BCC Minutes 06/05/1991 S Naples, Florida, June 5, 1991
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
~i~ zu~d for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and hav]n~3 conduct¢..d business
herein, met on this date at 6:30 ?.M. in SPECIAL S]~SSIOI~ in Buildlng
O~ the Government Complex, Ea,3t Naples, Florida, with the
i~.following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Patricia Anne Goodnight
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Mlchael 3. Volpe
Richard S. Shanahan
Max A. Hasse, Jr.
Burr L. Saunders
· :' ALSO PRESENT: Ellis Hoffman and Wanda Arrlght, Deputy Clerks;
::-.'~'Netl Dorrlll, County Manager; Ron McLemore, Assistant County Manager;
Tom Olliff and Jennifer Plke, Assistants to the County Manager; Ken
County Attorney; Marjorie Student, Dennis Cronin, and Richard
~Yovanovtch, Assistant County Attorneys; Frank Brutt, Community
Development Services Administrator: David Pettrow, Development
~.' Services Director; Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director; Martha
Skinner, Public Services Admlnistrator; Barbara Cacchlone, Ron Lee,
Sam Saadeh and Eric Young, Planners; Fred Bloetscher, Assistant
?U~lities Administrator; Ron 3amro, Museum Dlrector~ Sue Filson,
!:A~n~st~attve Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Byron Tomllnson,
{i.i~ '.She~tff'e Off~ce.
Paoe 1
June 5, 1991
Itm..~A
<i'. P~ON ZO-91-2, RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND ORDINANCE ~12-2, SECTION 7.27
(~) ~ ~T D~LO~ DISTRICT BY DELETING iI~SECTION
T.2~.G, ~-F~LY ~Y L~L RE~ HOUSING - CO~I~D TO ~
Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Daily News on
May 30, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
..the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition Z0-91-2, a
recommendation to amend Ordinance 82-2, Section 7.27.
Planner Saadeh presented Petition Z0-91-2, a recommendation to
~end Section ?.27, (PUD) of the Collier County Zoning Ordinance,
by deleting the affordable housing provisions. He explained that on
May 22, 1991, the Commission held the first public hearing with
respect to this amendment and unanimously approved same.
In response to Commissioner H&sse, Mr. Saadeh replied that the
iii'Aff0rdable Housing Ordinance 90-89 takes precedence over Subsect/on
· ?,27f,6.
Mr. Alan Reynolds of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., stated
.he bellevee that It would be w'orthwhll, to leave the entry lev, l
>~';houstng provision in the Zoning Ordinance until there is a better
:? handle on how the County will address the affordab/~ hou,~ttlg needs.
He noted that the new ordinance is quite different from the entry
section of the Ordinance as to what It was designed to
::'. encourage. He suggested that befcre consideration is given to eltmi-
/' hating the only provision in the Zoning Ordinance which allows for
..:!development standards incentives to encourage affordable housing, that
!!t remain in place for a period of time.
Mr. Saadeh recalled that the Commission directed Planning Services
prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, by deleting the
e~ttre section relating to multi-family entry level rent:~l housing.
Indicated that staff can revi~11 thJ~ lnrm~ If .,o dtrect~d.
County Attorney Cuyler advised that instead of making a decision
adopt the ordinance, he wou],d ~ather see the, Commission con-
this item. He explained that: there is a Plat, provision stating
Page 2
June 5, 1991
Un%tl'the adoption of the Land Development Regulations that define
:, Affordable Housing and establishes a monitoring sy~tem the entry level
:-~i, rental housing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance may be applied to
~:' th~s bonus provision." He noted that staff has re{~arded the language
ms ~nd~cmt~ng f~om the Plan that oace the Density Bor~us Ordinance came
~nto effect, th~s lan~age would be deleted. He remarked that this is
mn entry 2~vel housing p~ovJsJon but the complaint has been
~ that this establishes square footages and Is supposed to produce
mffo~dmble houmln~ through lower square ~ootages but rents are not
~O~ito~md ~der same. He d~vul~ed that he belJeve~ that these issues
need to be addressed.
