Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/29/2002 W (Strategic Plan)January 29, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NAPLES, FLORIDA, JANUARY 29, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and 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 having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 a.m. In WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: JIM COLETTA VICE-CHAIRMAN: TOM HENNING JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D. FRED COYLE DONNA FIALA ALSO PRESENT: Tom Olliff, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Supervisor of Elections-Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Building January 29, 2002 9:00 A.M. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 2~ 2002 BCC MEETING. Approval of a contract for professional lobbyist services with Arnold and Blair, L.C. 3. Vital Signs Report 4. Strategic Planning 1. Review of FY 01 Strategic Plan B. Review of issues by · Staff · Citizen's Survey · Focus · BCC C. Stratification of Issues 5. Review and Development of Questions for the 2002 Citizen's Survey January 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now we'll go on to the workshop and vital statistics. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, thank you. We'll take that vote also as approval of the agreement that was actually part of the agenda package that was submitted to you. If I could get you to -- well, first, let me begin with getting you to look around -- for my staff I'm going to ask you to take your jackets off. This is an opportunity to roll our sleeves up, if you will, and do a little informal work. I'll leave it up to the Commission to dress as they choose, but we're going to try and at least spend a little time, and, hopefully, in terms of atmosphere, we wanted to leave the commission chambers. Our purpose here this morning was to actually have some conversation with you, and at the end of this walk out of the room with some agreement between, not only the board members, but from the staff perspective as well in terms of what's important to us as an organization. If you open your blue folders that are in front of you, and if you'll go to about the fourth document back, you'll see a document that looks like this (indicating). It says, "Collier County Strategic Planning for 2002 and 2003." If you'll pull that out for me. I'd like to begin by just giving you a little overview from my perspective -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so sorry. Did you say it says, "Collier County Strategic Planning"? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. It looks just like this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I'm sorry. MR. OLLIFF: If you'll flip that document to the third page, it begins an outline, and I want to just start our strategic planning process by at least giving you some perspective from your staff's level about the year that we've just came through. And I took the opportunity to go back and look at 2001. I would characterize it -- Page 2 January 29, 2002 and these are my own words -- as a year of response. And I will tell you that most of the things that we did through the majority of 2001 calendar year as well as the latter part of the year 2000 was, frankly, nothing but response. And we were responding to problems and crisis-type issues that arose in front of us, and we did very little, from my perspective, that was proactive, and we were dealing with the issues that were placed on our plate for us. The three issues that were paramount over the course of that period, under 1.1, you'll see, obviously, the golf course impact fees. And in retrospect I think I wanted to at least list what has been done in terms of those issues. The first item there was to get the uncollected fees collected. And I will tell you all of those fees have been collected as of about seven months ago. The second item from a staff perspective was to determine how those fees did not get collected and then to fix that system. In that regard the board has authorized a consolidation of over 24 different ordinances into a single impact fee ordinance. The board also authorized the creation of an impact fee coordinator and a business manager for that division. And for a division that collects and manages as much money as the Community Development and Environmental Services division does over the course of a year, historically, they had no one who had any financial experience who was responsible for overseeing, not only the money that was taken in, but the systems involved that were involved in collecting and managing that money. In addition, the board has authorized the update of four additional of our impact fee ordinances, which are all underway today. And the board has also authorized the creation of a new impact fee for law enforcement to help provide for the growing Page 3 January 29, 2002 capital needs of the sheriff's agency. The items that are listed in blue throughout this outline are items that are still ongoing. So you'll see that the update of all the impact fees is still an ongoing effort. And then, finally, the investigation of opportunities for additional fees is something that I think the board has always indicated to us that we need to do. In addition to the law enforcement impact fee, there is an opportunity for one or two others that are available throughout the state of Florida which this county has never considered. The second item -- and was almost in the same time frame -- was transportation -- Mr. Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before you leave golf courses, can I ask a question? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's one golf course that was approved as a private golf course that has become a public golf course, and there was some question about impact fees with that golf course. Can you give me an update on where we are with that? MR. OLLIFF: I can't this morning, but I will provide you an update. And if the status of the golf changed from private to public, then, obviously, there would be a change to the traffic calculation that would be done in response to that. So we'll get you and the full board a written response -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: -- to that particular project. On transportation, obviously, the most important thing from the board's perspective was to get some road improvements off the drawing board and actually under construction. For a period of about three years prior to 2000, late 2000, 2001, this county had not made a major road improvement or built a new road anywhere throughout the Page 4 January 29, 2002 county. The good news, from my perspective, was that we were able to get five major road improvement projects off the drawing board permitted and under construction over the course of the last year. And I'll give you just a quick update of those, although I think you'll get a little more detail as we go through the morning. Livingston Road, first leg of that has already been completed, and some of you were at the ribbon cutting for that. The second phase of Livingston Road which takes it to Pine Ridge Road, and I think will be a major improvement for the transportation network in our community, will be completed in the spring of this year. Pine Ridge Road will be completed in March of this year. Airport from Pine Ridge to Vanderbilt will be completed this summer, as well as Golden Gate Boulevard this summer. And, finally, Immokalee Road from 75 to 951 will be completed in the spring of this year. So all five of those road construction projects not only got off the board, but they are moving ahead and should be completed by this summer, all five of them. We, also, in terms of transportation ended up having to restructure to provide a team of people that were actually in a position and able to address the problem. I think we continue to look back at the day that we brought Norm Feder on as one of the better things that we've done here in county government, certainly, a boost to the transportation program. But we restructured that entire organization. We had to create some transportation planning. We had to bolster the transportation engineering and design team. When we first started trying to tackle this problem, I believe we had nine total people trying to address the transportation needs of this entire county system, and that simply wasn't enough asset to be able to address the issue. We ended up realizing that there was not actually a hard-and- Page 5 January 29, 2002 fast road construction plan that had been reviewed and approved by the board. Norman and his staff have done that, put that plan together. We ended up then developing funding options, and these are the things that are ongoing. 1.24 through 1.27, the funding options for the ongoing transportation needs will be a plan that gets reviewed by this board in February. We needed to establish systems for ensuring progress and completion of our transportation construction program, and I think we've done that through our centralized -- what we call CAPS Track project, which is a centralized spreadsheet where we are now tracking each and every capital construction project that the county has. Reviewing and amending land codes and comprehensive plans especially in regards to transportation, I think you have already seen some major amendments in the last cycle. And in the next two upcoming cycles, the next one is almost primarily associated with transportation-related amendments, and over the next three months, you ought to see all of those in front of you through Land Development Code hearings that we will hold in the evenings. The last thing is a little longer term, but I think the board has agreed and the transportation staff has been directed to continue to look for some additional local and collector road opportunities that are out there to try and enhance the transportation system that we have. The last issue that we dealt with in 2001 was wastewater, and getting the north plant expansion completed was, obviously, the highest priority. In December of this past year, we got that expansion completed, what they call the wetline portion of that plan was finished and is operational. But beyond that in terms of process, we needed to look at the planning process and the schedule for how we do plant expansions. We revised that significantly adding peak season populations, crushing some time frames, and I think the board Page 6 January 29, 2002 reviewed and approved a master plan update just recently. In order to support that revised now capital construction plan, we needed to revise the revenue streams. And I think the board remembers clearly doubling utility impact fees and creating a whole new type of water use, rate system, that penalizes heavy users and tries to put an emphasis on conservation of our water resources. The continuing ongoing issues of the establishment, again, in the utility side of a system to look over, manage the capital construction program, and, again, that's part of the CAPS Track program. The next milestone is getting the south plant under construction. That is in permitting now, and we have an obligation to get that plant up and running by 2004. And then beginning the work on the long- term locations for the