The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJanuary 24, 2012 Budget Workshop Agenda Packet~. ~~3 ~ ; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BUDGET WORKSHOP TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2012 10:00 A.M. VI ,~,_ 1. CALL TO ORDER -COMMISSIONER CHRIS DZADOVSKY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2. DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL DATES FOR D.C. TRIP 3. DISCUSSION: 20121ST QUARTER SPENDING UPDATE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BUDGET MANAGER 4. REVENUE INITIATIVES UPDATES DISCUSSION. PROPOSED BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE NEW DEVELOPMENT FEES COOPERATIVE EXTENSION PROGRAM FEES ADDITION ~. DISCUSSION:' HOUSE BILL 1319- ¢~~'AU R11~AGE 6. ADJOURNMENT CONFERENCE ROOM #3 ROGER POITRAS ADMINISTRATION ANNEX 2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE, FORT PIERCE FLORIDA 34982 NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded, Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Risk & Benefits Manager at (772) 462-1404 or TDD (772) 462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. ~i ~~~r ~.t«,Rn ~ z y. r> ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BUDGET WORKSHOP TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2012 10:00 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER -COMMISSIONER CHRIS DZADOVSKY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2. DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL DATES FOR D.C. TRIP 3. DISCUSSION: 20121ST QUARTER SPENDING UPDATE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BUDGET MANAGER 4. REVENUE INITIATIVES UPDATES DISCUSSION: PROPOSED BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE NEW DEVELOPMENT FEES COOPERATIVE EXTENSION PROGRAM FEES 5. ADJOURNMENT CONFERENCE ROOM #3 ROGER POITRAS ADMINISTRATION ANNEX 2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE, FORT PIERCE FLORIDA 34982 NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Risk & Benefits Manager at (772) 462-1404 or TDD (772) 462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. Item No. 2 Missy Stiadle From: Michael Brillhart Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:17 AM To: Missy Stiadle Subject: FW: Potential dates for Commission trip Missy, nor, Would you please print this email for Ms. Outlaw to review. Thanks, Michael From: Burns, Greg jmailto:aburnsC~vsadc.com~ Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:04. PM To: Michael Brillhart Cc: Potter, Nate Subject: Potential dates for Commission trip Hi Michael, With regard to potential dates for a Commission trip to DC, we could do a day of meetings at some point during the following weeks: Feb. 27 March 19 March 26 Apri116 Generally, I ask that the Commissioners arrive in DC on the afternoon of the 1St day. Then, we do a briefing meeting at our office late that afternoon followed by dinner. The 2nd day is full of meetings and then the 3rd day is reserved for travel back to Florida. Please let me know how that may work for the Commissioners. Thank you, Greg --------------------------- Greg Burns Van Scoyoc Associates (202) 737-8162 (202) 390-3204 --mobile Please Note: Florida has very broad public records laws. Mast written communications to or from County officials regarding County business are public records available to the public and media upori request. Il is the policy of St. Lucie County that all County records shall be open for personal inspection, examination and or copying. Your e-mail communications will be subject to public disclosure unless an exemption applies to the communication. If you received lliis email in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete all materials from all computers. ~r ~ Ill:lll IV(7.3 ,¢ 1/18/2012 v--°~„ m ~ S~ Quarter Expenditure/Revenue Update (10/1/'11 -12/31/11.) January aq., aoi2 ~.-= ~~:;: ,~~ --_ Fun.t#/ ~'~ ~ ~'~~~Fine & Forfeiture Fund • Ad valorem Tax collections are at ~6 % of the budgeted amount, which is in-line with normal collections (Last year we received 74% of the budgeted amount by the end of the first quarter.). • Operational spending is in-line with the budget. There. are some areas where spending is over the z5% marls. related to timing issues. These are explained in the report. 1 ~„ 1/18/2012 ' ~~ Revenue Funds • Non-GF/FF Ad Valorem Tax collections are at ~6% of the budgeted amount. • Operational spending is in-line with the budget. There are some areas where spending is over the a5% marls related to timing issues. These are explained in the report. 3 <:- ~. .,:; ,__ . ~~:'._ ~---- ... fl psi/. ~ ~„~.,^ =6~:~ v Debt Service Funds • Payments are funded from ad valorem taxes, tourist development taxes, state revenue sharing, half-cent sales tax, assessments, surcharges, etc. • Revenues are coming in as planned. • We are meeting our debt service obligations. 4 2 r" ~~ 1/18/2012 i`° ~' ~~~~ Capital Funds • We have spent approximately 3% of the budget. • This is mainly due to the timing of capital projects. 