Develcpment Services Director Pettrow stated that the Planning
M~a~e~ is the autho~ in this matter but he is not available
evening. He disclosed that he would be remiss in providing an
opinion in this regard in the absence of Mr. Beginski.
fin response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Reynolds explained that
::: ~hie is not a mechanism to obtain additional densities, noting that
there are places within the County, particularly within Activity
Oenters, where the densities that are allowed within the Comp Plan
[~hou~ an &~or~able housing; bonus provide the opportunity for rental
housing. He reported that the application of this type provision
would be in those locations that dD not necessarily need an affordable
'~ 'housing bonus under the ordinance b'mt may want to utilize the develop-
ment standards and the smaller unit sizes that this ordinance allows
to encourage rental houslng.
Comm~ssioner Shanahan remarked that it appears that there has not
sufficient analysis as to why the language should b~: removed from
the Zoning Ordinance and suggested that the Commission postpone any
final decision until further review has been made,
'~'i~ ~iOo~leeloner Goodnight cited that by removing entry level housing
if>from the PUD's, will result in there being no entry level housing
whatsoever in Collier County. She Indicated that she concurs to a
Certain extent with Mr. Reynold's remarks.
Page 3
There were no other spea~ers.
June 5, 1991
Ce~A~t~er Shanahen ~oved, eeconded by Co~mieeloner Hamse ~d
~ly, to continue the ~bltc hearing ~ttl J~e 18,
~~ON ~ ~T~LISH ~ O~IN~CE ~ ~ ~TIO'AS ~R ~
~~ION ~ ~S~ATION OF HISTORIC~ ~ ARC~OLOGIC~
DIS~I~S, S~UC~ES, BUILDINGS A~ PROPERTIES - CO~I~ED TO
1991
i~41};' Legal notice having been published In the Naples Daily News on May
18, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the
' G~erk, public hearing was opened to consider an ordin$~ce establishing
re~tllations for the use, protecttoll and preservation of historical and
' archaeological sites, districts, structures buildings and properties.
~:.:.. Planner Lee advised that the Growth Management Plan provided by
;::tho'Board of County Commissioners includes two policies: one In the
:!~. Future Land Use Element and another in the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element which require the preparation of a historical and
:'~.'- archaeological preservation ordinance. He noted that the adoption of
"this Land Development Regulation (LDR) is a subject of challenge by
· '>.the Audubon Society and as a result, the Long Range Planning Staff has
over the responsibility for the preparation of the ordinance
six weeks ago.
Mr. Lee pointed out that subsequent to the distribution of the
~ in the Executive Summary, staff has initiated changes as
provided in the amended copy bearing the "Draft" stamp.
Mr. Lee called attention to the first change to the ordinance as
reflected on Page 6, "Section Four: Historic/Archaeological
· .i/PreServation Board Created and Established", noting that one of the
~owers and duties of this Board is to create a map delineating the
i<--.!areae of archaeological and historical significance which shall be
!"i.i"siihJect to approval by the Commission. In addition, he stated that
other powers of this Board are to maintain and update the map they
have created; review applications for a Staff Archaeologist who will
Page 4
June 5, 1991
ba retained by the County; designate specific sites, structures,
buildings and properties as historically and archaeologically signtit-
[:,[(: 'cant; issue Certificates of Appropl'lateness prior to the renovation of
:,!::designated building, structure, site or property.
Planner Lee stated that the changes in Section Five are lncluded
the "Areas of Historical/Archaeological Probability".
Mr. Lee divulged that Page 11 of the Ordinance, refers to the
'~;<,implementation of the map. He noted that various types of Development
Orders will have different types of :~equtrements fallling within the
area of Historical/Archaeological Probability. He e):p]ained that
any request for a land use change, i.e. DRI, fezone, or provisional
use which falls within this boundary would be required to have survey
and assessment prepared by the Staff Archaeologist, He noted that the
Preservation Board would have the opportunity to object to the recom-
mendations made by the Staff Archaeologist.
Mr, Lee stated that any building permits issued within an area of
Probability would have a notice at~ached indicating that the property
i!t~wlthtn the srs& of Htstorlcel/Archaeologlca] Probability. He
explained that the notice will outline what the property owner should
do, in the event that something is discovered.