future plants -- and I think you'll recall as part of the master plan project you saw some expansions of utility system boundary areas and some possible locations for future plant locations, which is what the staff needs to start getting serious about today for the growth opportunities that are out there in the future. Internally, I think the improvements that we were trying to focus on were staffing. We needed to get some key staff in place, and I think we've done a pretty good job of that. And I think -- for the most part, I think the administrators and the department directors that you have right now are as good a team as you've probably ever had here in this county. We needed to develop a mission and a vision statement, which was done and are up here on the board, and it is a mission and a vision that we continue to stress throughout our organization. I think our organization clearly understands what our mission is. We needed to improve significantly vertical and horizontal communications both up and down the chain and side to side. And we've taken a number of different measures to improve that, anything from employee roundtables with management on a regular basis to Page 7 January 29, 2002 including information in our monthly county journal newspaper from each of the divisions to let other divisions know what's going on within the divisions, to regular e-mail correspondence directly from our office and from each of the division administrators to all subscribers in your system. We've done a number of things to improve the communications. And, finally, to try and get away from what is traditional government silo-type organizations, we needed to create as much matrix-type organizations when the problem warranted it as possible by creating some cross-functional teams. And we created not only cross-functional teams within your agency, but we've looking at and started creating cross-functional teams across constitutional-officer agencies and yours, so that we currently have a number of teams that are functioning today that probably would not have functioned at any time that I can recall in the past where we have constitutional-officer employees and Board of County Commissioners employees working on the same project toward shared goals. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Olliff, may I interrupt one second? MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to take this time just to compliment Tom Olliff for what he did. Now, you hear the words. But as the oldest sitting member of this board, I can tell you when I came here any of these terms that you heard about vertical and horizontal communications, cross-functional teams, was not part of the vocabulary of operating management. It didn't exist. It was a nightmare. It was an organizational nightmare. There was zero communication between constitutional officers. In fact, we were at each other's throats most of the time. So what has been accomplished is what we all wanted, government working toward the vision and mission statement. Now, Page 8 January 29, 2002 it's a beginning, and it hasn't -- it's not perfect, and Mr. Olliffs not going to tell you this morning it's perfect. But what a start, and with this board we are what I call on the launching pad -- platform. We have ignited the system. We're moving, and I think it's great, Tom, and I appreciate it. One other thing under water management, a great thing is going to happen this spring at the water festival, which will tie into everything it has stated as far as what this county has done. And this will be at least a regional participation, both from the scientific community and all of the organizations in this community from education through your building through your developers to your chamber through every -organization I can think of is working on this to make it a success. And we have invited Governor Bush to come and address that banquet that night. It's a great situation for him to reinforce what he has been encouraging all of us to do, and that is to protect the environment, conserve water, and move forward with very positive efforts. So thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And, Dr. Carter, I just want to compliment you on all the work you've put forward in making that possible. I know it took a lot of thought and a lot of energy and a lot of effort. And I've seen the planning of it going on for about six months. Good work for you, very good. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll recognize that night the person whose idea it was. I'm not going to take credit for that, but once the idea was brought to me from the public, we made it work, and Jim Mudd was a very, very important player in that in helping us get this thing launched. So it's going to be great. It's going to get unfolded here in the next 90 days, so stayed tuned. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good work. Commissioner Henning. Page 9 January 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Some of the other things that I don't see on here that we accomplished last year in the responses was solid waste. I think that we have really championed on where we're going with that nature that we had capacity for the future. I'm really excited about that. I'm also excited about some of the resources that we're going to use for potable water, irrigation, and so on and so forth. And that is really due to the innovative ideas that Jim Mudd has brought to the Board of Commissioners. MR. OLLIFF: Agreed. I will tell you that having started in the solid-waste department 18 years ago is the first time that I thought we really took a serious look at trying to come to conclusions about the long-term solid-waste disposal issues here in the county. And I thought the board, along with Jim's help and guidance, really made some major progress in that area, and it probably should have been something on the list. If I can get you to turn the page to 2002 -- and, again, these are all just titles that I'm coining, but I'm telling you that from our perspective, the year of 2002, the year that we are currently in, is probably a year of what I would call "The year of assessment, and a year of change." If you looked for a theme in terms of what priorities we had last year, I would offer to you that the theme that I see, the consistent theme from last year, was the priorities were established for us, not by us. And that is something that we do not want to be in that same position in 2002. I will tell you that I believe that we have all of those crisis issues out of the way and under control, but this year is the year that we need to figure out -- and in most cases, I'll tell you the assessment part of it is pretty much complete as to how those problems occurred in the first place. But fixing the systems that got us in those positions is going to require some time. And in a lot of cases we have to go back from the ground level up and start Page 10 January 29, 2002 recreating what should be some very basic systems in an organization that we, frankly, don't have. So in terms of my look at the big picture in 2002, I would see this being a year of change. And if you'll look internally, the division annual work plans and budgets, we intend -- this is the first time we have had strategic planning where I think it needs to be in terms of the annual cycle. Strategic planning should be in front of the budget process so that when we do strategic planning, then our division and departments are going back and developing their annual work plan based on what you have told us is important to you, and then we'll develop a budget that supports the strategic goals that you told us are important to you. Then our annual work plans right down to the employee annual work plans should reflect what it is that board has told us is important so that from top to bottom the organization is moving in one single direction. OPS Track is the second issue we're going to be working on internally. I will tell you that it's called "performance based budgeting" in some organizations. It is an opportunity for us from an operational standpoint to develop two, three, or four key measurements, metrics, if you will for each different department that will allow us to, in a simple way, look at those metrics and determine is that department doing well, is it not doing well, and not just measuring things for measurement sake. And I will tell you that that's probably what we have done in the past, but we need to start measuring outputs, outcomes, and things that the board can pick up and see, yes or no, that department is doing well, or it's not, and the public can pick that up and get that same level of information. FMS and GIS system implementations are going to be critical projects for us this year. I cannot begin to tell you the magnitude of those. FMS is not just a financial management system, but it is your human resources system; it is your budget system; it is your Page 11 January 29, 2002 purchasing system; it is the internal spine of everything you do. We have tried to make a commitment to try and go live on October of 2002, and there is a tremendous amount of work to get from here to there, and it's going to take a lot of cooperation from not only all the departments that work for you, but we're also working in conjunction with the Clerk of Courts who manages your finance system in order to get to our October 1 deadline. And, lastly, cross-functional management teams internally are things that once we develop what your strategic objectives and goals are here, I intend to create some teams specifically devoted to managing those strategic goals, and they will probably be cross- functional teams that will be responsible for our tracking. What are our deliverables for your strategic goals; how are we doing; and then providing you and the public with reports on how we're doing in terms of achieving each of those. And the last thing, which is not really sort of a county-wide internal thing, but, obviously, one of the other priorities internally that we have is the entire development review process. And I think we have committed to you to break that entire system down and rebuild it and do two things. One, we want to return, if you will, the idea in that division that the public is the first and foremost customer there, and that is who the codes -- that is who the rules of the game are written to protect. And that's going to be our primary function. But on the other hand, from a development community perspective, we owe them some service just like we do anyone else. And when they submit applications for permits, we need to do a timely job of reviewing those permits and getting the permits and our comments, yes or no, back out to them in a timely way. And we need to work on both of those sides of the house. If I can get you turn to the front of the page now, the front of the handout, there's a quote there that says, "The future does not get Page 12 January 29, 2002 better with hope; it gets better by plan." And to plan for the future, we need goals, and that's why we're here today. We're going to try to get you to tell us in some very simple strategic ways what are the most important things from the Board of County Commissioners' perspective. I'll tell you, it's been