RELATED STORIES

• Cost of permits in Bonita sure to rise, maybe triple

More Bonita

• Lee County Sheriff’s Office searching for attempted robbery suspect of San Carlos CVS store
• FGCU, Edison State College form new partnership
• Lee beaches, shoreline projects will lose $3M in proposed change in tourist tax allocation

Tell us about it

• What would you add to this story? Tell us what we missed.
• Do you have photos from this event? Documents we need to see? Share with us.
• Upload photos & videos
• More ways to get your stuff online and in the paper.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

Share and Enjoy [?]

BONITA SPRINGS — Can the City of Bonita Springs legally allow a private firm to charge community development fees that are in some cases six times greater than those charged by Lee County?

Critics of the city’s contract with CH2M Hill likely didn’t get the answer to that question in a letter sent from the State Attorney General’s office Wednesday to City Attorney Audrey Vance. It was hoped the letter, which contained no legal opinions, would settle critics’ concerns over the city’s contract with the company.

“They split the baby in a weird way,” Vance said after an initial review of the letter.

Vance said her feeling was the city would be operating within the law by approving the fees, which are expected to come before City Council on Oct. 15, but indicated that it would take a few days to determine the city’s next action.

Instead of an opinion, Senior Assistant Attorney General Gerry Hammond provided “informal observations,” a four-page regurgitation of Florida statutes pertaining to the establishment of the fees. Hammond referenced laws stating the city could only charge reasonable fees to cover its cost for enforcing the state’s building codes.

He didn’t opine on whether a $300 building permit fee CH2M Hill originally proposed for the set-up of an RV outside of a planned lot is unreasonable. The county charges $50 for the same service. Nor did he weigh in on the fee for a review of plans for a residential home, which CH2M Hill originally suggested would cost $100. The county charges $25.

Hammond did forward the question over the ethics of having a private organization determine those fees to the state’s Commission on Ethics.

The Lee Building Industry association has joined various contractors in opposition to the fees and the city’s use of CH2M Hill.

At the very least, says building association president Dennis Cantwell, the city should demand a line-item by line-item review of CH2M Hill’s costs to verify they aren’t charging an unreasonable fee for the enforcement of the building codes, as they are a profit-driven agency. Cantwell said he hopes the city returns to utilizing the county for community development services, and encouraged the city to continue looking into the ethics of the CH2M Hill contract.

“That question needs to go to the Commission on Ethics,” said Dennis Cantwell, president of the Lee Building Industry association, which has joined various contractors in opposition to the fees and the city’s use of CH2M Hill. “They still haven’t addressed whether or not its even legal to give (the city’s) enforcement power over to an outside contractor. We need to find out if we can even do this.”

Despite the large fees, the city still has a concern over whether or not they will cover the full cost of its contract with the company, which is set at about $900,000 a year. Currently, the building fees being collected are not covering the city’s cost. Vance said the county is coming up short, as well.

“The county hasn’t updated their fees in a while and my understanding is that the county is about to up their fees,” Vance said. “The county is acting a little slower to not do things that would totally devastate building.”

Nonetheless, Cantwell said the county’s fees are not too low. Over the years, the county has accumulated a $15 million surplus in the fees collected, he said.

“We’re actually getting money out of that fund right now,” Cantwell said. “The fees were not too low, they were very efficient. Since county government does not make a profit, we’re going to be charging more than it costs. That’s why we’re saying, ‘is it even legal for you to do that?’”

Of particular concern to Cantwell were CH2M Hill’s original proposed fees for commercial building plan review. Though a direct comparison between the company’s rates and the county’s is not possible, because the city wants to calculate them based on the value of the proposed construction and the county calculates them based on square footage, Cantwell said the fees could be as much as 10 times higher than the county’s when applied to a previous high-rise project.

CH2M Hill employee and Community Development Program Manager Beverly Tew said the company has been revising the fees, including those applying to large structures.

“We’re still in the process of bringing forward additional information. We’ve had several public workshops at this point. We’re working to provide a response to the city with a fee schedule that we believe is fair and reasonable and that are also equitable for the town’s taxpayers,” Tew said. “So that the town’s taxpayer is not carrying the weight of the general revenue for the supplementation of the service.”

Mayor Ben Nelson said that will become the decision of City Council, to go ahead with the relatively high fees or use tax dollars to cover the remainder of the city’s cost for the services. Having CH2M Hill list its exact costs to provide the service is not an option, he said.

“Complete transparency is not part of the deal,” Nelson said, “because they are a private corporation.”