Mr. Lee related that Subdivision Master Plans and[ Site Development
.~ Plans, within an area of Historical/Archaeological Probability would
:, be required to have a survey and a~sessment prepared by the Staff
!-Archaeologist.
Planner Lee explained County p~oJects defined by this Ordinance
would be required to have a Historical/Archaeological Survey and
-,'A~essment. He reported that County projects are currently defined as
"Any Government Building", and noted if the definition i<-, expanded
there could be problems with budget constraints and concurrency.
Mr. Lee expressed that when a piece of agricultu]'al land is going
':' into active agricultural production, a notice of comz~encement is
filed. He divulged that notification will given at this time that a
{:~Jsu~ve¥ alTd assessment is required.
June 5, 1991
f,~?~:Pl~rtner Lea pointed out that properties within an Area of
Probability may petition the Staff Archaeologist fox' a waiver but it
must be demonstrated that there is no potential for
-historical/archaeological sites. Ee related that the ,decision by the
'.'St&ff Archaeolo~;ist may be appealed to the Preservation Board and they
may appeal the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Lee called attention to Section "h", Page 14, which is a new
section ~d states: "Any Survey and Assessment completed by an
Archaeologist reco~ized by the Fl(,rtda Archaeological Council or the
Society of Professional Archaeologists prior to the enactment of this
~oFdin~ce may submit a survey and assessment In lieu o,~ the Survey and
Assessment to be completed by the f;taff Archaeologist
Plier Lee referred to PaGe 1~;, Section Nine: Is~uance of
~.Ger~ficates of Appropriateness. ]{e indicated that th.Is relates to
)party o~ers desiring to excava':e, alter, relocate or reconstruct a
desi~ated building.
Mr. Lee stated that Page 20, Section Ten speaks to "Incentives"
for property o~ers that are designated as Historically
Archaeologically slgnlf~cant, noting that the primary function is to
~.~Fmnt administrative relief to pro[party owners from the) Building Codes
and Zoning Ordinance. He expressed that this is intended to encourage
~FO~eFty owners to preserve their Dull clings, ~tructu~ and sites.
M~. Lee remarked that Page 22, ~ection 11 addresses the "Discovery
O~ Acoidental D~stu=bance of Hlstou.[cal/Archaeologlcal Sites and
Properties during Construction". He stated that this is a four step
process: 1. The Staff Archaeologt..~t and Compliance Services shall be
/,co,tatted; 2. Compliance Servlces :ghall off/c/ally notify the pro-
party o~er/developer of the discovery within 24 hours a~d i~sue a
.%[~..:: StOp work order; 3. The Staff Archaeologist shall determine whether
?':"the d~scovery site requires further Investigation based upon the size
and distribution of this site, de~,th of deposits, soil type, vegeta--
~ton and topography; 4. The Staf~ Archaeologist shall expeditiously
~he cordoned off area and determine wheth~r
June 5, 1991
criteria outlined in Section Seven of the Ordinance.
Planner Lee divulged that in order To meet the deadline for
adopting this Ordinance, Staff has adjusted the public hearing sche-
as follows: tontght's public hearing, hearing before the CCPC
tomorrow morning, and final public hearing before the Commission on
i..$une 18th.
![i~i~;00mmtsetonsr Shanahen questioned the start up costs Of Imple-
menting this ordinance, to which Mr. Lee replied that $6,000 would be
required to upstart the ordinance, but the actual costs for lmplemen-
:~&tiO~ has not been determined.
:;In response to Commissioner Goodnight, Mr. Lee stated that mtttga-
tion can also mean excavation which gives the Archaeologist the oppor-
ttlrltty to record any information and then the artifacts may be turned
'over tO the property owner and he can use that land.
Mr. Keith Waterhouse, Past President, Southwest Florida
Archaeological Society, expressed the Soclety's congratulations and
.best wishes on this very lmportani occasion which will protect the
historical/archaeological resources. With respect to the discovery of
such sites, he noted that it is bt~t~er for them not to be dug up, but
instead, left in tact. He cited that no monies are required to pre-
SerVe these sites.
Mr. Arthur Leo, Director, Soul:hwer, t Florida
Society, expressed his satisfaction with regard to the proposed ordl-
::n~llce, He Indicated that this will be a very interesting experiment.