5 /%; ,..L j Enterprise un s • Landfill -Revenues are exceeding expenses as assessment revenue comes in toward the beginniAg of the fiscal year. • Utilities -:: ~, • In FY io, Utilities borrowed ~300,00o from the General Fund to help meet debt obligations. The FY a budget included an additional ~400,00o subsidy. • Due to rate adjustments and new customers; they did not need a subsidy in FY a and were able to repay the X300,000 subsidy in FY u. 6 3 `y. ,~, 1/18/2012 ^' ,, ~~a `~ E ~_ p ' _ n~ s ont. ..~: nter rise u • Golf Course -New greens are increasing customer base and bringing'in additional revenue to offset the cost of operations. Expenses in the first quarter exceeded revenues by approximately $i~,ooo. Revenues are expected to increase in the second quarter due to the seasonal nature of golfing. • Building Code Fund -Revenues are coming in slightly better than projected and are exceeding the expenses to date. 4 Item No. 4 ~.~~~1-~~l~~a.:,~~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATION MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Faye W. Outlaw, (~ County Admini rator DATE: January 18, 2012 RE: Revenue Initiatives: Fee Increases & Other Updates Please find attached the back-up for the Board's budget workshop on January 24th. Please note the following changes to the list of items that were earlier provided to the Board to be discussed as part of the upcoming budget workshop: • An update on Parks and Recreation fees will be presented at the Board's work session on February 24th • Cooperative Extension Citrus Agent Funding & Program Fees: The Board requested information on funding for the Citrus Agent's salary since the agent provides services to several counties. In the past, the citrus agent's salary was funded 60% by OF/IFAS, 24% by St. Lucie County, 16% by Indian River County and $5,000 provided by Martin County to. cover travel and printing. The funding from Martin and Indian River Counties ended in June 2007. The position is currently funded 60% by OF/IFAS and 40% SLC; however the agent continues to provide services to Indian River County. With assistance of the Indian River Citrus growers, Cooperative Extension has requested that Indian River County provide partial funding for the Citrus Agent position. This request is still under consideration by the Indian River County. BOCC. The Board also asked staff to look into increasing Cooperative Extension program fees. Extension's user fees are governed by federal legislation through the Smith-Lever Act, as well as, an Internal Management Memorandum between OF and IFAS. The Extension Office charges a nominal fee for non-educational services (such as soil testing) and incidentals for conducting programs (such as copies or brochures). OF does not support increasing the program fees at this time. In preparation for the budget workshop, please let me know if you have questions or need more information and whether or not you want to meet beforehand with staff. cc: Mark Satterlee Kara Wood Michael Powley Karen Smith Anita Neal S~ C 0 "~"`~~'~', ~o ~~ ~~ ~: ~ >n ~- Planning and Development Services Department MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Mark Satterlee, AICP, Planning and Development Service Director Robin D. Meyer, AICP, Building C de Regulation Manager Kara Wood, Planning Manager Karen S. Smith, Environmental R ources Department Director Amy Griffin, Environmental Regulations and Lands Manager Michael Powley, County Engineer DATE: January 24, 2012 SUBJECT: August 4, 2011 BOCC Budget Workshop: Response to BOCC Questions on Proposed Development Review Fees The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) with detailed information regarding new and increased development review fees and to address questions raised by the BOCC at the August 4, 2011 Budget Workshop. The information provided herein is organized in three sections according to the following types of fees: 1) Development Review Fees; 2) Public Works and Engineering Fees; and 3) Building Permit Fees. SECTION 1: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES BOCC Reauest: Provide more detail on how fees are distributed among departments. At the August 4th Budget Workshop, the BOCC was supportive of the four new fees proposed for development review and requested information on the distribution of fees among departments. Three new types of fees are proposed for Development Agreements (DVAs), which generally are created and reviewed by the Planning Division and County Attorney, with some participation from Environmental Resources. DVAs rarely involve other departments, so fees would not need to be allocated elsewhere, and the County Attorney does not charge fees for services. Proposed fees are well below the cost to the County to process applications; these costs were calculated based on the average hourly rates of staff involved in the review of any given application. Development review application fees are submitted to the Planning Division