Loading...
Item P3BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: October 17, 2007 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes _ No X Department: Staff Contact: Andrew O. Trivette AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution to replace the current fee schedule for the Planning and Environmental Resources Department. ITEM BACKGROUND: On September 21, 2007 the BOCC adopted the Monroe County operating budget for the 2008 fiscal year. At this hearing the County Administrator proposed a plan to begin restoring reserve funds. One component of this plan was addressing revenue streams which are woefully outdated and inadequate. This new fee structure is aimed at updating one such revenue stream placing the cost of service on the applicant rather than the tax payers at large. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: Approval of resolution 389-2005 CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval TOTAL COST: 0.00 COST TO COUNTY: 0.00 BUDGETED: Yes No X SOURCE OF FUNDS: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes X No _ AMOUNT PER MONTH N/A Year _S815,046_ APPROVED BY: County Atty X OMB/Purchasing Risk Management DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # Revised 11/06 MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION We strive to be caring, professional and fair To: Thomas J. Willi, County Administrator From: Andrew Omer Trivette Growth Management Division Director Date: October 2, 2007 RE: New Fee Schedules for the Building, Planning and Environmental Resources and Code Enforcement Departments The intention of this memo is to establish three revised fee schedules for the Growth Management Division to help balance expenses and revenues reducing funding required from ad -valorem tax revenues. This budget year presented new and difficult challenges for the Division of Growth Management. The required reduction of budget items coupled with the creation of a new fund for the Building Department placed additional fiscal responsibility on the Division as a whole. In an effort to address not only the expense side of the ledger but also the revenue streams, the Division has reviewed and revised the two resolutions (Planning and Building Departments) and the cost recovery strategy for Code Enforcement which establishes the fee structure utilized to offset the cost of providing service. These suggested fee increases represent the costs associated with providing the service. It is our intention to assess these fees to those customers using the service rather than the tax payers at large. This fee increase will result in a greatly reduced dependence on ad -valorem taxes and will help to maintain our current level of service to the community. Total Approximate Additional Revenue Anticipated: $2,449,502.00 Below is a chart which details the anticipated benefit of our recommended fee changes. Please find below a general explanation of the revision process for each of the three departments and a synopsis of the proposed changes. Building Department Joe Paskalik, Building Official The fee structure for the Building Department is established in resolution 073-2003. This resolution creates the fees associated with the review, inspection and issuance of building permits, ROGO & NROGO applications and other services of the Building Department such as flood plain inspections. This resolution is unique in that it also sets the fees associated with the work performed by agencies not in the Building Department for review, inspection and approval of building permits. These agencies include the Planning & Environmental Resources Department, the Engineering Division, Code Enforcement Department and the Fire Marshal's Office. The Building Department has submitted the revised resolution as an interim solution while they conduct a more in depth study of fees which will result in a more comprehensive fee revision in the future. This interim solution is based on a review of fee structures for similar services in other localities in South Florida. This is not the case for those fees assessed in this resolution for services by