;~!"He voiced concern with respect to Page 3, Section Three, Paragraph "f"
.'i/Of.the Ordinance which defines "County Projects" as "buildings". He
~called that it was recently discovered that a utility crew working
on CR-951 had damaged a site dating back to 500 A.D. He noted that
· i:~ there has not been the opportunity for anyone to assesi~ :he true
J!:t~portance of this site. He sugg~rsted that roads, parks, parking
10rs, utility lines, etc. should be incorporated in that definition.
With respect to "Government Buildings", (;ommltimlon,~r Volp,
.oned whether construction done by the School Board would be
Page 7
June 5, 1991
under some other definition in the ordinance. Mr. Lee replied
:" that this Is an oversight by staff, since it was not considered, but
that staff could add this.
Cbunty Manager Dotrill explaine,d that the School Board is exempt
from County fees and building plan and site development review.
Gladys Cook informed that she %lorks with the Historic Preservation
~i... Consultants in Lee County and also for the Lee County Government. She
~; advised that the proposed ordinanc,: allows for early ~.etectton of the
,.. ~ ~
',"'~lb~mCt ~esources which gives the daveloper the chance to doeida what
he w~ts to to do with them from the beginning of a p~'oJect. She
,{~'~ ~ndtcated that some p~oJ~ct~ have been prevented from bainG completed
;::,~:-,:b~cause of an archaeological finding after it had already bepun, She
. ~oted that this elmliar ordinance In Lee County has b~en very success-
1'4 · ful for both the historical/archaeological preservation and the dave-
loper, and added that there have been no complaints. She pointed out
~..If the Co%lnty becomes a certified ].ocal government, the ordinance pro-
rides for the eligibility of state grant funds. She affirmed that Lee
has a seven member Preservation Board.
· Oloria SaJgo, who works with the Historic Preservation Consultants
arid for the Lee County Government, advised that the proposed ordinance
~.:. is a good, workable ordinance. Sh~} explained that once the County
..becomes a certified local government, the proposed ordinance provides
;portunity for State grants o~ 86,000 to 820,000 to supplement
~:the planning staff. She disclosed. that Lee County did receive a grant
i . of $80,000 to preserve some of tht old, historic houses for the low
9 housing.
Vi:JohI1 Thompson, resident of Collier County, Realtor, Treasurer
'of the Southwest Florida Archaeological Society, and Treasurer of the
Florida Anthropological Society, l~tated he would like to see the pro-
~aed ordinance adopted on June 1H, 1991.
,Albert Stickles, III, reseden': of Marco Island, informed that he
Page 8
June 5 1991
provides retnactments of historical events which explain the history
of activities in the area. He spec:tfted the subject ordinance will
~rovtde for the preservation of an archaeological site which will
~lt the primel'ration of hlitor:!0 and strongly recommends the adop-
tion of the ordinance.
Todd Tares, resident of Collie:? County, stated that he has been
T-' i~volved In the process of the proposed ordinance from a development
standpoint. He Informed that, although he does support In general a
comprehensive archaeological ordinance, he has concerns regarding pri-
:' rate property rights and the considerable amount of mitigation and
'restrictions required. He expressed his apprehensiveness regarding
the degree of authority the proposed preservation board will have of
. land use and property rights. He believes that the definitions given
"'"~'h"'sho~ld be more specific, and the time frames for the Inspection of the
property should be better defined. He concluded with the suggestion
· ~that ~he title of the proposed ordinance should substitute the word
for preservation.
Barbara Cawle¥ of Wilson, Miller, Barton, & Peek stated that there
are many technical problems with the subject ordinance as well as very
little thought in Jt for the private property rights. She added the
the ordinance places an unreasonable amount of requirements on the
property'owners and says nothing about the liability factor of having
'':teemsons Inspect their property. She claimed that the fee structure
very open ended and should have more structure given to it. She
pointed out there are already requirements in the ElS Ordinance which
iraqi/ire archaeological Information which is duplicated t;~ the proposed
ordinance. She noted that the ordinance gives no open space credits
for the preservation olteu.