and distributed to other Departments as follows: BOCC Budget Workshop: Review Fees January 24, 2012 Page 2 Fee Distribution Among Departments Application Average Hours Planning ERD Other Development Agreement (DVA) 80 $2,000 $300 0 DVA Annual Review 15 $500 0 0 DVA/Development OrderAmendment 60 $1,000 0 0 Appeals of Administrative Decision 20-100 $1,000* *The fee for processing an appeal of an administrative decision is allocated to the department that is processing the appeal, which typically is the department whose decision is being appealed. Often the appeal is of a decision made by the Planning and Development Services Director, but could be the Environmental Resources Department Director, Public Works Director, County Engineer or any other staff person specifically empowered in the LDC to make administrative decisions, and for which no other appeal process is identified. BOCC Reauest: Provide rationale for fees proposed for reduction. Fees proposed for reduction include Towns Villages and Countryside (TVC) Planned Unit Development and Class A Mobile Home Fees. The TVC fees adopted in 2007 were calculated based on the cost to the County of employing three full-time additional staff specifically to review these applications but are not currently justified based on the actual staff review time required. Staff proposes decreasing the TVC fees to be consistent with other planned unit development fees and to eliminate the. minimum and per acre fees for site plans. The current Class A Mobile Home fee is based on staff time to prepare for BOCC approval of the applications. Per the Board's direction in July 2011, staff is processing an ordinance to amend procedure for administrative approval of these applications. If that ordinance is adopted, staff proposes to decrease the administrative approval fee to $300. The following table summarizes proposed fee reductions: Development Review Fees Proposed For Reduction Application Current Proposed Justification Preliminary PTV Town $70,000.00 $5,400.00 Same as other PDs Preliminary PTV Village $50,000.00 $5,400.00 Same as other PDs Final PTV Town $0.00 $2,400.00 Same as other PDs Final PTV Village $0.00 $2,400.00 Same as other PDs All other applications $5,000.00 .$0.00 Eliminate $5,000 minimum fee All other applications $250.00 $0.00 Eliminate $250/ac fee Class A Mobile Home $1,000.00 $300.00 Provide for staff approvals Staff Recommendation: Board approval to amend Development Review fees as proposed. BOCC Budget Workshop: Review Fees January 24, 2012 Page 3 SECTION 2: PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING FEES BOCC Request: Provide additional categories for fees. In accordance with the Board's direction during our Strategic Planning presentation, many of the categories have been broken out into finer detail. With the increased detail, however, the likelihood that an applicant may submit a permit for multiple activities increases. An example on the Commercial Right-of--Way Permitting side would be if a developer wanted a permit to construct a length of sidewalk, construct a commercial driveway and construct a drainage outfall across our road. The initial permitting schedule would charge a flat fee of $450. The current fee schedule lists these activities explicitly so the fee would be $175, $300 and $450 or $925 if summed. To that end, it is proposed in those cases that the fee for the most expensive activity be charged ($450). There would be no additional charges for the other activities. BOCC Reauest: Provide fee comparison with the City of Port St. Lucie. Discussion of the fees charged by Port St. Lucie is provided here for comparison. The City has a fee comparable to our Roadway Improvement Agreement fee (they do not distinguish between. off-site improvements and onsite, as we do), but it does not have fees comparable to our Right-of-Way permitting fees. Instead, they issue an Excavation Permit for underground utility work only; above ground work does not require a permit. It does not have any fees comparable to our License Agreements. In cases where our permits are comparable, our fees are of the same order of magnitude. As an example, the fee for their similar Roadway Improvement Agreement is $345 + 1.5% of the estimated construction value. For publicly owned, non-sidewalk type improvements, our fee is $2,150. That means for projects with an estimated value of $120,000, our fees are identical. If the project cost is higher, then Port St. Lucie will have a fee higher than ours. The converse is also true. Staff Recommendation: Board approval to amend Engineering fees as proposed. SECTION 3: BUILDING PERMIT FEES BOCC Reauest: Research other options in lieu of raising fees to hire an additional Building Permit plans examiner. During the August 4th Budget Workshop, the BOCC requested that staff research additional options in lieu of raising fees to hire an additional. plans examiner. In addition, the BOCC requested information on the use of technology, the City of Port