the Planning and Environmental Resources Department, the Engineering Division, Code Enforcement Department or the Fire Marshal's Office. These fees are based on actual costs to perform the service including loaded salaries for the individuals required. The bulk of the revisions for this resolution surround the increase of existing fees to reflect the cost for Monroe County to perform the review, inspection and approval of the application. One driving factor behind a partial fee revision for the Building Department is the new separation of funds within Growth Management. Conforming to Florida Statute 553.80 (7) the Building Department shall have a separate fund from the remainder of the Division to guarantee that monies are spent in accordance with state law. This separation has placed additional emphasis on services rendered by other departments and divisions to the Building Department. Many of the new fees are related to recouping the costs associated with those services. Approximate Additional Revenue Anticipated: $521,340.00 Planning & Environmental Resources Department Townley Schwab, Acting Director The Planning & Environmental Resources fee schedule was last updated in 2005 based on a methodology devised by the then Director of the Growth Management Division. This methodology is based on direct and indirect cost recovery for providing the service. This allows the department to average time spent on a particular type of service by each employee involved and set a cost which is reflective of both salary and benefits required to complete the task. The Department under the direction of Aref Joulani completed a new review of the fee schedule and adjusted fees based on increased product and service as well as staff salary increases. Some fees when reviewed in this manner were adjusted down based on more accurate time assessments by staff completing the work. The Department has also added some fees which were previously not included in the fee schedule to recoup costs associated with new services provided. These fees are based on estimated time to complete projections by the staff which will be involved and are in part derived from the time required to perform like services. Approximate Additional Revenue Anticipated: $355,046.00 Code Enforcement Department Ronda Norman, Director The Code Enforcement Department has also reviewed the incoming revenue for the department versus expenditures and devised a new method of recouping the costs associated with achieving code compliance throughout Monroe County. Code Enforcement is one of the busiest departments in the Division with only seven (7) inspectors and over 5,000 open cases. Currently Code Enforcement has no method of recouping administrative costs and labor costs associated with taking a case through the compliance process which often terminates at a hearing with the Special Magistrate. The only administrative fee which is assessed at the hearing is the grossly underestimated cost for legal services provided by the County Attorney's Office. Using a similar methodology to that used by the Planning and Environmental Resources Department, we are proposing an administrative fee be charged at the hearing for cases which receive a finding from the Special Magistrate. This new fee will recoup such costs as the Special Magistrate's time, staff time, administrative costs and legal fees required to bring the case forward for compliance. If compliance is achieved without a hearing, the desired option, no additional fee will be charged. Each inspector will be required to keep billable hours associated with each case for each member of the Code Enforcement team. These billable hours will be assessed at the hearing after a finding is rendered and shall be due with an acceptable time frame paid to Monroe County at any of our Building Department locations. This method of recouping costs associated with code compliance is the prescribed methodology according to Florida Statute 162.07(2) & 162.09. We are not required to adopt a resolution to an ordinance due to section 6.3-5 of Monroe County Code which reads in part: If Monroe County prevails m prosecuting a case before the special master, it shall he entitled to recover all costs incurred in prosecuting the case and such costs may he included in the lien authorized under F.S. § 162. 