~,:! ~,;. Planner Lee commented that there is a provision in the proposed
,:'.'ordinance for open space credits which can be found In Section 10,
i' page 20.
i[.,../ Commissioner Saunders questioned whether there had been a workshop
June 5, 1991
;.between staff and the property o~ers regarding the subject ordinance
[" tO which Mr. Lee replied no. Comz~lsstoner Saunders suggested before
the next hearing on this subject l:hat this workshop be conducted in
order tO address the issues raised. He acknowledged that there Is a
timing problem with the ordinance, but stated that he would rather be
late and have a good ordinance.
~" 'Commissioner Volpe cited that there should be consideration given
':. -- to the property owner to provide for their own survey of the land.
Commissioner Hesse concurred that a workshop between staff and the
property owners effected by the subject ordinance would address these
~- Gary Beardslay, resident of Collier County and speaking on behalf
.. '; of himself and the Collier County Audubon Society, expressed concern
regarding the definition of Count~, project and agrees that It should
changed to include any County project. He noted that Collier
'" :J:: ['County does have the citizens with the expertise required for the pre-
servation board, and added that he would not want to have any of the
background requirements changed. He asserted that the Audubon Society
would very much like to see this ordinance adopted on June 18, 1991.
George Vernadoe, Doctorate of 3urtsprudence and President of the
Society for the Protection of Private Rights, related that the
'.![:~/,'Comprehenaive Plan does provide objectives and policies regarding the
protection of historical and archaeological sites; however, the pro-
posed ordinance goes too far and t.o the point that it could be
i-i~11~j¥;~ich&llenged. He concurred that a workshop should be held before the
ordinance is adopted. He recommended that an economic impact state-
ment be prepared for this ordinance because of the significant uniden-
tified costs involved. He signified that, as has been noted, if this
ordinance will provide public ben.--fit, then why .is the private sector
/.(.paying for it?
~ -. -
..:,Commissioner Goodnight stated that in regards to the section of
the ordinance referencing the preservation board committee members and
their terms she would like to have the same language included that
Page 10
June 5, 1991
.: . appears in all other ordinances requiring committees.
Co~,.issioner Saunders pointed out that there are items that need
to be reviewed within the proposed document such as the language for
- ,.;.[.?~j .:"
~~= S~derl ~, seconded ~ Co~tsstoner S~~,
t~ll~:fJml IICOZ~ pvbltc hearing on this subject be scheduled for August
7, 19~1-, mnd before the August ?, 1991 hearing an advertised workshop
be held bet~eeen County staff and any concerned citizen of the County
'. in ~ to tbe ~ubJect ordinance.
f/i<:i' Col/nt¥ Attorney Cuyler interjected that in order to avold havlng
to readverttse, this item will appear on the June 18, 1991, Board of
0o%Lnty Commissioners agenda with a notation that it will be continued
until August 7.
~ ¢~11 for the question, the motion carried ~nantmousl¥.
8:35 P.M. - Rel:onvened: 8:40 P.M. at which
i)ep~t~ Clerk Hoffman replaced Deputy Clerk Arrlght '''
=~e Comlsstoner Saunders not present
),':?'%01])X]I~JI~I AM~DXN~ TH~ R~GIONAL M~TIR SYSTEM IMPACT ~l 0RDINANC~ -
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on May
28, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication flied with the
Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider amendments to the Collier
County Regional Water System Impact Fee Ordinance No. 90-86 by
revising the findings and extending the period over which certain
'?:::;':i!/;payments may be extended.
Assistant Utilities Admtnistri~tor Bloetscher stated that this item
and Item 3D are mirror images of each other reflecting a=~ndments to
i''?i. the Impact Fee Ordinances, adopte~d by the Commission in l~ovember, 1990
"?'~'~wlth regard to the water and the ~,astewater systems.
Mr. Bloetscher explained that: per the Board's request, staff has
looked at the financing issue, noting that amendments would allow the
extension from five to seven years for the financing of impact fees
on existing buildings. He indicated that the ordinances include a
Page
June 5, 1991
?.;~cla~se denoting what the impact f~es are to be used for. He advised
i~'~i~?!ifi'that the fees are to be used for the treatment and transmission type
facilfties, but not for the distribution or collection systems that
are located in the neighborhood and normally paid for by the developer
!~&eeeeemsnt die~ricts.
