete to here. Now, when you go from here to the actual issuance of the permit, that's a completely different story, which brings up a whole another set of -- a whole another discussion. What Tom has asked us to do is say as this number starts to get bigger, you know, 20 to 30, 31 to 40, 41 to 50, et cetera, you need to add staff and you need to add them automatically and we need to have preapproval by the board. That's what he wants us to work on, that methodology for inspections as well as plan review. So, we're going to be -- the subcommittees should be busy in the fall. We need to create this methodology from scratch. This is what we're going to be doing. MR. ABBOTT: You need to write in red on the other side, you know. MR. CAUTERO: Yeah. And that's the other side of it. In other words, if these numbers shrink, the staff should shrink in some kind of proportion. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Right. Right. But Blair has a question. MR. FOLEY: Blair Foley. That was kind of my question because you guys have operated within the ten to 15 window for construction plan review, which our firm does. And if you -- Vince, you're starting to get outside of that limit now sometimes. What happens if you keep adding stuff? That was my point exactly. Are you going to just start -- are you going to add part-time staff? I mean, is that the first step? MR. CAUTERO: Could be. I mean, that's something that we have no preconceived notion. That's what we want to talk to you about. We want to get your input on that. MR. FOLEY: It could be difficult to add the staff. Okay. We're Page 28 August 2, 2000 now -- you know, we're within this window so one of you guys has to go. MR. CAUTERO: You have to really be careful about how you set it up. MR. FOLEY: And we've been successful here in this town for a long time. There's going to come a time when there may be some kind of maxing out and some slowing down, some windows of opportunity for some slower growth. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Abbott. MR. ABBOTT: How many people are part-time now? MR. CAUTERO: In which department? MR. ABBOTT: In this entire building, in development services? One time there used to be a bunch. There was a lot of 39-hour people. MR. CAUTERO'- We have none in planning and building, we have two in code enforcement. A handful of people part-time. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Vince, you'll bring this back to us at an appropriate time or is this -- MR. CAUTERO: We may-- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: -- until the subcommittee -- MR. CAUTERO: We may wait until September on that, which is next month. MR. FOLEY: A whole 30 days away. MR. CAUTERO: Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Subcommittee reports; Land Development Regulation Committee. Mr. Duane? MR. DUANE: We met on one issue, which was expanding the number of areas that the code enforcement board and the code enforcement department could issue citations on and their suggestion for expanding the areas, we would list citations with essentially the index of our land development code which was okay because we went through the list and I think we were all in agreement that probably 90 percent of those topical headings if there were viable enforcement problems, we ought to have the opportunity for these violations to be issued. Possibly that could rectify having to go to a code enforcement board later, so I think in concept we were all in philosophical agreement with that. Mr. Anderson brought up an excellent point as to what Page 29 August 2, 2000 standards would really engovern (sic) the person issuing the citation because we wanted to avoid any willy-nilly citation. We wanted them based on substance and we discussed some of the statutory requirements for what would govern those kind of determinations to be made. And I believe the consensus of the committee was that Patrick would come back before us today and share with us. I'm not sure we had the right operative statute as to what was really going to be the language that governed the code inspector, but I think Mr. Anderson thought that the reasonable man standard was perhaps a better standard to use than the one that previously appeared in the draft ordinance, which appeared to give maybe a little more discretion to staff. But that's my summary and, Bruce, I'm sure you can add to that if you care to but your points were well taken from me. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, and I don't care to. MR. DUANE: Okay. Thank you. MR. WHITE: Patrick White. I'll just comment that we're moving the draft board using the language as suggested by Mr. Anderson and as approved by the subcommittee. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. Thank you. Construction Code Subcommittee. Mr. Longo. MR. LONGO: We had no meeting. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. You-- MR. ABBOTT: But We had the fire meeting but that's a little bit -- MR. LONGO: That was not the subcommittee. MR. ABBOTT: I understand but it has ramifications to it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Utility Code. Mr. Peek. MR. PEEK: We did have a meeting on July the 27th and we have minutes of that meeting for those who did not get them. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Would you care to summarize for us? MR. PEEK: Yes, I will. Referring to that set of minutes on the first page, there were -- there are two items identified there in the first full paragraph. We had a presentation concerning the mobile automated meter reading system as proposed to go in service and what that really says is that they have a vehicle that, if you have the right kind of meter in the ground, you can drive down the street and it Page 30 August 2, 2000 automatically records the readings from the meters and gets certain other intelligent data from this reading that would tell us that the meter is not functioning properly and other things. So, it's the way the industry is growing and it's the way to help stop the growth of the meter readers, the number of meter readers that you need. As an example, an area that takes now six hours to read the meters with this device, they can do it in 30 minutes. They get better data than they get now and in a more user friendly form for them to prepare other kinds of reports. And, so, the subcommittee had recommended to this committee that it recommend approval of that by the board of county commissioners. The bottom line cost, what that would mean to the consumer, it will mean no increased costs to the present customers. To those new customers coming on line, it will be an increase of approximately $150 for the meter costs because that's the difference in the price of this intelligent electronic piece that's in this meter, so that's the only cost for consumer to the -- to the new customer coming on line is about 150 bucks of additional costs for the initial meter. And we, as the subcommittee, felt that was an acceptable increase in costs to get that additional kind of data. In the long run, it will reduce -- it will be offset by the operational costs of having a contained number of meter readers instead of growing a meter reader for every 2500 new meters they put in or something, you'll stop the growth of the meter readers. The second item that's discussed in the -- and shown in these minutes is the third full paragraph under old business. The subcommittee did vote to recommend the adoption of the amended utility ordinance that were, as stated here, three minor corrections, which will be made, but that is just an ordinance that we've been working on for months to try to get it up to date. And, so, that likewise is recommended for approvals. So, with that, as the chairman of that committee, I would recommend to this committee that this whole committee support those actions taken by your subcommittee. And I would so move that we do so. MR. FOLEY: Second. Page 31 August 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Second by Mr. Foley. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Opposed? None. MR. PEEK: Additional items, for your information, the utility details the drawings that are a part of the code, they are now on the county's web page, so if you have need of those, you can get to them through the web page. And the last bit of information or request that I need to share with you is a follow-up on what Tom Kuck made last month to this full committee. We had 15 people meet in a subcommittee. We had one member of this committee there. That's me. And I'm not sure if we've got other members of this committee that are even on that subcommittee. If they are, I wish you'd make yourself known because I want to try to entice you to come to the meetings and if you aren't, we need some more people from this full committee on that committee. The people that are probably the most appropriate to be on that committee are those two guys because they're the other engineers on this committee that have some knowledge of utilities, direct knowledge of utilities, and how it can apply, so -- MR. ABBOTT: Draft them. MR. FOLEY: It sounds like we have been. MR. PEEK: More than drafting them. I need to get them to make a commitment that they'll come to the committee meetings. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Is there anybody here that is a member of that, the utility subcommittee? MR. JONES: I'm a member. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: You are? MR. JONES: I missed the last two meetings. MR. FOLEY: I'm a member of Bob's committee but I'll be happy to be a member of that committee. MR. PEEK: I'm a member of both of those committees but we really do need some more people on this utility code subcommittee because-- MR. FOLEY: I will. That's fine. MR. PEEK: -- we've got a lot of the industry people and a lot of the county regulator people that are showing up really regularly Page 32 August 2, 2000 and there's a lot of good work going on there and we just need some more tie to this main committee than I can afford because if I'm out of town, we don't have any direct -- well, Mr. Kuck is always there, and thank goodness for him. Anyway that's the end of my plea. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. Well-- MR. FOLEY: I'll be happy to come. MR. PEEK: And the committee normally meets every fourth Thursday at 3:00 p.m. in this room. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. We'll plea again to those who are members of the committee to please be there and if Thomas Masters or Blair Foley, if you could attend, that would be a great assist. Thank you very much. Thanks for the great summary, Tom. New business. Do we have any new business? MR. PEEK: Wait. Let me back up for that. I'll accept the thanks for the summary but we really need to thank Tom Kuck because he is very good about getting these minutes out every month after our meeting and having them here for our full meeting, as you've noticed, over the months that he's done it, so I -- we need to -- MR. FOLEY: I thought you did this. MR. PEEK: I do, sure I do. The credit needs to go where the credit should and that's to Tom Kuck and his getting things accomplished. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well said. Thanks for your comment and, Tom Kuck, thanks very much. Appreciate all of your efforts. Now, back to new business. Any new business? We didn't have anything on the agenda. Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I think everybody got a copy of the new ethics legislation with our agenda packet and I just wanted to put a motion on the table that we request a legal opinion from the County Attorney's office as to whether the committee members are required to make a financial disclosure filing and what type under this new legislation. MR. FOLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Page 33 August 2, 2000 No? All those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? There are none. Very good. Thank you. Any other new busy items? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: No? We'll go around the table. Committee member comments. Anyone have a comment to make? MR. ESPINAR: Just one quick comment. I just stopped off at the office and got a package from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and I opened it and it was letter stating that the final draft of the ElS has been completed. MR. DUANE: When is it going to be released? MR. ESPINAR: It's available. It is available. In my package was an abridged version. I just saw it so I haven't even looked at it. And in there it said if you want the full thing, you can -- it's available right now. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: That's excellent news. Thank you. MR. WHITE: Is it on a web page anywhere? MR. ESPINAR: I was running late. MR. MASTERS: It didn't list one. It gave a contact person. MR. ESPINAR: I could look at the letter. I could fax it to you if you want me to. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All right. No other member comments? Comments from our visitors? No? MR. ELLIS: Just that -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: David Ellis. MR. ELLIS: -- I got a call in from Edison Community College and they're looking for someone to become certified to be the person who teaches the building -- the new building code courses. We've gotten the community college to do the classes but they need a human being to go to a class that Florida folks, the folks -- they're doing the last over in Miami. It's going to be on August the 28th. By getting certified, you will be the instructor that the industry uses and the community college uses, which means you'll get paid to do it. But if anybody is interested or you know anyone that's interested in teaching classes like that, let us know. I just need somebody -- it will be kind of a -- you'll have steady Page 34 August 2, 2000 work or whoever does it will have steady work for some time because it's going to be interesting and exciting but the class -- the training is August 28th. We need to find somebody for that. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. Thank you, David. Any other comments or Motion to Adjourn? MR. ABBOTT: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And a second? MR. DUANE: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All those in favor, say aye. And none opposed. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:50 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE DALAS DISNEY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ROSE M. WITT, RPR Page 35