09(3), or section 6.3-7 ofthis Code of Ordinances. We are proposing that the fee be assessed separate from the lien or fine as this fee is not intended to be punitive or a deterrent, but simply recovery of the costs to Monroe County for bringing the case to compliance. If this fee continues to go uncollected the citizenry of Monroe County will continue to fund code compliance for those individuals who are in violation of Monroe County Code. Approximate Additional Revenue Anticipated: $1,573,116.00 Packet Contents: Proposed Planning and Environmental Resources Fee Resolution Planning and Environmental Resources Fee Resolution 389-2005 Proposed Building Fees Resolution Building Fees Resolution 073-273 Memo from Code Enforcement Director Norman with attachments Planning and Environmental Resources Fee Spreadsheet Memo from Michelle Lee regarding Fire Marshall and Engineering Fees RESOLUTION NO. -2007 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE TO MORE ACCURATELY REPESENT CURRENT EXPENSES AND TO ADEQUATELY OFFSET THE TRUE COSTS OF PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE PARTIES RECEIVING THE BENEFITS OF SUCH SERVICES; REPEALING ANY OTHER FEE SCHEDULES INCONSISTENT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners wishes to provide the citizens of the County with the best possible service in the most cost effective and reasonable manner; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that it would be in the best interests of the general public to charge the true cost for such services, thereby placing the burden of such costs directly upon those parties deriving the benefit from such services; and, WHEREAS, the Growth Management Director has demonstrated that the existing fee schedule does not reflect the true cost of providing services to the parties requesting services from the Planning and Environmental Resources Department; and WHEREAS, the updated fee schedule prepared by the Growth Management Director for providing these services includes the estimated direct costs and reasonable indirect costs associated with the review and processing of planning and development approval applications and site plans, on -site biological reviews, administrative appeals, preparation of official documentation verifying existing development rights and other processes and services; and WHEREAS, the Board heard testimony and evidence presented as to the appropriate fee schedule during a public hearing on October 17, 2007; and, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners concurs with the recommendations of the Growth Management Director; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY FLORIDA: Section 1. Pursuant to Section 9.5-21, the following schedule of fees to be charged by the Growth Management Division for the filing of land development permit, land development approvals, land development orders, and appeal applications, and requests for technical services or official letters attesting to development rights recognized by the County shall be implemented: C:,Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files`,OLK13B`PLANNING FEE RESO - PROPOSED - 2007 (2).doc Page 1 of 4 Administrative Appeals 2,626.00 Administrative Relief 1,011.00 Alcoholic Beverage Application 1,264.00 Beneficial Use 1,437.00 Biological Site Visit (per visit) 280.00 Biologist Fee (misc — per hour) 60.00 Boundary Determination 1,201.00 Comprehensive Plan & LDR Amendment 6,000.