There were no speakers.
~smmd~sl~ Volpe ~ovmd, secc,nded by Commission, st Shanaban ~d
......... ~~--4/0 (C~~oner Sm~rs, no~ present), to close the ~bl~c
Co~ssioner Goodnight announced that the second public hearing on
this Issue will be held on June 18, 1991 at 5:05 P.M.
lt~ ~D
IMPACT FEE ORDINARCE - CONTINUED
~i~;,::~ Legal notice having been pub]].shed in the Naples Daily News on May
28, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publ~cation filed with the
Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider amendments to the Collier
County Regional Sewer System Impact Fee Ordinance No. 90-87 by
revising the findings and extending the period over which certain
· payments may be extended for existing structures.
The presentation for this item was made in conjunction with Item
~!~3C.
There were no speakers.
~-~,oe~Am~m'r Volpe ~3ved, seconded by Co~-iasioner Shanahah mad
· .... carr~e4--4/O (Cea~iosioner Saunders, not present), to close the public
Commissioner Goodnight stated that the second public hearing with
ii'~'//."x'egard to th~s item will be heard on June 18, 1991 at 5:D5 P.M.
· ~ ~ T~H ~JTABLI~HM~NT OF ;~ ~S I~ACT FE~ O~IN~CE -
~ ~ ~ 2e~ 2991
Legal notice having been publ:[shed in the Naples Daily News on May
26, 1991, mm ~vJdenc,d by A££Jcl.vlt (,r I',bl i,,,t Iof, ~ I l~cl with
Clerk, public hearing was opened ~o consider an ordinance providing
Page ! 2
June 5, 199!
for the imposition of an Emergenc} Medical Service~ system Impact Fee
on all Emergency Medical Services System Impact Con~'~truction occurring
::~.within Collier County.
Asaista/lt Co%lnty Attorney Cronin advised that this item is a
request for consideration of an ordinance relative to the establish-
...ment of an EMS Impact Fee Ordinance. He related that tomorrow, the
CCPC will conduct a public hearin(;' in this regard, and on June 18th
the Commission ~ hold its second pub'ic hearing an this subject
Mr. Cronin stated that Ms. Jarls Fitzpatrick, of Henderson, Young &
'~[Co~pany, is primarily responsible for the preparation of the EMS
~:~ Impact Fee Study dated May 20, 1991. He noted thai' the proposed
ordinance has been modeled after the existing impact fee ordinances
ii~hroB~hou~ the County.
Me. Jane Fitzpatrick, of Henderson, Young & Company, described the
methodology that was used to develop the EMS Impac! Fees. She ind]-
i!.i- . cared that the study was based on the use of eight ambulance ground
plus the use of the County's helicopter. She advised that the
County's helicopter is not 100% de,]icated to EMS usa]e, noting that
': . it iS utilized approximately 89.6% for EMS and therefore, the cost
~.~'~ .portion for the helicopter is based upon that percentage.
Ms. Fitzpatrick reported that the Impact fees ar.e to be charged
County-wide since the City of Napl,~s and Everglades City are included
~Anthe service area for EMS.
~'Ms. Fitzpatrick stated that th,~ study proposes a county-wide
average response time of 6.3 minut,~s for emergency c.,] Is. She pointed
out that this response time is the time from the EM5 receipt of the
',-.d~sp&tch to their arrival on the scene, however, th]~ doe,: not include
the com~unication time from the pin,cement of the 9~1 call to EMS
receiving ~hat call. She ind]cate,~ that the 6.3 minuets response time
~S a consolidation of two different response times: 6 minutes in the
~pr/m&r¥ areas in the County and 8..'i. minutes in the s,.~condary areas of
the County. She explained that th~ primary area lnc.~udes the Urban
i'~d Industrial within the Urban de~tgnated land uses on the Future
June 5, 1991
Lane Use (FLUE) Map and Includes the OrangeTree settlement area She
.~v~!ged that the secondary area includes the g~,tatas, Conservation
':"~ ~d Industrial within Agriculture Land Uses on the FLUE Map. She
related that based on the fiscal Fear 1989 data that was used in the
~' sample, the County was providing a response time of 6.6 minutes in the
area and 8.6 minutes in the secondary area. She advised that
)f";~ this level of service creates a deficiency of one unit however
0.:, during FY 90, additional monies were appropriated for an additional
and once it becomes operational the existing deficiency will be
eliminated.