St. Lucie (PSL) Building Permit fees and County vs. PSL Building Permit processes. Options considered include: 1) Contracting with the City of Port St. Lucie Building Department; 2) Contracting with a private firm; 3) Contracting with Manpower; and 4) Charging a higher fee to provide expedited review. Background The rationale for the original request to increase fees and hire additional staff was to decrease the current 4 to 6 week timeframe for processing building permits. This delay is creating a hardship for applicants and causing compounded delays in the development review process. BOCC Budget Workshop: Review Fees January 24, 2012 Page 4 All Building Permit review staff must be certified by the State of Florida. This certification requires at least 5 years of documented experience in a specific trade before an individual is permitted to take the test for the certification and conduct. plan review and/or building inspections. The Building and Code Regulation Division currently consists of the following certified positions: • The Building Official who is certified to review plans, conduct inspections and issue permits for structural, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical code compliance. The Building Official also supervises the other plan reviewers and building inspectors; • One structural plan reviewer/inspector; • One single family home plan reviewer/inspector; • One commercial plumbing plan reviewer/Inspector; • One commercial electrical and mechanical reviewer/inspector The 4 to 6 week time delay for reviewing Building Permits is the result of only .having the one certified structural plans examiner. The one structural plan examiner must review almost every set of plans and revisions submitted to the County. Given that the structural review is the most time consuming and complex review required to certify and issue building permits, this results in a time delay. When this individual is out sick or on vacation, there is no one on staff to fill in for him. Hiring a new plans examiner at the salary mid-point would cost the County betweeh $21.00 and at $26.00 per hour plus benefits depending on the qualifications of the individual. The advantage of hiring additional full-time staff is availability, an immediate improvement to service, plus, if multiple certifications are also required or preferred, the individual can cover other staff that may be out sick or on vacation. It will make the overall operation' of the Building section operate more efficiently and smoothly. Option 1: Utilize Citv of Port St. Lucie Staff At the suggestion of the Board of County Commissioners, staff met with the Port St. Lucie (PSL) Building Official, Joel Dramis, to discuss their process and how his staff might be able to assist the County. Mr. Dramis indicated that City staff could be available to the County on a contractual basis. The cost would be $30 per hour. PSL currently has three full-time plan reviewers and twelve building inspectors. PSL processes approximately 13,800 permits a year. Comparatively, the County's Building Division has one full time plan reviewer and four building inspectors and processes more than 4,300 permits per. year. Currently, the County provides next day building inspection services, which is the same level of service as the City. Therefore, there is no advantage for the County to use the City for Building Inspection services. If the County were to contract with PSL for plans review, it would be preferable to have the staff person work here so they would have access to our CityView system, which is necessary so they could input their comments on the permits they would be reviewing. The staff person would be provided office space, a computer and be trained on the CityView system. The CityView system is the County's in house data system that staff uses to record all comments on submitted building plans, generates the permits once the plans are approved, schedules all inspections including the final Certificate of Occupancy when a project is completed, and is our data base of all activities related to current and approved building permits. The benefits of contracting with the City are no advertising, interviewing or hiring. The staff would remain an employee of the City and the County would only cover the hourly cost. This arrangement would help underwrite some of the City's cost for the employee. The downside is BOCC Budget Workshop: Review Fees January 24, 2012 Page 5 that their hours may be limited, they may not be available to cover for other employees, and they would have to be paid for training time while learning how to use our CityView system, which could be extensive. Ootion 2: Contract With a Private Firm An additional alternative is contracting services with a private firm. Staff contacted Calvin Giordano & Associates (CGA) to determine the potential costs of using their staff for the plans review in St. Lucie County. CGA currently provides plan review services for communities in Palm Beach