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5,531.00 Conditional Use Application, Major 10,014.00 Conditional Use, Application, Minor 8,484.00 Conditional Use, Minor Deviation 1,768.00 Conditional Use, Revised Plan Review 638.00 Conditional Use, Time Extension 986.00 Conditional Use, Transfer of Development Rights 1,239.00 Conditional Use, Transfer of Floor Area 1,944.00 Conditional Use, Transfer of ROGO Exemption 1,740.00 Development Agreement 12,900.00 Development of Regional Impact 28,876.00 DOAH Appeals 816.00 Dock Length Variance 1,026.00 Future Land Use Map Amendment 6,000.00 (With Land Use Map Amendment) Future Land Use Map Amendment 5,531.00 (Without Land Use Map Amendment) Grant of Conservation Easement 269.00 Habitat Evaluation Index (per hour) 60.00 Home Occupation Application 498.00 Inclusionary Housing Exemption 900.00 Land Development Regulations Text Amendment 5,041.00 Land Use District Map Amendment — Nonresidential 4,929.00 Land Use District Map Amendment —Residential 4,131.00 Letter of Current Site Conditions 936.00 Letter of Development Rights Determination 2209.00 Letter of ROGO Exemption 215.00 NROGO Applications 774.00 Planning Fee (misc - per hour) 50.00 Parking Agreement 1,013.00 Planning Site Visit 129.00 Platting, 5 lots or less 4,017.00 Platting, 6 lots or more 4,613.00 Pre -application with Letter of Understanding 689.00 Pre -application with No Letter of Understanding 296.00 Public Assembly 149.00 Research, permits and records (per hour) 50.00 C:'Documents and SettingsAezanos-mayraTocal SettingsiTemporary Internet Files\OLK13BTLANNING FEE PESO - PROPOSED - 2007 (2).doc Page 2 of 4 Road Abandonment 1,533.00 ROGO Application 748.00 ROGO Lot/Parcel Dedication Letter 236.00 Sign Variance 1,076.00 Special Certificate of Appropriateness 200.00 Vacation Rental Application 493.00 Vacation Rental Manager License Fee 106.00 Vacation Rental Renewal 100.00 Variance, Planning Commission 1,608.00 Variance, Planning Director 1,248.00 Vested Rights Determination 2,248.00 Waiver, Planning Director 1,248.00 Wetlands Delineation (per hour) 60.00 Growth Management applications may be subject to the following additional fees or requirements: 1. Advertising and /or notice fees; $245 for newspaper advertisement and $3 per property owner notice. 2. No application or other fees for affordable housing projects. 3. Hearing fees; payment of half the cost of the hearing officer, which is $66 per hour. County is charged $132 per hour by DOAH. 4. Subject to technology fee of $20. Section 2. Any other fees schedules or provisions of the Monroe County Code inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. Section 3. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward one (1) certified copy of this Resolution to the Division of Growth Management. Section 4. This Resolution is effective November 1, 2007. (REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK) C:ADocuments and Settingsytezanos-mayra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK13ByPLANNING FEE RESO - PROPOSED - 2007 (2).doc Page 3 of 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, held on the 17`h day of October, 2007. Mayor Mario Di Gennaro Mayor Pro Tern Dixie Spehar Commissioner George Neugent Commissioner Charles McCoy Commissioner Sylvia Murphy BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Mayor/Chairperson (SEAL) ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK ME DEPUTY CLERK MONROE COUN TTORNEY APP EO S FORM Otl C:ADocuments and Settings\tezanos-mayra`Local SettingsyTemporary Internet Files1OLK13WPLANNING FEE RESO - PROPOSED - 2007 (2).doc Page 4 of 4 s RESOLUTION NO. 389-2005 A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 211-2003, AND ANY OTHER FEE SCHEDULES INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AND AMENDING THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE TO MORE EFFECTIVELY REPRESENT CURRENT COSTS REQUIRED TO ADEQUATELY OFFSET THE TRUE COSTS OF PROVIDING SUCH SERVICE TO THE PARTIES RECEIVING THE BENEFITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, AND THUS, FURTHER REDUCING THE BURDEN CURRENTLY BEING BORNE BY THE TAXPAYERS AT LARGE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF NOVEMBER 1.2005 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners wishes to provide the citizens of the County with the best possible service in the most cost effective and reasonable manner; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that it would be in the best interest of the general public to charge the true cost for development related services, thereby placing the burden of such costs