Me. Fitzpatrick revealed that in order to link the demand on the
,EM$ ~/etem to the types of structures In the County, a 10~ random
· )le of the runs were created for FY 89. She Indicated that this
a~ounted to 1,276 runs, of which ~,144 were emergenc-! runs. She
pointed out that 80% of those run~ may be identified to types of
· .. Area. She advised that the remaining 20~ of the runs in the
: sample were traffic accidents which could not be directly identified
to a land use.
.... ., M~. Fitzpatrick called attention to Page 18 of the study which
reflects the fee calculations re.lattng to the cost of the capital
improvements which includes ambulances and and the major capital
..equipsent to make <.he ambulances functional and the helicopter and the
,:ihanger. She Indicated that the sta. tlon costs for the ambulances
reflects SO~ of the land acquisition and appraisal costs because the
station site of 1/2 acre will allow the expansion to add one addl-
~10n&l aabulance. She stated tha~: the annual ambulance co~t per year
,roxtmately $29,000.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Ms. Fitzpatrick exp!alned that a
ji.~.: imap sum would be paid the year an individual pulls a building permit
noted the the annual cost is zmltiplied by the years and the time
frame based on the economic life (,f the structure ])a¥ing the fee
~ Me. Fitzpatrick advised that based on the Level of Service, as
and with the new ambulance coming on line this year, the
Page 14
June 5, 199!
,.would be taking care of its existing need.
attention to Page 22 of the .tudy, M~. Fitzp. trlck notnd
k · that the costs of the ambulances and the helicopter are blended to
reflect an average annual cost of el)proximately $40,0OO.
~ms.4 on the County's current flnaace po]~oles ~e~ardin~ new EMS cap~-
:~.:'.'~' tel e~tpment. She explained that this would be accomplished through
'~/' the edification of ad valorem taxes through the General fund and the
,::j' ~se of the 1 mill capital improvement fund to finance EMS and hell-
copte~ capital lmprovements.
Ms. Fitzpatrick reported that the County's impact fee related
~..8x~mndlt~res for the prior fiscal y(~ar have been re,;lewed and these
fl~ures reflect an average annual e:{penditure of slightly less than
$180,000. She noted that the $180,000 is allocated to residential and
. ~ residential based on the taxab]~ values for tho~e two categories.
~h~'mxplained that according to the tax rolls, 7§% of the taxable
values in the County are residential and 25% ams non-resident ]a],
notin~ that the annual capital contmlbutlon would per be $1.51 per
unit per ~,000 square feet and $1.21 per 1,000 square feet
for non-residential.
Me. Fitzpatrick advised that ~'he annual EMS cost per each run,
$27.12, based o~ the use of the helicopter and ambulance. She
indicated that this figure is based on the number of runs an EMS unit
~'"' could make and maintain the response times as proposed.
Me. Fitzpatrick stated that Page 34 of the study depicts the pro-
Impact fees. She Indicated that a zero Impact fee is shown for
':'.': Industrial Manufacturing. She ex[~]~ned that 'F~]ble 12 st the study
reflects an annual cost of $.40 p,r thousand square feet, however the
for non resldentlal Is 81.2! per year and th,~refore this places
al Manufacturing into a negative impact fee and there is no
fee for this category.
:'.. MS, Fitzpatrick pointed out tha't under "Commercial", there is the
of "Office/Medical Off~c,~" which reflects the largest impact
June 5, 1991
· fee in the amount of $71,/.59 per thousand square feet. She explained
that one reason this figure is very high is due to the blending of the
?.regular office building plus medical and walk in clinics into one
category. She reported that this category was 14% of the runs in the
· ::.i. Mrs. Barbara Cawley, of Wilson, Htller, Barton & Peek, Inc.,
representing the Barron Collier Comp;~ny, stated that it is important
to consider the challengeability of This ordlnance fn the future. She
cited tha~ the Study was based on one year's worth of EMS runs to
k ~ various locations around the County, and 10% of same were selected at
raz%dom. She noted if a use was not found in that 10~;, it was not
:~-" calculated as a problem use She indicated that she believes that
~ there are problems with regard to tht: numbers that are generated in
...'..r the back up study She detailed an example of a 60,000 SF building
· ?':, fees in the amount of $42,000. She expressed that this does not seem
County Attorney Cuyler replied to Mrs. Cawley's example, stating
th&t~this impact would apply to 31,5 years, clients, and employees
over the next 30 years plus for $40,000.