and Broward Counties at a rate of $75 per hour. Staff has found that contracting with a private firm does work for communities; however, the costs are generally higher. To employ a private firm, the County would have to go through the Request for Proposal (RFP) process to find qualified firms. We would also need to make sure that the firm did not review plans that they had submitted for a project to avoid any conflict of interest issues by reviewing their own work. The advantage of the private firm is similar to that of using PSL staff in that the person is employed and paid through another entity. The County covers only the cost of the time the individual is needed. Because the private firm may have significantly higher hourly cost, the service could be offered as expedited plan review covered by the applicant. In addition to the higher hourly cost, the downside is County staff is still responsible for plan distribution to other departments and issuance of the permit. This effort was tried by Growth Management and was found to require a great deal of County staff time to provide oversight of the work and was determined not to be faster than processing the permits internally. Option 3: Contract With Manpower Staff has investigated using staff hired through Manpower. The cost would be approximately $44 per hour and the personnel can be used as needed. Similar to PSL, there would be no advertising or recruiting. Moreover, the contract can be terminated at any time. Manpower currently does not provide this service, but informed the County that the position can be created. Similar to using PSL, the personnel would require training and be located onsite to access the permitting system. Using Manpower is normally an option when the County needs to hire staff on a temporary basis. Option 4: Charge a Higher Fee for Expedited Service This is an option that is only practical should there be additional staff available regardless of the source. Due to the current limited staffing, further delays in processing non-expedited permits could result. Moreover, if the County were to get too many expedited requests at the same time, more staff would need to be hired to maintain the level of service. The following table summarizes the costs per hour for each option noted above Option PSL Interlocal Hire Staff Outsource to Firm Manpower Head of Line Private Review Cost $30/Hour $31/Hour $75/Hour $44/Hour TBD 0 BOCC Reauest: Consider the pros and cons of an electronic permitting system. There are a number of companies that have developed automated systems that allow an applicant to submit an application and pay all fees electronically. Asystem of this type would allow the County to do reviews based on the electronic submission and submit comments back BOCC Budget Workshop: Review Fees January 24, 2012 Page 6 electronically as well. Once a permit was ready to be issued, the building permit would also be .issued electronically. The advantage of an electronic system is time and cost savings to the applicant; plans, comments and revisions can all be submitted by email, thus saving potentially multiple trips to the County and decreasing the amount of expensive paper documents. Staff continues the process of investigating the options. in this area. The greatest obstacle is the cost to implement such a system, including software, hardware, and training plus annual cost for maintenance. The benefit is the ease of submitting for the applicants that have the resources to utilize such a system. However, there will always be the small contractor or homeowner doing their own work that may not have the resources to utilize a fully automated system. One quote. from a product called ProjectDox has been obtained for $1.97,000. This price includes unlimited user licenses, installation, training, implementation of two workflow processes (planning/zoning and building), and integration to the current permitting system. There is also an annual maintenance fee of $32,000 for this system. To fully utilize the system, .upgraded computers, printers and larger monitors to adequately read the plan sets may be needed. This system would have to be able to download all of the County's existing permitting information currently incorporated into the existing CityView system, the one question we cannot answer at this.. time is how long it would take to convert to an electronic system without getting into actual negotiations with a selected firm. Staff is also exploring options for paying for such a system including using the Building Fund Reserve or increased Building Department fees. BOCC Reauest: Provide an update on PSL's Building Department Permit Fees The City of Port St. Lucie has authorized the Building Department to evaluate its cost of reviewing permits every six months and update the fees without City Council action. In authorizing the updates, the City Council approved the process and criteria for evaluating permit review costs, thus making certain that each update was based