a tough 18 months. It's been a tough 18 months on your staff, and there were many days driving to work that I was reminded of a Calvin and Hobbs cartoon. It's one of my favorites. I don't know if you know Calvin and Hobbs, but it's the little boy, and he's got a little stuffed tiger that he carries around, and the stuffed tiger plays with him and comes to life and things. But there was one cartoon where Calvin looked at Hobbs and he said, "You know, Hobbs, there are some days when even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help." And there were a lot of days, I can guarantee you, that I and the rest of your staff driving to work felt the same way. But what's most important to me is that when you come through a period like that where you have dealt with what in all instances can be considered crisis-type problems, if we don't take time to stop and go back and evaluate how we got into that position and learn the lessons that were there for us, then we've missed a very, very valuable opportunity. I am told there's a Chinese symbol for the word "crisis," and it takes two brush strokes. One brush stroke means "danger," and the other brush stroke means "opportunity." And from our perspective the past year has provided us a lot of crisis, but from that crisis we need to recognize the opportunities that are there. I think what we want to do over the next several years and what our recommendation to you is that we use the last year to build a better organization; that we take advantage of the opportunity to learn the lessons that were made available to us; and that we start to rebuild this organization from the ground level up. Page 13 January 29, 2002 From a system standpoint, if you look at the starred things in the middle of the page, these are our assessment in terms of just -- from a policy level how we got in the position that we were in. Clearly, there was a lack of attention to planning, and I will tell you that the AUIR process should be one of the fundamental key things that we spend a significant amount of time with the Board of County Commissioners and your staff on. And historically we have not done that. I don't believe at the conclusion of most of the AUIR processes that I sat through over the years that the board walked out of that room with a good, firm grasp of where were we with our capital projects; what were our plans for the future; and what were we even planning on building over the course of the next 12 months. And that is something that we have got to do a better job of. And a lot of that I will rest on our own shoulders. We need to learn how to speak English. We need to learn how to be able to take the stuff that's in the Growth Management Plan and concurrency management law and boil it down to something that everyone can understand that doesn't do it for a living. We had poor planning processes. I will tell you that the whole planning process in terms of sequence and timing has historically not made a lot of sense. There was obviously a disjoint, if you will, between the land development process and the capital construction process. What was happening in terms of development approvals on Horseshoe Drive and what was happening in terms of utility planned construction and road lane-mile construction, those two segments of our organization were not coordinated, and they have to be in order for us to maintain a concurrency system that the public can have any trust in. We had poor reporting systems. The reporting systems not only up through management were in all but a few cases nonexistent, but the reporting systems that made it all the way up to the Board of Page 14 January 29, 2002 County Commissioners were worse than that. And I think we've got to recognize that that is a major hole that we need to fill, and there was a lack of accountability. There were often times when I first started here that I could pick a project, and I couldn't tell you who was responsible for that project. Part of the CAPS Track program is to not only have a centralized place where we know where the information is for every capital project, but for every capital project to know what is the budget, what is the schedule, and who in our organization is ultimately responsible for pulling that project together. And, so you recognize, there is no single project that is ever going to be one person's responsibility. So we're trying to also create teams for every project so that every project has an associated group of people all the way down to the purchasing level, to the county attorney level, all the way up the chain so that those people know that it is part of their job to get that capital project done on time and on budget as much as it is the project manager's job. Organizations from our perspective can be categorized to be in any different number of states. Organizations can be new, growing, dynamic organizations. They can be organizations that are older and maintaining-type organizations. They can be consolidating. They can be declining organizations. From my perspective I will tell you that Collier County can most likely be categorized in my vocabulary as a "rebuilding organization." And we need to look at that as the opportunity that it is, but if you'll turn the page, I think you can see what we need and what we are focusing on as a rebuilding organization. And these are the basics. There's nothing flashy. There's really nothing sexy about what it is that I'm proposing to you this morning, but I think it is a return to the basics and making sure that our systems are intact, in place, are repetitive, and are routine in our Page 15 January 29, 2002 organization. The first thing is that we need to develop systems for listening and understanding what it is the community actually wants from us. They are, in a private business vernacular, our customer. And we need to know what it is they want from us. The second thing we need to be able to do better is to assimilate that information through the board. We've got to be able to get the information about what the public wants through the board's planning process so that the board can be a true reflection of the community, and tell us what is it that you want us to focus our resources, time, and attention on. The third thing is to generate some reliable and factual information that we can make decisions on, because I will tell you today it is very, very difficult to manage this organization because of the lack of factual information that we have. I cannot pick up a phone and get what should be rudimentary information from points of this organization, and it's not the employees' fault. It's system problems. We simply do not have the ability to track and manage the information and the facts that we need to be able to make decisions from. And that's part of your GIS; that's part of your FMS plan process. But I will tell you that most of the things that I pick up the phone and I say, "I need this or I need that," you've got staff scrambling around manually going through paper files and trying to total up and divide and then do those things by hand. And that's no way to run an operation of this size when we need to make decisions as large as we need to make and as quickly as we need to make them. We need those key indicators, not only for our capital construction projects, but for our operations and for our budgets. We need to be able to know what the pulse of this organization is. We need to know what the blood pressure of this organization is. We Page 16 January 29, 2002 need to know what those key vital signs are so that when we have a document that we pick up, we can look at those and know we're doing well in this area, we're not doing well in that area, we need to cut back on our fat and our salt and exercise more. We just need to have those easy ways of knowing where we stand. And, lastly, we need to be able to report that information. We need to be able to report it to the managers who need to make decisions, and we need to be able to report it to you. And we need to be able to report it to the public. We need the public to know exactly what's going on in this organization just as much as we do. We don't want to hide anything. We want that stuff to be all out in the open and up front so that everybody knows when we're doing well and when we're not doing so well. We don't want surprises. We don't want surprises internally; we don't want them externally. So one of my major goals here this morning is to try and get you to agree -- and if you disagree with me, that's fine. But I think we need to agree in terms of where we are as an organization. And, then, if you look at the "B" there under the next paragraph, the priorities for an organization depending on what state it's in are different. Obviously, if we're a growing, expanding organization, then we're going to have different priorities than an organization that's in a rebuilding state. I would offer to you from our staff perspective we need, as a rebuilding organization, to spend time implementing internal changes. In the middle of that paragraph, it says, "We need to rebuild how we do our work," and that needs to be our focus. We need to be able to develop repetitive, routine systems that are part of how we do our day-to-day business, and we need to ingrain them in this organization so that -- as Jim says, truly great organizations make the routine truly routine. There's very little that happens around here that is routine, and we need to have some routine. Page 17 January 29, 2002 As I told you, I don't think the work ahead is really exciting, especially from a commissioner's perspective. There's not a lot of flash; there's not a lot of juice in it. But what I will tell you is from your staff's perspective it is very, very important. We are not doing the basics well, and we need to go back, and we need to fix the systems that will put those basics in place. In order to do that, though -- and if you agree with that philosophy, we're going to need some help, because we as an organization need to collectively recognize what our mission is. And if our mission is going to rebuild this system from the ground level up, then we all need to be on that page. And that means we've got to learn as an organization to say "no." When certain things come forward in front of us, we have got to learn to say "no." We can't do it all. We can't be everything to everyone. We can, but I promise you we will do everything badly. And if we're going to do anything well, then we're going to have to focus on a few things and getting those things under our belt and doing them well. In addition to just saying "no," I think we're going to have to recognize as we go through the budget process that we need to put the resources and the assets in the places that we are committing in terms of our strategy. So if we're going to be rebuilding this thing from the ground up, then that's where our focus needs to be, and somebody ought to be able to pick up our budget for next year and just by looking at where we put our resources know that's what's important to this county organization; that's where their focus is. So in terms of introduction, for today what we're looking for you to do is to review what we call the "Vital Signs Report." And for those of you who have been here for a year or so, you've been through a Vital Signs Report or two. It gives you the basic information that I think is the pulse information about revenues, expenses, key business indicators. We're going to ask you to review Page 18 January 29, 2002 the information from Focus and the annual county citizen survey. These are the two tools that we currently have to try and pull information in from the community that tells us what the community thinks is important from its county government. Then, lastly, we're going to get into the discussion phase. And I would like for us to discuss what state you think this organization's in, get some agreement to that, and agree to a philosophical focus in terms of what we ought to be focused in on, what ought to be important work of the organization based on what kind of an organization we are. And, lastly, I want to be able to pull off of these walls and off of the discussion that we have 12, 15, 20 whatever you think are the most important things that are out there today in the environment. And then I want us to multi-vote them down to a list of about three or four items that you think are our most important issues for the fiscal year coming up or for the calendar year 2002. And then back on that page where 2002 was and the blanks are we'll fill those in. We will take the document, and we will build a budget for you. We will build annual work plans at the division level for you. And we will build individual employee performance action plans that will all be based on what you tell us today. So that's our agenda for the morning. Any questions or comments from the board? Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Members of the board, as we go through this process, I think it's key that we have what I call an overriding blanket on what you do this goal or objective (sic). And if everything that I'm hearing follows this statement, then we distill it from there. And that is that we want to manage growth versus growth managing us. And if that's where we're going, everything flows to that. What you're going to do, commitments to it, and staying the course even when you get lots of pressures to make a turn somewhere which are not justifiable against what we go through this Page 19 January 29, 2002 morning. So for me it would be helpful if that's where we're going in terms of processing what's on the walls. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I truly agree, and speaking of that, this concurrency issue that's so important to all of us, I think as we address that issue, I think we have to address it from the basic steps. In other words, instead of anything grandfathered in, allowing that to be, we have to pull that back to nobody's grandfathered in. Go back to where a PUD has been approved and readdress that. I mean, if they haven't begun that PUD, we have to take a look at that thing and bring it back. That's why we're in the trouble we're in right now is because all of these things have been permitted because we had planned a road or had planned a water treatment plant. We need to readdress that, so I agree with you, Commissioner Carter. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We need to get an assessment of where we are going. I know that we've made some tremendous strides, and some items have not fallen into place yet or been tested, but we're heading in this direction. I know we've been asking for it for a long time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And while we're on the subject of growth and controlling growth, I think that we're trying to play catchup for the infrastructure of what we have. Where we need to be is make sure that infrastructure is on the ground before we approve it. And that's where I would like to be. As far as grandfathering, my concern on that is the lawsuits that might come forward and is going to cost us more to say to somebody, "No, we've changed our mind. We need to do this." Are we going to spend more money on lawsuits than actually putting the infrastructure in. Page 20 January 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me go one step further and say that now that we as commissioners have spoken about -- thank you -- readdressing the PUDs that maybe have expired and bringing that down to a three-year window, that's where I'm going with that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I wholeheartedly support that idea. I think that we can make a better community -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- by doing that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right -- thank you, because I think you helped me to clarify that. MR. OLLIFF: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tom, I need your guidance here. Do you want us to give you recommendations now, or would you prefer -- MR. OLLIFF: No. But what we're going to try to do is go through the Vital Signs Report and give you sort of a base of information to let you know where we are today. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: Then we're going to go through that focus, and we're going to take a break after that. And then we'll go through the Focus information and the citizen survey information just to let you know what we heard from the community. And then I know you are all out in the community as well, so there may be some other things. But that's sort of the full body of knowledge, if you will, that we have. So let's go through it, and at the end of all of that then I'll go to the board, and you-all tell me what you want me to put up there, what's important to you, and then I just need to try and take that list and pare it down to something that we as an organization can manage. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's a wonderful plan Page 21 January 29, 2002 sequence. I'm only a little uncomfortable about that fact that I'm being asked to give you some very important guidance over a period of an hour's briefing and maybe an hour's worth of analysis and discussion. And I would suggest that perhaps what we do is go through the sequence you're talking about, but then give the board a little additional time to assimilate all the information, ask questions of staff, dig through some additional documents. I'll tell you, my mind doesn't work fast enough to give you absolute final guidance on a long-range plan in the span of an hour meeting. And if we could maybe have another opportunity to come back and refine that, it might be more productive for you. How do you feel about that? MR. OLLIFF: I believe that this is probably more important if not the most important thing we do. And I'm willing to spend as much time -- and I know the staff is -- if we can get clear direction out of the board, we'll spend as many hours as you want to spend and as many days as you want to spend. We want to do it the right way. Beth, can we get started with the Vital Signs Report. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator. What I'm going to talk about is give you a snapshot -- at least from my perspective -- on the list shown up there of where we've been since '97, and I'm going to take the liberty of doing a little projection for this fiscal year. So next slide, Beth. Here we talk about building permits, and you can see the significant growth over the years from '96, '97, and all the way projected up to fiscal year -- the end of fiscal year '02. You may not be able to see it, but the last two bars indicate the data on where we were the first three months of last fiscal year and the first three months of this fiscal year. Now, granted, we had an increased sixty- three hundred or so permits submitted at the beginning of this fiscal Page 22 January 29, 2002 year, but that was principally due to the change in the impact fees. But really given that we project -- we're going to be about the same pace as last year on building permits, almost 25,000 permits. Next slide. On the commercial permits issued, you can see where we are on the commercial permits. And what this is is our review time, and it shows for the various disciplines our review time, but the graph on the end is really the significant one, and it shows what our average is for the year -- average total days. So we're looking at about twenty- and-a-half days for the year for our review of commercial permits. Next slide. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Joe, I don't understand that slide and the bars on there, the different ones. MR. SCHMITT: What we're showing there is the last fiscal year, so the blue is 2000 and the red is 2001. And what you're looking at is average review time in days for each of the disciplines all the way across the bottom: electrical, planning, structure, plumbing. And then a total average days for fiscal year 2000 and 2001. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: one of those bars -- had. Yeah. It's review time. Each MR. SCHMITT: It's review time, yes. Beth, I'm out of sequence here. These are a little different than I But the housing, this is the annual totals for building inspections -- MR. DUNNUCK: Going back to the last slide -- if I may editorialize a little bit. One of things that we didn't have from a tracking perspective last year at this time was to be able to develop and look at each individual discipline and exactly what the review Page 23 January 29, 2002 time is. Now we've built that into our program so we're going to have the ability -- when we see one certain area, if their review time starts going up and up and we've caused a delay in the development community, we can identify where resources need to go and where we need to pay attention. And also one of the things that you'll appreciate, too, is there's a lot of overlap. We send out those plans to all those different disciplines at the same time, so that's why you have a different -- you know, you may have a 20-day average, but some of those 9 days and other days of disciplines are overlapping each other. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do you think the cause of review time being -- taking so long is in some of the areas? MR. DUNNUCK: A lot of time it's staffing. We got into environmental health, and we had some septic issues. They only had a few people who are out there handling those cases out in the estates. And they identified that. We worked with the Contractors Building Industry Association, and we brought forward fee increases to the development community that allows them to hire additional staff to address those issues. So we work closely with Development Services Advisory Committee and CBIA to identify those area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think the one that took the longest was structure? MR. DUNNUCK: Structural is typically the longest. That's the main focus of all building permit reviews is structural, and that takes time, and the building department won't sacrifice -- you know, you could add a couple more people, but it's still going to take that amount of time in a lot of cases to make that review, because Ed Perico won't sacrifice the quality to do a good review in those instances. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good. MR. SCHMITT: Now, what we've also done this past year is Page 24 January 29, 2002 we separated the commercial reviews from the family housing or those type of reviews so that those coming in for single-family homes were not in the queue behind the large influx -- the time it takes to do a review for a commercial building. So that's kind of been separated as well to help alleviate some of that backlog. Because at one time things were stacked, and whoever came in -- whether it was a single- family home or that type of structure versus a commercial land. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And minor remodeling activities -- MR. SCHMITT: Right. And minor remodeling activities, yes. Next slide. What we're showing here is the annual trend of inspections. Again, you can vividly see the increase in inspections. Next slide. What this shows is our comparison of Collier County with other counties as far as inspections, and we do quite well. We do with our 25 inspectors, as you can see over the last three years the 24, and then the last two years, 25 for the last year and this year number of inspectors and the average number of inspections per day. So what we've got right now is our inspectors are on the street every day doing about 25 different inspections. And the next slide you will see the -- actually, the total cost of construction is down, and coupled with that think about how many inspections we're doing. So really what this tells us, we're probably not doing as many large projects, but we still have a lot of work out there, so we're not doing the big projects, but we're doing a lot of projects throughout the county, and I think we're doing quite well in this regard. Just projected out through '02, when we looked at the first three months of the last fiscal year, we were at about $2.5 million in construction. This year we're already $3.3 million the first three months of this year. So we're projecting we're going to go all the way out to $1.2 billion as shown. Next slide. Page 25 January 29, 2002 This is permit revenues, and you can see where we are with the money we're taking in as far as our permit revenues. The first three months of last year we were 1.5 million. This year we're already 2.2 million, so we're projecting we're going to be around 8 million by the end of the year. Next slide. And this is our permit revenues, of course, by month. Nothing really significant there other than the fact that it is cyclical, but the industry is cyclical. Housing assistance, what's shown here is our program for housing assistance, and down payments -- I think the significance here is -- really what's caused the down trend in housing down payment assistance is the cost of land. That's been the really significant impact as far as the best we can do with the monies we have and the program that we have. We're doing quite well when we look at -- between last year, the first part of the fiscal year, and this year we're already at 68, but we project we're not going to get much higher at what's shown at 204. Next slide. Housing impact fees, and what's shown here is basically what we're doing as far as our impact fees, and the significant piece there is that the change was primarily due in '99. Prior to '99 we couldn't do both impact waivers and down payment assistance. That changed and now we're doing both, and that caused a significant jump in both our assistance and our capability to provide assistance and impact fees. And you can see where we project for this year we're going to be well above what we did last year; we'll be up in the 170 range or better. New and affordable housing units projected per year. Again, the trend is down because of the increasing land acquisition cost. There is a -- when we compared the first two months of the fiscal years from last year and this year, there is a significant jump. But that was principally due to a multi-family dwelling project that was Page 26 January 29, 2002 constructed. But our projected is going to be below last year for affordable housing and, again, significantly due to the increase in the cost of land. Code enforcement, I think the key here is what we're indicating is we're proactive instead of reactive. And the two bar graphs shown there, the blue -- the darker blue are the proactive cases, and the lighter blue are the reactive ones, meaning citizen initiated. I want to point out that for those cases shown where we have an actual case, it's about three visits per case, so you can see the kind of workload that we're working with within the division. But I want to again indicate it's a proactive measure, and we're trying to do better at this. We'll get with our other divisions and work some sweeps and some other things so we can, again, provide the assistance that's needed for the county. Next slide. And this is a comparison of code violations versus the unfounded investigations. And what we're showing here, the unfounded investigations is the orange line, the number of violations. And the purple -- but, again, just to indicate, these are three visits per -- basically three visits per case. And this is one individual case, so you multiply that by three, and that's pretty much what we're doing as far as our code enforcement. Next slide. This slide really is a comparison of the impact fees, and you can see that Collier County now, we are the lead county within the state of Florida as far as our impact fees. What the value shown, $11,447, and that was principally due to you-all as far as the increase in water and sewer went from 5500 up to 2800 -- went from 2800 to 5500. So that's what really brought us up. We were third last year, and this year we're number one. And this graph shows that we have moved where Collier County is in comparison to other counties, and where we moved from, we were just behind Sarasota. And now we have jumped to Lee County within the state. Page 27 January 29, 2002 And that concludes my portion subject to your questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not yet. MR. SCHMITT: I did take the liberty to do a little projecting. I asked the staff to give me a feel for where we're going, and really what I want to try to do is provide a little more leading indicators versus lagging indicators to assess what is it that I need to ensure that we have the staff, the appropriate staff, to support the demand within the county -- and my little time within your organization. But we're going to get there, and we're going to try to figure out what is it we do need to provide that customer service in both the inspections -- now with our inspectors, we worked that on a 24-hour turnaround. We get a call, and 24 hours later we're out on the ground doing the inspection. And you-all know that the last board meeting we came to you with the proposal, and you had approved for the hand-held systems that we're going to go to. John and his team -- when John was at the helm there kind of initiated this, so we're going to try and improve that service as far as that piece of the process where we really need -- I think where we catch the preponderance of the heat is our review time, the commercial review. That seems to be the 19 and 20 days. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Question, Mr. Schmitt, the review time, does that include the fire chief-- the fire inspector's time in there? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And as you know that's not under my control -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: -- that's coordinated through the fire chiefs. COMMISSIONER CARTER: We have-- somewhere we need -- and I'm not asking for it at this moment, but I would like to know what percentage of time they take, what delays are incurred, Page 28 January 29, 2002 and how this slows the process. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd, for the record, Deputy County Manager. One of the bar charts Joe showed you previously had the fire review on it, and it was around 4.5 days. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, it does. That's the one -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Sorry I missed that. MR. SCHMITT: That shows all the disciplines, and it does have the fire on there. MR. MUDD: And we just talked last week. We had a meeting with all the fire chiefs. Joe Schmitt and myself talked to them about the review times and consistencies and upholding the standards of the fire code. One of the things that really came across at that meeting with the new Florida building code, a lot of problems as far as the individual site inspections will be solved, and the fact that there's a requirement that if they yellow tag or red tag, that they have to give chapter and verse of the code that caused them to do that, and that will help the developer on one end, and also make sure that we're staying consistent with the fire code. And the other thing that comes across is the builders must submit all of their plans together. It can't be a series of sequential -- where they give you the structural piece, and then they come back with the fire later, and they've already got three stories of their building already built before the fire plan is done. And then they complain about the requirements that have been added; it causes them to move some of the structural things in order to accommodate the fire issue, sprinkler systems and things like that. So having all the plans submitted at one time with this new requirement that Florida is basically putting across the entire state should solve a lot of the problems from consistency from the plan-review side of the house, so they get to see all of the plans at one time instead of having to go Page 29 January 29, 2002 back and look at it again. So that should speed up the review and plus the inspectors on the ground. So from the fire standpoint, I think they've got a good handle on it. CBIA was also at that meeting. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Thank you. You disregard my request. I've had my question answered. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: One last thing I'd like to point out. I think the most significant problem that we've had in community development and environmental services is the lack of planners. I'm three short on the staff right now, and I'm also missing a chief in one of my departments. We're working diligently trying to hire a chief of my planning department, and we're trying to bring planners on board. It's an issue of trying to convince folks to come down here and become part of the staff. We're advertising nationally, and we're trying to recruit folks to come on down. But it's been a struggle from the current planning perspective because -- pretty much Susan Murray's been shouldering that burden, and she's been three short, and it's been tough. And that is really from a perspective of the initial review of PUDs. And that's some of the bottleneck of the process SO... MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski. We'll now shift our discussion to look at key budget indicators, the first slide of which is our FY '01 budgeted revenues compared to actuals. You will note the budget and actual figures are actually very close. Tom mentioned quickly about being on the pulse of the organization, understanding what those key indicators are. The second group of bars in are the half-cent sales tax. And your general fund this year is approximately $200 million rounding for ease of discussion, of which $129 million is ad valorem taxes. That's not going to vary, the collections. We typically collect 96-1/2 percent. That's not going to vary widely. Page 30 January 29, 2002 The key indicator, actually, for general fund are the second and third, the half-cent sales tax and the state revenue sharing, which make up a little over $30 million of your general fund on an annual basis in FY '02. Those are things, A, that are not under our control other than in terms of what it is we're actually budgeting, but in terms of a variable revenue that is subject to marketplace conditions, economic conditions, both locally and in the entire state of Florida, that will ultimately impact on how much revenue is received. Note the actual was slightly less than the budget, and you see that in the fourth quarter. In terms of being on the pulse of the general fund, the half-cent sales tax is actually -- probably your biggest variable revenue source that is subject to marketplace conditions and the one that we pay the most attention to. We recognize some softening in that fourth quarter, and as a result of that we brought the recommended changes during the public hearing process to reduce our budgeted sales tax revenue in FY '02 as a result of those changing conditions post-9/11 as well. Obviously, that's served us well in terms of our financial position and budget posture as we headed into this fiscal year. Next slide, please. This compares budget impact fees to actual collections in FY '01. You will note some variability here, primarily at the far left is road impact fees, but there's a key caveat to that. The road impact fees do not reflect impact fee credits issued of approximately $1.4 million. This was new money that came across the counter, so to speak, in FY '01. Norman has in the various discussions about the road plan and magnitude of dollars and available revenues has cautioned the board about the impact fee credits. So while there is some variation between budget and actual there, that's probably the area in terms of impact fees that had the greatest variability. You need to take into account that there was almost $1.4 million of credit issued, and as a resUlt of that the net revenue is actually very close to Page 31 January 29, 2002 budgeted. In the area of roads, EMS impact fees is another category that has some variability, as does correctional facilities. Those are fairly volatile in that the rate structure is very dependent upon the type of construction that is permitted. So large commercial projects will generate large impact fees in all three of those areas, whereas some of-- like, library is solely on single family and residential construction where there is no impact fee on commercial in the library area. Next slide, please. This shows general fund revenues by source. We're not really any different from a funding standpoint than most local government. In terms of general fund, property taxes represent about two-thirds of the total revenue. The other key revenues in terms of intergovernmental revenues that I mentioned previously were sales tax and revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is now tied hand-in-hand with our sales tax collections. Previously, going back a few years, revenue from the state was a function of cigarette taxes and intangible tax. As the state has moved toward phasing out the intangible tax, the revenue sharing money that we receive is now actually a sales tax allocation. And that's why we were actually fairly conservative in budgeting for revenue sharing in the current budget year, because you have all the eggs, so to speak, are now in the sales tax basket, both the regular half-cent sales tax program as well as the state revenue sharing program. Next slide, please. This identifies general fund expenditure type by function. Blue -- the area in blue on the bars represent public safety, which is the largest component of the expenditure base in the general fund, and that would include primarily sheriffs expenses as well as costs of the Emergency Services Division Administration, helicopter, medical examiner expenses. Page 32 January 29, 2002 The second area in read is general government activities, kind of your core government functions such as the Board of County Commissioners, county attorney, county manager, the budget office, public affairs, the bulk of these administrative services division, internal support functions, purchasing, human resources, facilities management, etc. Next slide, please. This shows the expenditure by type, and they are not stacked, so you can see an individual trend line relative to each type of expenditure grouping. Obviously, public safety is the largest component, and it reflects the increase you see in FY '99 to FY '00. Reflecting the change where the board shifted the sheriffs budget into the general fund, and in the last couple years in the sheriffs you had a number of formally grant funded positions being assimilated as well as the impact of the pay plan, which was geared toward sheriffs recruitment and had an immediate impact in terms of their ability to get people on board. Eighty percent of the sheriffs budget is tied to people. Obviously, the cost of a 24-hour operation including law enforcement and correctional facilities, which run around the clock, so 80 percent of their budget is tied to people itself. Parks reflects -- is a darker line, kind of brown, reflecting a downward trend as we went into fiscal year '00, and that again was the balancing act so to speak of that shift of the sheriffs budget into the general fund. To mitigate the fiscal impact of that decision, the board made the policy decision to shift parks to the unincorporated area of the general fund at the same time. So while you see a large upward spike in the sheriffs budget, you see a corresponding decrease in the park expenditures in fiscal year '00 as a result. Next slide. This just charts general fund operating revenues and expenditures. As the lines converge, obviously, this does not include Page 33 January 29, 2002 fund balance, so you see true revenues in, expenses out. Where lines overlap, obviously, that's an impact where you're eating into fund balance. You'll see it on next slide as well. Over the last few years, obviously, you want to be in a position where your fixed operating revenues are covering the annual fixed operating costs of your programs and services. Next slide, please. And here you see with fund balance included as the lines converge closer together, you're eating into fund balance; as they diverge, you're actually growing fund balance. Next slide. Transportation operations, this actually shows in one slide a whole host of information, and the policy decisions the board has made in regard to funding transportation operations. In the early 1990s, you see in the bar charts that gas taxes were the primary funding source for the road and bridge operation for roadway maintenance. The board made a policy decision to fund its capital program to transition the gas taxes over time to the road construction effort. And you see that in FY '96, '97 you see ad valorem suddenly increasing as the gas taxes transition from operations or maintenance to road construction. In FY '98, there was predominantly all property tax funded in the road and bridge area. We feel there's some healthy balance there. The board over time due to ad valorem pressures as well, made the policy decision to sift $1 million per year up to $3 million in FY '01 to support roadway maintenance. Now, obviously, that's going to change again in FY '03. Obviously, as a result of your AUIR process in terms of transportation funding, gas taxes are going to be bonded to fund road construction effort. Therefore, there will be no operational support of the road and bridge maintenance function from gas taxes in FY '03. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you tell me what you mean by ad valorem pressures? Page 34 January 29, 2002 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Operational budget concerns, obviously millage concerns, so the question was, should we have all of our gas tax revenue in the construction basket. A legitimate and viable use of gas tax revenue is for roadway maintenance, and the thought was there has to be come healthy balance between funding operations with gas taxes as well as funding construction. And as a result, we were transitioning back from having no gas taxes to support road maintenance to having a portion thereof supported with gas taxes. MR. OLLIFF: In essence, what he's saying is pressure to keep the millage rate low. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. That's what I wanted to -- bring it down to basics. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Political. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next slide, please. Here's transportation operating expenditures by appropriation unit, by personal service operating capital. Here the bulk of the expense is in salaries and benefits, again, roadway maintenance is an intensive process that is people oriented. Transfers, you notice in the very far right, there is green piece of the bar. That was one-time transfers of residual cash. We phased out the roadway MSTDs and shifted those costs to the unincorporated general fund. So those transfers was that residual cash shifting to the unincorporated area of General Fund 111. Next slide shows unincorporated area general fund. Again, this would exclude the incorporated cities, so county -- Collier County's in a unique position of being the principal service provider for the bulk of the population as opposed to an area like Hillsborough County with cookie-cutter cities one after another. In the case of Collier County with the bulk of the population being in the unincorporated area, the county steps in as the principal service Page 35 January 29, 2002 provider because of the lack of municipal entities to provide those services. This again is primarily ad valorem tax supported. You notice the blue or purple there, that's the predominant revenue source in this fund. The only revenue source of any note is cable franchise revenue, now the communications services tax revenue that change over time. On the far right in FY '00 and '01 in the yellow area, charges for services suddenly increased. That, again, is a result of that park shift. When the park's budgets were shifted into the unincorporated area from the general fund, obviously, the revenues for those program offerings are now reflected in the budget as an offset to the cost of those programs. Unincorporated general fund expenditures by function. Here, again, you look over history -- showing as a light green color -- the principal expense was a transfer to the sheriff. You note again in FY '00 and FY '01, that is noted as culture and recreation is the header for that area. And that, again, with that park shift to the unincorporated area, no segment of the sheriff's budget is funded in the unincorporated area, and you see the influx of the cost of the parks programming. Next slide. This shows the unincorporated general fund expenditures by appropriation unit, again, personal services, operating capital, and transfers. Again, kind of the same picture you've seen in a different format, transfers to the sheriff were the predominant expense through FY '99. You now see personnel expenses increasing FY '00 and FY '01 and operating as well because the park facility is now being paid for out of the unincorporated area. Joe previously talked obviously the community development fund, and we do have a few slides here. Obviously, the Community Development Fund 113 is funded by building permits and planning Page 36 January 29, 2002 fees. Over time, obviously, you see the continued growth in that area. Joe's slide showed the value of construction continuing to grow reflecting the continued strength of the local building industry over time. And I know the big question there is, obviously, how long can that be sustained. I know for many years we've said, last year was record permitting. It has to go down from here, and each year has been a higher level in terms of total permits and permit dollars constructed. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mike, can we have, like, a five- year projection on that basis? It would be very helpful to me as we begin to make some longer range decisions about what's going to happen in that area. I know it's a projection, but you certainly have the statistical base that might tell us is it flat, has it begun to drop, so we know where we are. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is something we need to look at because, obviously, primarily as you get into the large commercial project as the county draws closer to build-out, obviously, you can't count on that continued-- when you get a Wal-Mart or a Sam's Club permitted one year, that doesn't mean immediately in the subsequent year there's going to be another. And that has a direct bearing as well on road impact fee collections as well. Again, road impact fees being variable based on the type of construction permitted with obviously large commercial projects generating large sums of dollars. Next slide. Community development fund expenditures are broken down really into a couple of key areas, public safety, general government. The public safety component here is essentially building review, permitting, and the inspection component. The mauve or purple color is planning, engineering, and technical support. And over time transfers have grown and that's related to the rational nexus. Page 37 January 29, 2002 Obviously, a portion of programs outside of community development are funded with permit fees as they have some relationship in the development process, some of your housing, long-range planning, etc. That's a current year study re-evaluating where those have been. With Joe here, we're taking a fresh look at what we are funding. In addition, transfers -- also, obviously, you have a building expansion that was funded with bonds proceeds, so there's a transfer to a debt-service fund as well. Next slide. Shows expenditures by appropriation unit. Again, the community development activity with permitting and inspections is labor intensive. It's not unusual to see that the predominant expense is salary and benefit oriented of the people working in that functional area. Next slide, Beth. Tourist tax revenues, over time those have continued to grow and also reflect the changes in the tourist tax revenue base as the board has added additional pennies. Blue represents tourist taxes. The other predominant revenue source is interest. There's kind of one anomaly there worth pointing in '96 was a loan to renourish beaches, and that was the principal anomaly there. Next slide. Reflects tourist development expenditures by functional area, and the largest, typically, in this area is physical environment representing beach renourishment projects. Just as you saw on the revenue side, the loan in '96, obviously, you had a large expenditure in FY '96 for the beach renourishment project. And you also have culture and recreation represented, obviously, representing the tourism promotion and special event activities. County water sewer revenues by revenue type here. Obviously, as an enterprise fund, they are predominantly user-fee oriented with the predominant user fees being water and sewer user fees themselves. Over time with the rate changes, water's become less relative to sewer activities. Obviously, you expect that to continue Page 38 January 29, 2002 now with the new inverted rate base that was adopted this year hopefully forcing consumption reductions by the lay user and resulting ultimately in a decrease in terms of timing of plant expansions being required to the extent to which you can force conservation through your rate structure. Next slide. Capital project funds, this is exclusive of roads. The principal revenue sources, primarily the impact fees in the light blue and ad valorem tax supported. Obviously, in your general fund you have a number of projects that are replacement structure building oriented that are not impact fee eligible. Next slide. Capital project fund expenditures -- one more, Beth. Exclusive of roads, in the blue areas is county-wide capital, again, facility oriented. Parks is in the maroon. One anomaly FY '01, obviously, in the library area, you began the construction process for the North Naples Regional Library on Orange Blossom Drive, which is slated to open shortly. COMMISSIONER CARTER: March 1. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nice facility. I was there yesterday. I think we're all going to be proud of that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Quite a long time for that. It's beautiful including the $100,000 grant -- donation made by the Sudgens for the theater. MR. SMYKOWSKI: This shows road construction revenues by type. Obviously, over time impact fees are the predominant source, yellow being gas taxes as well. Superimposed over this is a line graph reflecting actual road construction expenditures by fiscal year. Next slide, and actually my final slide. Bond and loan obligations, as noted during the budget and finance workshop that was held earlier this year, the bulk of outstanding debt is in the area of water and sewer service debt, which is paid off with water and sewer user fees. General government debt Page 39 January 29, 2002 is very limited. Over time that has grown. A piece of good news as well. The sales tax bond issue that was approximately $50 million closed last week, and good news to report. Initially we had anticipated pricing that bond on December 18th. Due to market conditions at that point in time, there was a flurry of activity. There were a lot of bonds in the market. In conjunction with our financial advisor and the underwriter, the financing team made the joint decision to delay pricing that bond issue until early January. We actually priced January 8th, and obviously, we're hoping for better market conditions. Typically right around Christmastime is not the optimal time to be in the market. People are closing out the fiscal year between the end of calendar year, obviously, and New Year's there's not much activity. As a result of that decision to delay that pricing approximately three weeks, the interest cost savings amount to approximately $1.2 million over the life of those bonds, so that was a fortuitous decision. Obviously, the market conditions were right. It's nice when the market works in your favor, but that benefitted the taxpayers of this community to the tune of $1.2 million. So we're really pleased with the outcome of that bond issue. COMMISSIONER CARTER: With a 2 percent interest rate, I believe, Mike. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Some of the bonds in the current year, the interest rate was below 2 percent. All in, I think, ended up being somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 3/4 percent, so, obviously, it was good to be in the market overall, and as a result of the conditions and the decisions made, again, we saved $1.2 million as a result of that decision, and I'm happy to report that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: One thing that I didn't see is reserves, historically where we're at with our reserves. So if I can get some information on that, I'd appreciate it. Page 40 January 29, 2002 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. And as a general rule by policy you budget a 5 percent contingency reserve within each operating fund. In addition, in the general fund and the unincorporated area general fund, you have to meet cash flow needs at the beginning of the fiscal year, as collections typically don't begin until late November. Obviously, you funded virtually two months of operations prior to receiving the first cent of your principal source. So we do have cash flow reserves there as well. But I'd be happy to provide that to you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I guess my concern is in case of an emergency, a hurricane or some kind of disaster, you know, do we have enough funds to keep government going? MR. OLLIFF: Next slide, Beth. MR. FEDER: Folks, I appreciate being here. I'm going to go very quickly through transportation. Tom mentioned a number of these areas already. First, and I'll call your attention here on the computerized traffic signal system. First phase with 45 intersections, basically Airport Road and then west underway right now. August of 2003, modification to your second item here is the second phase, which we advanced the design to advance reimbursement with the state basically slated to start in July of 2003 with completion 18 months later or the first, January February, of 2005. So please note that on your item there. That's incorrect. That January of 2003 should say "5" relative to completion. And that will cover basically Airport to the east within the urbanized areas, another 54, as well the video cameras. No, they are not for enforcement. We can't use them for that, but they will assist us in monitoring and being able to update and adjust throughout the day to traffic demands. This is going to be an important feature here. Next thing I'll point out to you, as Tom noted already, you have Page 41 January 29, 2002 one completion in Livingston Road, Phase 1. You've got five under construction right now or nearing completion. First area, Airport Road, spring of this year. Right now you have some real backups, unfortunately, with traffic with some of the preliminary resurfacing work. They're going through this week. After that they should be in a position to maintain two lanes open as they do the additional lifts of asphalt. But this first shot has been hard to work with and hopefully will be over soon. Again, April, May this year we're looking for completion. The next, Golden Gate Boulevard four-laning, we shot these, and I have to commend highly, obviously, BIO and our EMS for the helicopter. They shot it in the afternoon, and as you look through these pictures, even the first one, what I'm going to note to you we've obviously solved the problem. But nonetheless on Golden Gate Boulevard -- since I couldn't find a single vehicle out there -- I will note to you that obviously we completed the first mile and a half, opened it up -- didn't complete -- but opened it up to four-lane traffic as well as a signal in time for start of school last fall. We're continuing to progress out there. We're looking for the