~ ' Mrs. Cawley explained that the public should be gXven the oppor-
?':~ t~nity to discuss the proposed ordinance in a workshop in addition to
talklng with the people who developed the study.
Ms. Cawley stated that her client: has a concern regarding the
vested rights section which appears on page 17 of the pro9osed ordt-
nance. She commented that she feels Section 3.03.a(31(a! of the sub-
'~ ':' ]ect ordinance makes vesting an impo~sibilJty.
County Attorney Cuyler responded that Section 3.0~.a(3) (a) is
standard case law criteria which is noted in all case~ under vested
'~.r~ghts. He pointed out that DRI's az'e not vested for purposes of
Page 16
June 5, 1991
iJ:{ impact fees unless they have already accounted for the impact fee for
· emergency services over the next 30 years. He added that regarding
contributions of land is addressed in the sub3ect ordinance on page 28
'< .%11~der "Developer Contribution Credit". Mr. Cuyler invited Ms. Cowley
)' J.' to meet with the County Attorney's office to address her concerns
regarding the proposed ordinance.
Me. Cowley recommended to the Board that they reconsider the
Ampact fee of $711.00 for offices because she feels it will have a
detrimental effect on any future office developments in the County.
She considers this an unreasonable fee.
Linda Lawson, representing the Collier County Building Industry
~..Association, commented that the proposed ordinance doers not present a
~/faAr Ampact fee structure and feels that it could be challenged
legally. She pointed out spec]ftca].ly the difference between impact
fees of the office category at $711.00 versus the retail category at
$121.00. She alleged that the formula used to calculate square
footage for the impact fees is f/awed, and the sampling procedure was
over simplified. She commented that there are a number of assumptions
incorporated into the ordinance b%' the consultant which should result
from the Growth Management Plan not an impact fee ordinance, for
.e~ple, the ~ee~on.e time. She su,~marized that the p~oposed ordi-
nance poses too many unanswered que~tlons, and feels it would be
~w~se ~o adopt.
Ken Reiley, President of Olde F:[orida Homes, asserted that he
.All finds many discrepancies in the p}roposed ordinance as it relates to
fees. He suggested that the Board direct staff to work with the com-
mtln~t¥ in order to address their concerns.
Co~ss~oner Volpe suggested That there be a written response pre-
pared ~n answe~ to the challenges ]dertrifled by the publ ~c at this
~eet ~ng.
',-Co~ss~oner Shanahah concurred that there have been serious
· challenges identified in the propDeed ordinance and questioned iF any
these could be responded to at this time.
June 5, 1991
il/i~..Ms. )ltzpatrtck related that she would like to respond to some of
ooncerns at this time. In rega)'ds to the 10~ sampling for
. ~ ~'J'-response time, Ms. Fitzpatrick comm(mted that this is a normal
percentage used and every land use ~as included. She explained the
i"!?: :..~
?'~ormula used for the single-family and multi-family costs and credits
!/to:which Commissioners Volpe and !;hf~nahan commented that this should
be looked into because the methodology used is what is being
ed.
*~'- Oounty Attorney Cuyler noted that the issues raised will need to
tressed.
c~ ~~ly, that the ~bltc hearing ~ closed.
Co~tsstoner Goodnight noted that the final hearlnf; for the
of an EMS Impact Fe~ Ordinance will be June 18, 1991.
There being no further bustne..)s for the Good of the County, the
meetin~ was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 10:25 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
PATRICIA ANNE ~-00DNI~]~T,
CHAIRMAN
~h, se minutes approved by the Board
i~/~'~ or as corrected
Page 18