on similar information. In comparing current City and County fees, the County and City generally charge. the same amount, with a few exceptions, for single family homes. For "Flat Fee Permits" the City charges more in almost every instance. For permits that are "value-based" the City uses a .7 multiplier vs. the .65 used by the County. As such, most non-single family permits are higher in the City. BOCC Reauest: Compare.the County's vs. PSL's Plan Review Process PSL processes commercial building permits in a different manner than the County. This results in the appearance that it takes less time to review, a permit by the PSL Building Department. Before a permit can be submitted to the Building Department for review an application must first be submitted to Planning and Zoning. Upon approval, Planning and Zoning forward the plans to Engineering who then reviews and forwards the plans to the Utilities Department. After Utility's review is complete, the applicant must come and pick up their plans and then submit them to the Building Department along with fees for review. The Building Department handles distribution of the plan to the Fire District and the applicant must make their fee payment to the Fire District separately. Once the plans pass review with the Buildings Department, a Building Permit is issued. The City takes about 2 to 3 weeks to process a set of commercial plans and approximately 1 week to process a single family home, compared to the 4 to 6 weeks it takes the County. The City's permit fees are a little higher than the County's as can be seen on the charts on the next page. BOCC Budget Workshop: Review Fees January 24, 2012 Page 7 The County process requires a single submittal by the applicant to the Building and Code Regulation Division. Building staff distributes the plans to other County Departments. In addition, the County currently does not charge separate fees for reviews by other departments. However, staff is recommending that this be considered to cover staff time reviewing permits. The County process involves distribution to Public Works, Water Quality, Utilities (if it is in the St. Lucie County Service area), ERD and the Fire District for review. Building and Code staff handles processing of all of the comments by the other departments and then the issuing and inspection of the permit. The following table shows a comparison of two Building Permit processes for PSL and the County: Building Permit,Process Comparison,-:2,,,000 SF,Residential Engineering Zoning Fire Utilities Building Total PSL Cost $255-550 $1,234 $1,489-1,752 Time 1 week SLC Cost $1,383 $1,383 Time 4 to 6 weeks Building Permit Process. Comparison - 3,500. SF Commercial .Bldg. Engineering Zoning Fire Utilities Building Total PSL Cost $255-550 $130 $1,411 $743 $3737 $6,571-6,276 Time 2-3 weeks SLC Cost $1,411 $3,418 $4,829 Time 4-6 weeks Staff Recommendations: 1) Raise Building Permit fees to generate revenue to hire an additional plans reviewer. Rationale: The County will need to raise fees to address any of options that add a plans reviewer -either internally or externally. The cost of building permits for St. Lucie County are lower than the surrounding area as demonstrated in the attached materials and need to be raised to adequately cover current day to day operations as well as an additional plan reviewer. Staff has received positive support from the Home Builders Association and Chamber of Commerce for raising fees if it resulted in an improvement in the permit processing time. 2) Create an additional plan reviewer position. Rationale: Creating an additional position can be adequately funded through a minimal fee increase and will benefit development by expediting the review process. PROPOSED NEW FEE SCHEDULE RIGHT-OF-WAY FEES -COMMERCIAL Commercial (2 Reviews) • Engineering Division • Road & Bridge Division • Acquisitions Division Reviews beyond 2 Initial Fee $350 $75 25 Tota I $450 $125 New Fee Crosswalk Installation $175 Curb Construction $175 Fiber Optic Cable Installation $175 Irrigation Installation $175 Landscaping Installation $175 Sidewalk Improvements $175 Sign Installation $175 Drainage Pipe Installation -Short Side $175 Directional Bore for Utility Installation $250 Canal Cleaning $300 Clearing of R/W $300 Commercial Driveway $300 Drainage Pipe Installation -Long Side $450 Open Cut for Utility Installation $450 Private Bridge Construction $450 Signalization of Intersection $450 Reviews beyond 2 $125 *A SINGLE PERMIT SUBMITTED FOR MULTIPLE ACTIVITIES WILL ONLY BE CHARGED THE FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MOST EXPENSIVE ACTIVITY LISTED. PROPOSED NEW FEE SCHEDULE RIGHT-OF-WAY FEES - UTILITY Utility (2 Reviews) • Engineering Division • Road & Bridge Division • Acquisitions Division Each Review Beyond 2 Initial Fee $75 $50 25 Total $150 $100 New Fee Replace Existing Power Pole (maintenance) $0 Fiber Optic Cable Installation $150 New Power Pole(s) Installation(s) $150 Short Side Service $150 Valve