directly upon those parties deriving the benefit; and, WHEREAS, the Growth Management Director has demonstrated that the existing fee schedule does not reflect the true cost of providing the services to the parties requesting services from the Planning and Environmental Resources Department; and WHEREAS, the updated fee schedule prepared by the Growth Management Division for providing these services includes the estimated direct costs and reasonable indirect costs associated with the review and processing of planning and development approval applications and site plans, on -site biological reviews, administrative appeals, and preparation of official documentation verifying existing development rights; and WHEREAS, after hearing testimony and evidence presented as to the appropriate fee schedule during a public hearing on October 19, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners concurs with the recommendations of the Growth Management Director. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INIONROE COUNTY FLORIDA, THAT: Section 1. Pursuant to Section 9.5-21, the following schedule of fees to be charged by the Growth Nanagement Division for the tiling of land development permits, land development approvals, land development orders, and appeal applications and requests for technical services or official letters attesting to development rights recognized by the County: P: Ntayra Tezancs BO C October 19, 2005 Planning Fees feeresolution.doc Page I of 3 Alcoholic Beverage Application' $ 1,140.00 Administrative Appeals 950.00 Administrative Relief 760.00 Beneficial Use 1,300.00 Biological Site Visit (per visit) 260.00 Boundary Determination 1,090.00 Conditional Use Application, Major1,2'5 6,020.00 Conditional Use, Application, Minor' '5 4,570.00 Conditional Use, Minor Deviation 320.00 Development Agreement"5 8,830.00 Development of Regional Impact"5 9,970.00 DOAH Appeals3 570.00 Future Land Use Map Amendment — Residential'-2-' 3,940.00 (With Land Use Map Amendment) Future Land Use Map Amendment — Nonresidential1.2.5 4,950.00 (With Land Use Map Amendment) Future Land Use Map Amendment — Residential 1.2.5 3,010.00 (Without Land Use Map Amendment) Future Land Use Map Amendment — Nonresidential1.2.5 4,020.00 (Without Land Use Map Amendment) Habitat Evaluation Index (per hour) 60.00 Home Occupation Application 310.00 Land Use District Map Amendment —Residential 1.2.5 2,940.00 Land Use District Map Amendment — Nonresidential t.2.5 3,970.00 LDR or Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 2,270.00 Letter of Buildability (Current Site Conditions) 850.00 Letter of Development Rights Determination 1,620.00 Minor Conditional — TDR 420.00 Minor Conditional — TRE2 570.00 NROGO Applications 590.00 Platting, 5 lots or less5 1,660.00 Platting, 6 lots or more 3,100.00 Pre -application with Letter of Understanding 620.00 Pre -application with No Letter of Understanding 270.00 Research, permits and records (per hour) 50.00 ROGO Application2.5 430.00 ROGO Lot/Parcel Dedication Letter 210.00 Sign Variance 920.00 Special Certificate of Appropriateness 200.00 Vacation Rental Application 390.00 Vacation Rental Renewal 100.00 Vacation Rental *vfanager License Fee 40,00 Variance, Planning Commissiont*2 1,060.00 Variance, Planning Director''4 650.00 Vested Rights Determination 850.00 Waiver, Planning Directorz 420.00 P:MayTa Tezanos BOCC C ttober 19, 2005' Planning Fees' feeresolution.doc Page 2 of 3 Wetlands Delineation (per hour)= t Subject to additional fees; $245 for newspaper advertisement and $3 per property owner notice. 2 No application or other fees for affordable housing projects. 3 Subject to additional charges; payment of half the cost of the hearing officer, which is $66 per hour. County is charged $132 per hour by DOAH. 4 Subject to additional fee of $3 per property owner notice. s Subject to technology fee of $20 for records conversion, storage, and retrieval. Section 2. Resolution No. 211-2003 is hereby repealed. Section 3. The effective date of the Fee Schedule shall be November 1, 2005. Section 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward one (1) certified copy of this Resolution to the Division of Growth Management. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, held on the 19th day of October, 2005. Mayor Dixie Spear Yes Mayor Pro Tern Charles "Sonny" McCoy Yes Commissioner George Neugent Yea Commissioner David Rice Yes Commissioner Murray E. Nelson Yee BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA . , c=-► C3 BY: Mayor'Chairperson r xC� (SEAL) -"-�y� ATTEST': DA:YNY KOHLAGE, CLERK m n �" ►►MOW By;,: Deputy Clerk P: Ntayra Tezanos BOCC October Ig, 2005'Planning Fees'feeresolution.doc Page 3 of 3 MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION tf E.Yrl�c !o hc' curin�. pruJ�s.cio�tl! c�rni/air To: Andrew O. Trivette � X Growth Management Division Director -. ' I8 23 From: Ronda Nonnan Code Enforcement Department Director Date: October 2, 2007 RE: New Cost Recovery Procedure Subject An ordinance providing collection of adequate fees for services provided by the Code Enforcement Department Summary With the adoption of FY08 Budget, the County is aggressively implementing cost recovery approaches to providing government services. This philosophy ensures that costs to provide services should be borne by those persons generating the necessity for such services. Authority Per FS 162.07(2) and 162.09 and MCC 6.3-5, the Special Magistrate may impose actual costs incurred in the enforcement of a code enforcement action. Analysis 1. Per Florida Statute and the County Attorney's determination, costs can be recovered by providing the Special Magistrate a detailed accounting of the costs expended on each case. Accordingly. we have developed a workshcet to track employees time spent on each case (Exhibit A) 2. A change in the allocation of revenue to Code Enforcement through the collection of Aker The Fact Permit fees generated by violations of working without a permit will also be implemented. The customary administrative fee would be allocated to the building department and the remaining percentage of the ATF fee would be allocated to the Code Enforcement Department. 3. Additionally, an increase in fees for flood insurance inspections to more accurately depict the cost of this service is needed. We estimate the actual cost to the County at approximately S90.00 per inspection and we are currently charging S50.00. Exhibit B provides a comparison between the current and proposed fee schedule. The current cost of prosecution is S 100. We have estimated the average time expended by personnel for a case scheduled for hearing is closer to S 1,100 per case. And, the additional fees collected through after the fact permits could be as high as S350,000 per year and the increase in flood insurance inspections would possibly generate an additional $29,000 annually. Anticipated Revenues Per Exhibit B, additional revenues are anticipated at $1.5 M Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of this ordinance as it would constitute a reasonable budgetary and policy decision as the fee increase reflects the realistic cost of providing these services. Exhibits Case Cost of,Prosecution Inspector co 0 o I co �n o co O N to 00 Eg 69l 64 V9 0 CD N N N M .00 N � N t4 E U c O _ Z EE �000 c d C U. r � — v U (Q) -- - - - _ o a W oo oo W a �s 0 (n __------_ Cl) O O t- H d O o0 m W J 2 U U) W LL 0 0 No (O O O O O O O O of O O N 0 0 0 (f) O (O of O O_ O of 0 0 7 (D 7 of of Lo(Do cc W cc u7 o 7 0 of 70 (f) 1- M W u) M O (f) N 1` 6] (f) 7 N N 7 7 6] 7 N (O O 6] of N 1� N 1: O 1` (f) N W M 6] M O 7 M (O 1� M O (O 7 (O 1� (O N N Lf O O (D O of 7 M 1` W 7 1` 7 of N N 7 co co (O N of N 7 N O M N N ll) ll) m C O O O M O -O > > N Q � co L) (0 co N L) (f) co N LoO -- o o 1` N N(D co NN L) O N o o L) of O O� q N (N N co N N O N a_111 7 (O 1` O O O 7 7 of 7 of (O O M (O (O of M (O 7 N M 1` M M (O M co of O (O (D 6] O co L) of of of of (O N 6] N 1— (!7 (O M N ((7 M ((7 (O 1� W 7 1� co of (O 1� W O 7 of (f) W W W ((7 (f) (O (f) N 7 M (!7 O N ((7 1� O 7 L) 6) 6] (f) N 1� W (O L) Z N O N O 1— co N co N W W M M 7 M m O u7 7 m N of m N O M N M N W M of M N W N m Li W U � � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O_ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O_ O O O O O(D O O O O O O J Q 7 (O O 6] N N N N 10 ((7 N 10 ((7 M N (O 1` (f) m 7 6] (f) (O (O O N (O 1� co N N 1� W ((7 7 (O (O (O 6] 1� M N M N m O 6] O N N N N N N N O (O 7 M of of � m 6] M M O] co 6] of m N � M N 7 N 6] 7 M O of 7 Z Z � O Q U LL Z 7 (O 1— O O O 7 7 of 7 of (Do 6] (O (O of 6] (O 7 N M 1� M 6] (O 6] M of (f) (O (O W O M ((7 of of of of (O N 6] W (O 4) N N (O O M of 7 N O O N O M O Lo O M 7 Lo O of O 7 (O 7 M of O O N 1� of W W N 7 m M_ M 1� (!7 O O W (O (O W N ((7 1— N N O N 7 (O N N N N O of (O ((7 N Cn O N N N (O (f) (O ((7 (f) O of N N N 7 7 N 7 7 N 7 W O O LL N O U d Z � (O (O N N N N N N N 7 co (D N LU O LU Q U)LL O LL = U) Z LLI 2i J p 2E 0 J LV of 7 7 N N 7 7 2 u) co U LL U) A v n n n o n n n W O coo (D cc o W LL 2 LL Z — O 7 N N O N N N p Q O Z W O 7 (fl (O 7 M c0 c0 Z W Q W N N 7 N N ((7 O Z (D � W U Z O N � N N N N O O O O N N N N N N O O N 7 7 M 0 0 M — N ((7 N N N N 7 O p Q U U d co (O 7 O 7 N (O O N 7 N ((7 (O of (f) (D of of O N O H d (D 7 7 ((7 (D (D (D (D (D 7 7 7 (D N (O 7 (O (O (O (O N N N N N N (f) of (O 7 N 7 N (D (O N O CO 7 (O co of O of O O N o 7 (O 7 (O (O 7 (O O N N N of N co of N N (O N N 1` (f) N 7 M M I1 U) (D of N (D (D (D (D N 7 N N N — 7 of — N (O N (O I1 I1 7 of of N O O — 7 of — N N N — N 7 IL d U of N (f) W W W W (D N o 7 N (p N o 7 o — (O (O — (D of N— M N 7 (D 7 (O (O (O d p � r � O N O N > O I E .N O O d b x o W U> N N' (n 6 a. o N > > O O O O O Li > O �_ J (n N N O O C C N C d 0 N U C C O W N J J -O O (p C N O N H d .N, L N N E E O .Y O.N. C O J 2E O J _ O O O o U O O 47 m O Y p m N (6 V1 (n I (L W > O N O N N N Y N O N O Q Q m 2 O O O >. O N J .�. >i >i E' N W W W W Q N O_ d m m U> jN O O O_ p O O O o U C N N > O O_ W � N Cn p -O -O Q Q -O —__ `r C C N D_ .� Q N .. .N. .N. O O J L 'co N U — E d -O U C U U C C N N m d— .N. O> L C E O O Q CO D_ N N N C C m m C m N O m m O O O m C m N C N E D_ U O_ U U U m a (n O Q J J (n (O >i >i O W m N d X C m m O O d m O Q O Q O� U Q [L' N U m i U m L d E 0 0 0 o o O O Q O i i O O O o O D O_Q N Q Q W J m C C C C O O N N D U D_ J m O m J t Q Q o o Q_ n_ 2 0 0 U m 'E U< O O O> O o o g x x d al o E S-a-a E° o g O E E D D E E_ o o p o 0 0 2 o o o> 0 Q O o p p p O >_ m 0 U U 000.2) U >_.� p m m m m o m o W Q QQ<I In1OL.LL.LUUJ000HUUppppxJJ3 1 a- a- ddd��oflof »»>�pHC7 o� Y> a� o� a LL U � t U � LL LLL o 0 N L N p_ O N a- Z H H Q LL 0 0 2 U Z_ v p Q LL LL LL 00 �n LL Q v 0 LL LL Z_ v p Q (D Z Lu C7 n v z Lu Q U rn z Lu U Z � p Q U U d M 7 H d O CO d � d U) d d coo Z � Z d U p �pd U�zz0 W W p Z � �Q LL 2= LLB p v °0 a- d a_ a- C7 a_ a_ w CO ddQUQ W LL Q LL (n< p r 2i I UO N 0)I � W Lu 0 v LU N C O O o N (� N C 'E L L N O N U) E ° 0 L d E U 0 m , E o Z 1 O � a 0)a >-� m cL E o E � - o) Q a)Q H mp'od m HUQ UI �_ �_ o O O EL 'N O EfC O O w 0 Oa_ Q d(7dUu)CddQ UQ W Q LL U) <i MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION We strive to be caring, professional and fair To: Andrew O. Trivette, Growth Management Director From: Michelle Lee, Coordinator Budget & Personnel . Date: October 4, 2007 RE: Fees for Engineering and Fire Marshall Services Based on information obtained from the Engineering and Fire Marshall Departments as well as loaded salary information from OMB, I used the following rates to calculate the proposed new fees: Fire Marshall and Rescue Captain (averaged) hourly rate = $57.21 Fire Chief % hour rate = $52.27 Fire Administrative hourly rate = $36.34, and % hour rate = $18.17 Engineer hourly rate = $93.74 Construction Supervisor hourly rate = $44.68 Engineering Administrative hourly rate = $38.12 Proposed New Fees: Engineering Division Review: County Engineer Review Compliance Review ($93.74 x 4) 375.00 Administrative Fee ($38.12 x 6) 229.00 Site Inspection ($93.74 x 4) 375.00 Miscellaneous per hour fee (research) ($93.74 x 1) 94.00 Fire Safety Division Fire Marshal Review Compliance Review Structural & Site Plan ($57.21 x 4) 229.00 Administrative Fee ($52.27 x 1) 52.00 Inspections Structural & Site Plan ($57.21 x 3) 172.00 Sprinkler Systems & Fire Alarms ($57.21 x 5 + $18.17) 304.00 Administrative Fee ($52.27 x .5) 26.00