Installation (water, gas) $150 Wetwell Installation $200 Long Side Service $250 Directional Bore for Utility Installation $300 Water or Forcemain Installation $300 Clearing of R/W $400 Open Cut for Utility Installation $450 Reviews beyond 2 $0 *A SINGLE PERMIT SUBMITTED FOR MULTIPLE ACTIVITIES WILL ONLY BE CHARGED THE FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MOST EXPENSIVE ACTIVITY LISTED. PROPOSED NEW FEE SCHEDULE RIGHT-OF-WAY FEES -DEVELOPMENT ORDER Development (2 Reviews) • Engineering Division • Road & Bridge Division • Acquisitions Division Each Review Beyond 2 Initial Fee $250 $175 25 Total $450 $100 New Fee Crosswalk Installation $250 Curb Construction $250 Fiber Optic Cable Installation $250 Irrigation Installation $250 Landscaping Installation $250 Sidewalk Improvements $250 Sign Installation $250 Valve Installation (water, gas) $250 Directional Bore for Utility Installation $300 Drainage Pipe Installation -Short Side $300 Clearing of R/W $400 Commercial Driveway $400 Canal Cleaning $450 Drainage Pipe Installation -Long Side $450 Open Cut for Utility Installation $450 Private Bridge Construction $450 Signalization of Intersection $450 Turn Lane Construction $450 Water or Forcemain Installation $450 Wetwell Installation $450 Reviews beyond 2 $125 *A SINGLE PERMIT SUBMITTED FOR MULTIPLE ACTIVITIES WILL ONLY BE CHARGED THE FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MOST EXPENSIVE ACTIVITY LISTED. PROPOSED NEW FEE SCHEDULE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS (to be publicly owned) Initial Fee Sidewalk Only • Engineering Division $50 • Road & Bridge Division 75 Tota 1125 Other Activities • Engineering Division $2,000 • Road & Bridge Division 150 Total $2,150 Each Review Beyond 2 $500 New Fee Cross Walk Installation $125 Sidewalk $125 Landscaping $250 Drainage Improvements $500 Turn Lane Construction $500 Culvert Replacement $1,000 Road Reconstruction $1,000 Signalization $1,000 Bridge Replacement Construction $2,000 New Road Construction $2,000 MINING PERMITS Established Fee $350 New Fee Future Phases (no time increase) $5,000 Time Extensions (Class I only) _ $10/acre/year only Class I $2,500 + $1/ac/yr Class II $5,000 + $1/ac/yr *CUP Not Considered Fees residential commercial utility do ria mine930-11 ~ a ST LUCIE COUNTY CITY OF PORT ST LUCIE MARTIN COUNTY PALM BEACH COUNTY INDIAN RIVER CONTY ~, > • ~e PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES APPLICATION TYPES CURRENT FEES RECOMMENDED FEE AMOUNT ADDITIONAIFEESANDNOTES AVERAGES FEEAMOUNT ADDITIONAL FEES AND NOTES FEEAMOUN ADDITIONAL FEES AND NOTES FEEpMOUNT ADDITIONAL FEES AND NOTES FEEAMOUN ADDITIONAL FEES AND NOTES DevelapmentAgreement(DVA) $0.00 $2,000.OO Significantstafftimeinvolved $2,480,00 $1,710.00 $3,250.00 N/A N/A DVA/DO Amendment $0.00 $1,000.00 Significant staff time involved $4,691.40 N/A $3,850.00 $5,532.80 N/A DVAAnnual Review $0.00 $500.00 Annual reviews required by LDC OKEECHOBEECOUNTY BREVARD COUNTY Mining Permits $350.00 $5000+$1/ac/yr $1,500.00 +$100/ac $320.00 +(0.21/yd3) Plan Review $3,571 $2,484.00 +$25/ac (Plan Review) $125,00 Plan Review $250.00 +$76/ac (Land Clearing) $3,900.00 +I$25DJ20ac) In excess of 40 ac Right of Way Work w/out permit= 2x fee $250.00 $910.00 Bonds $375.00 lack & Bore (Piping) $300.00 Residential $0.00 $275.00 $125 (3rd & Consecutive Reviews) N/A $15.00 Per Linear Feet $125.00 +$0.29 /Linear feet $350.00 3rd Submittal Commercial $0.00 $450,00 $125 (3rd & Consecutive Reviews) N/A $5,000.00 Road Crossing $750.00 Road Cut $550.00 4th Submittal Utility $0.00 $150.00 $100 (3rd & Consecutive Reviews) NJA N/A N/A Development $O.DO $450.00 $100 (3rd & Consecutive Reviews) N/A N/A N/A ST LUCIE COUNTY CITY OF PORT ST LUCIE MARTIN COUNTY PALM BEACH COUNTY INDIAN RIVER CONTY License Agreement $0.00 $250.00 $0.00 $O.OD $500.00 +Commercial dJw fee ($500.) $0.00 Road Improvements $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 +Commercial d/w fee ($500.) $0.00 Sidewalk, Turn Lanes $0.00 $125.00 $250 (3rd & Consecutive Reviews) Other (Roadways) $0.00 $2,150.00 $250 (3rd & Consecutive Reviews) $125.00 Appeal of Staff Decision $0.00 $1,000.00 Significant staff time involved $775.00 N/A Hourly rate $750.00 $800.00 PROPOSED FEE DECREASES rvc PreliminaryPNTown $70,000.00 $5,400.OD SameasotherPDs $6,353.33 $3,960.00 +$40/ac $13,800.00 $6,254.70 $1,300.00 >4Dacres+$50/25 ac PreliminaryPNVillage $50,000.00 $5,400.OD SameasotherPOs $6,353.33 $3,960.00 +$40/ac $13,800.00 $6,254.70 $1,300.00 >40acres+$50/25 ac FinaIPNTown $O.DO $2,400.OD SameasotherPDs $6,701.00 N/A $9,127,00 $2,754.05 $4,275.00 >40acres+$100(75 ac FinaIPNVillage $O.DO $2,400.OO SameasotherPDs $6,101.00 N/A $9,127.00 $2,754.05 $4,275.00 >40acres+$lOD/75 ac All other applications $5,000.00 $0.00 Eliminate $5,000 minimum fee NJA N/A N/A N/A N/A All other applications $250.00 $0.00 Eliminate $250/ac fee NJA N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning Fees Class A Mobile Home $1,000.00 $300.00 Provide for staff approval $849.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3oopaad00'SL OD'SL$ dsullppeeap0'05$snltl 00'OOI$ 00'51$ 811da33ooppuemopulm 00'51$ 00'51$ Idhlp:eaio;saa}s~ldulw p0'SL$ 00'51$ waily'ea 00'05$ suolslna3ueld 00'002$ DS'B9Z$ 52'6£2$ paseq anleq 00'002$ pasep panlep Ilemea5lequaplsa8 00'51$ OS'68$ 00'005$ LS'B8$ 00'005$ 00'51$ oaanl5pueyielanM 00522$ 00'OOT3 scull pue lue1M 00'05[$ 00'6[5$ MA a43 A9 052 $'804$ L9'bBi$ Iequaplsa6 00'SL$ OD'SL$ (Ieyuaplsa8J s3olwauap 00'00[$ 05'68$ 00'51$ LS'B8$ 00'005$ 00'51$ lwaldaB RH ]alert loH loo;~bsay3Aq algelaseganlen7711uai~ro paseepanlep suoplppywoo8 aseq amen7713uauro xSTq~ xSC~ algelasegamen77llua3lna zpL• salgelumoseH xL• x5g~ h~lSlen3awwo711tl aseq amen 7713ua1]m xST4' xSL' algel aseq amen 7713uauro zpL~ algel aseq amen 7)I lua]ma zL~ x5g p!saB Allwe8 al8u!S DO'SL$ 05'68$ mil ayl Aq saoH pO'05T$ £8'b0i$ paseq amen, ue 8ulppn8 pasodoid swalsds nellonoloyd lelos 00'51$ 05'68$ OD'OOT$ LS'BS$ paseq anleA, paseq panle~ swalshs ]alem toy ]etas Aldde saa;algnop aa}31w3ad aylsawllb dldde saa;algnop as}algnop ale s31wlad p/m pa~7nl~suo7 salnTDnl~g :ea 00'OBT$ suollaadsul-ai q ianp OO~OOE$ 00'00£$ 00'055$ uo!hadsul-a3 yUnol DO'D6$ 00'00£$ 00'54$ 00'S6I$ 00'OOI$ uoi,hadsul-w pnyl DO'Sb$ 00'OOT$ 00'56$ 00'06$ 00'01$ 00'9[$ uopaadsw-a~ puoaa5 00'56$ 00'05$ DO'S4$ 00'51$ 51'£55 OD'05$ uogaadsul-ai ls]y 00'SLT$ DD'OOT$ 000'OOI$-I00'05$ 00'OOT$ OD'SL$ 000'OS$-TOS'Z$ dsw ea DD'DS$snld 00'51$ 00'DS$ 005'25-0$ anage aql uJ papnJ7u! you s;Jwlad•7s!W s~)wlad lo~7eliuoo-qns pe sapnpw anoge aql 00'005$ aInPOW I~PPtl e3 DO'OOZ$ aped'.ea DO'05$snld DO'OOZ$ DS'L4b$ sawoH pamhe;nueW 00'00£$ 88'982$ aai leld 00'002$ saplM alBulS sawoH lelnpoW `s!apoW >Iled'sawoH apgoW ldwxa8e-uouFlel8 p0'05Z$ 00'052$ s8ulpllnpalod val!wdlsuo7 pue ldwz3 atl 00'525$ DO'SL$ sllwad leuoyeaol OO~DOZ$ 05'68$ 51'6415 paseq anle~ 00'055$ 1;IPeoO halaom/yl!m 00'OOZ$ 05'68$ OD'O9T$ 05'9455 psaBApwelZgl,aapel3 00'OOZ$ 00'SZI$ aPha130M/Msgaop 00'0025 00'002$ OODS$dsul LPPa DO'S2I$ 00'51$ (pooMJ aped pasle8 Aluo w3 uaa3as 00'002$ pays'13odlea'wl ulas 05'8925 aa} oned pace] sold 00'522$ CI'I£Z$ uoihasdw T / aad lel3 00'S2I$ Jwnulwnly) oiled ps88upsxa uo w8 was 00'002$ 00'6LI$ 00'522$ E£'IOZ$ ea 00'OS$dsul [PPe/sdsu!Z OD'OOZ$ 00'SZI$ (wnulwnltl)gels lxa /woo8 ssel9 00'002$ 00'9225 OS'ZTZ$ ea DO'OS$dsul l,ppe/sdsw.Z 00'002$ 00'SZT$ (wnulwnlyJ ssel9 of woo8 uaa]aS ulw 00'0025 Isoagelss~ld pp~61T$ 00'522$ E£'IOZ$ uopaatlsulEfaa}leli 00'00£$ 00'SZI$ (wnulwnly)gelSmaN/liodle7 00'0025 00'095$ 00'61T$ 00'9LT$8'bsOSVano pO'SZS$ O9'f9T$ uogaadsulS/aa31e13 00'SZI$ 00'91$ (wnulwnltl)gelSHupslx8/UOdle7 00'0025 00'002$ 05'68$ 00'002$ 9E'ZLl$ aadleli 00'OOZ$ 00'51$ (wnwwnltl)amsopu31ood wwoopueplsau p0'9ZZ$ OS'89ZPPe>laap,~laapou 00'LES$ 00'9CPPalappng3aumo DO'009$ 00'456$ punapul/aai tali 00'005$ 00'0065 sed5/stoodlepuap!sa8 00'6LT$ 00'91$ 00'[25$ dsull,PPV.ea00'OS$ DO'SLS$ 00'51$ gels/alanuo7 09'66$ 00'59$ SZ'LC$ aaj leld DO'O9T$ 00'9ZI$ bbl>aPlaal3 OM/M Pays 00'0025 00'00[$ 05'68$ 00'002$ 9£'145$ 8uuaam8u3 oN 00'O9I$ OD'SL$ 8une}a8 uBIS 00'0025 00'009$P]eogll!0 00'005$ 00'6CI$ nahala 00~5L sold 00'002$ 5('695$ LPPe:ea OD'OS$aad tell 00'OST$ 00'51$ su8!S Adoue7 00'0025 00'OSI.Bmpuelsaai1 00'OOI$ 00'6LI$ a!]laala 0051 sold 00'002$ SC'69Sf :ea pp~p5$suBIS/M 18Ptl 00'002$ OO~9ZS$ cabala /m suBlS/M 00'002$ 00'OOT$ aphala-uou pS'68$ 00'002$ 9£'(455 aadleli 00'OOI$ 00'51$ su8!SIIeM s~!wlad aai 3eld 00'002$ 00'092$ lenuaprsay OS'fi6$ lepuap!sa] 00'00£$ 88'602$ sampn]1S Iltl 00'SZ[$'u!w 00'SZT$ (leyuap!saBl uolplowap 00'5225 00'6[5$ 00'51 PPe lappnq aaumo 00'OOT$ 00'895$ aaj leld 00'ODI$ 00'5[$ ed5 / good puno39 anogy lpnq ails 00'002 00'51$ 05'68$ qe}-wd 00'59$ OS'9L$ aai leld 00'OOT$ 00'51$ dS 44I <pays uopeaol 00'51$ O9'fi8$ SZ'ZB$ dsw lppe:ea 0005$,dsu!1 00'OOS$ 00'51$ poom ]o alp]eH Bulp!5 paseq anle~ OD'SL$ (leu]awwo7l siaUny5 w3o1S 1 y 8 ~u!w pp~ppZ$ s8uluado pZ latl 00'055$ 05'68$ 00'0055 86'4£I$ as}ieli 00'OOT$ 00'51$ s~alingS W101S 00'91$ 00'OST shun OT ]ad'wwo7 00'00T$ 05'68$ OD'9[$ 88'68$ tl/N 00'91$ 1no a8ueya 7V 00'51$ alAaala ou 00'OOT$ nlhalaou p5'6B$ 005[$ BB'48$ as}3e13 00'SZS$ 00'51$ shop/wa3sds7V maN 00'002$ lepuaplsal DO'SZI$ O9'6B$ 00'59$ 88'6ST$ as;geld 00'005$ ODSL$ aauay oo'sLS DD DoT$ suopuadsul Z pp~6Li$ DO'9L$ SZ'LOT$ as}leld 00'005$ 00'51$ 5e9 OD'05$dsul l~PPe 00'SZT$ 00'51$ salPu!y5 /;oo8 00'522$ uollenlen uo 05'8925 00'OOT$3anoaai 00'002$ LS'S£Z$ malna8 ueld oN OD'OOT$ 00'51$ sal8uly5/lanm-a8/}oo8 00'51$ OD'ODI$ 05'68$ OD'SL$ B8'68$ as}1e13 00'ODS$ DO'SL$ 8ulgwnld 00'51$ OD'DOI$ 05'68$ 00'51$ 88'68$ aai leld OD'OOT$ 00'51$ a!]1aa13 7/0 ~I!we; oMl pue cup 5310N ONtl 63331tlN011100tl 1N00Wtl 333 5310N ONtl 53331tlN011100tl 1NDOWtl 331 6310N ONtl 53311tlN011100tl 1NOOWtl333 5310N ONtl 63331tlN011100tl LNDOWtl331 $39tle3Atl 5310N ONtl 53331tlN011100tl 1NOOWtl 331030N3WW0738 Saad luaLn7 S3dAl11Wd3d 533311W83d 9NI0110p ~~ ,I ' ia~ o ';~J ... ® .. A1N0783A18 NtlI0Nl A1Nn07 HJtl38 Wltld A1Nf107 N118tlW 317n119180d 30 A117 A1NH07317n115