completion later this summer this year. Next project, Pine Ridge Road, pretty much open to traffic right now. Everybody think it's done, but we're finishing off the computer- signal work. That's very important. Staffs done some tweaking, but it's still under construction. They're getting that finished, and we look forward to that being, as I say, done done as opposed to just done. Livingston Road, Phase 2, that work is underway. Again, this is an important facility, six-laning, as you well know. We have this fiscal year Phases 3, from Pine Ridge up to Immokalee and, 4, going from that two lane to six and four north of Immokalee up to Bonita Beach Road and connecting up the Imperial. Three Oaks in Lee County, both slated for later this fiscal year. The next, Immokalee Page 42 January 29, 2002 Road four-lane divided project, I'm pleased to tell you we are very close to completion in that segment in the next couple weeks, and we hope to have completion there by the end of February as they try to pursue a bonus there, so we have to pay the bonus if they can get out and be gone, as Commissioner Carter would say. And so that's basically the five projects we have underway right now. I mentioned the two Livingston projects, Phases 3 and 4 as well. Goodlette-Frank Road from Pine Ridge to Vanderbilt and Immokalee Road from 43rd over to Wilson, all slated to be let this calendar year. The six that we've completed with those four will be about a third of the way to that five-year schedule of 29 projects that we needed to complete to basically catch up and meet the demands within the five-year program. What I'll do just very quickly is to note to you besides funding and delivery of the five-year plan, staff and transportation's working on further refinement and operational enhancements to your transit system. We've had very, very good success in ridership there. We want to keep that and expand and get your direction in the future as to how we proceed in providing that alternative here in Collier County. Land Development Code, (inaudible) management revisions, you've heard a lot on that. I won't belabor it, access management, interconnection, real-time, checkbook concurrency, level of service, service volumes, lane rental, PUD reviews, updates and amendments, something that we discussed before, impact fee update, all underway and coming to you in the next few months. Management information systems for the road and bridge, we've brought some staff on board as well as some of the changes we've made out on road and bridge. I'm very pleased to tell you we're getting to the point where we can have some information on our roadways' conditions, ability to make some decision on pavement management and other issues of the sort. Page 43 January 29, 2002 Recapture capacity on some of our roadways, you'll be having things come to you. Identification mapping, a collector-roadway- system study underway, and that was mentioned previously. We're getting ready with the census data for update of the MPOs 2025, long-range and cost-reasonable plan, stormwater improvements, and we hope to bring forward Lely and request your funding of that. The list goes on, but I appreciate your time, and I'll move on from there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't mean to stop you. I know that we're going quickly, but one question that is asked of me constantly is what are we doing right now about the signalization timing until the ITS is in place. That seems to be a problem that we are incurring around the entire county. MR. FEDER: Okay. Two parts to that. The first part that I presented to you is basically from Airport -- sections of Airport about 45 signals as well to the west will be under a computerized signal system in a period of time. That's underway right now. Also, in January 2003 will start up -- we'll complete the first starmp. The second phase, another 54 signals, so the key is getting a computerized signal system up and running, but beyond that a number of issues have been raised -- I know on Immokalee Road there's a lot of concern. On 951 we had a dual left on a westbound, and with a dual situation you couldn't allow it to go when opposing traffic was structured. That caused us some delay. We got an offer out there, but that's open now and functioning, I'm pleased to tell you, so you can't have a (inaudible) at the opposite, but at least now with the dual you've got the clearing, and we're doing much better. Pine Ridge, everyone assumed the minute we allowed it opened to six lanes that it was done, but in reality a number of the signal heads weren't up. We haven't gotten the time, and that's being done right now. So we get it from both ends. Some of it is being improved as we go along on the construction projects, but the bigger Page 44 January 29, 2002 improvement is that computerized signal system, which is the first slide noted to you as coming forward, Phase 1 completion January 2003, the other starting -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I keep sending you right now until the signalization is in place or the ITS is in place, these things -- are we manually taking control of them? MR. FEDER: We have some automation, obviously, as we exist today. And, yes, we are doing that. What I will tell you is that, number 1, we do not have a grid system. What you do is optimize your capabilities. Number 2, there is no way that everybody is going to make it green in a progression here, especially without a grid system. So we have an awful lot of folks that have identified, for instance to me, how I can improve the system, and I've ridden the road with a number of these people. And if I do the signal system the way they want, all opposing traffic will be calling me and asking me to ride. So we've got to balance those issues, and we're in the process of trying to do that. You've got a good traffic-operation staff that are out there daily working in those cabinets trying to optimize the system. Right now they're working a little bit with a hamster in a cage, but we're getting them some better tools. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, I noticed in this morning's paper that the school system is going to be moving aggressively with the new high schools. The one out there on OrangeTree, I think we're going to be covered as far as the road goes -- when that goes in place. But my concern is is the one that they are planning to put between Everglades Boulevard and DeSoto. Is there some way that we can get the school system to get aboard as far as the four-laning of that road, because it will never handle it in the morning. The kids would never be able to get to school. MR. FEDER: We're trying to address with the school, not even Page 45 January 29, 2002 to the point of four-laning of facilities where they are creating demand, just the connections, the signalization and, for that matter, the sidewalks that they want us to build so they don't have to bus. We're talking right now to the consultants looking at the update of the impact fees for the schools, seeing if we can get them to add some of those issues into the methodology that don't exist today. Right now the school impact fee is only for on-site related, and yet they are placing significant demands, obviously, to the impacts offsite, if you will, that are obviously site related. They are building them in a number of areas where there is not necessarily the capacity or the connections, even, in some cases. The one right off of, so to speak, 951 somewhere back underneath the canal coming in doesn't even have actual road connections today. So we're working with the school. I think we need to look at the school board's impact fee process, and very shortly schools are going to start paying impact fees to the county for transportation. They haven't been doing that previously. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this subject matter will come up when we have our workshop with the school board? MR. FEDER: I'm sure it will. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder -- MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Vanderbilt Beach Extension, when are we going to let that contract? MR. FEDER: 2003. That is not this year, but it's the next year let 2003 for the six-laning and then four-laning. That's where it was previously, and it's been maintained, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. MR. FEDER: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd, Deputy County Manager for the record. Page 46 January 29, 2002 Let's talk about the south county water reclamation facilities. The first one, construction costs is $46 million, and we brought that to the board this year based on -- our estimates were something about half that amount. Bad estimates and we're changing our EE contracts -- COURT REPORTER: You're going to have to slow down. MR. MUDD: Okay. Construction costs came in about twice what our estimate was. We were putting a clause in our EE contracts to put a penalty in there for our architect-engineering firms when they give us an estimate to make sure they're more realistic as far as the construction costs are today. We started construction on October 2001 on the equalization tanks. If you take a look at the far right-hand comer by that white building, that's where the equalization tanks are going. When you go out there, you can see that construction taking place. It's on-line in a manual method right now. It will be fully automated later on this summer. Substantial completion, we're hoping for December 2003. Hope is not a method, but you need to have the building permit in hand in order to go into full construction, and we don't have that yet. We meet with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection this week to talk to them about the permit delays that we're experiencing in their department. It's an 8-million-gallon expansion. It will fully bring this plan out to buildout, and it will give us a capability in the south end to 2016. Next slide. The north regional plant, the 5-million-gallon expansion, as the county manager mentioned earlier, came online around the 6th of November. Our deadline for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection was 1 December. We made that provision Page 47 January 29, 2002 in the consent order. We'll be fully done with the sludge part expansion of that 5 million gallons here in January, February time period. It gave us 5 million gallons. We submitted our 1 O-million- gallon expansion plans in two doses of five each per the board's guidance. And we got the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to agree with that. Those plans are at the department right now, and we plan to start building the next 5-million-gallon expansion there as soon as we get the permit to do so. We've done some great good-neighbor features up there. We've done odor control to make sure that the folks don't get overwhelmed by the smell, and at one time that was the case. We've taken a look at a sludge building, dewatering building. We've converted the chlorine gas, which could have been a hazardous material handling thing for the neighborhood and took it into a liquid bleach, which is very safe and doesn't cause the same kind of health hazards. And we've enclosed the septage-receiving station, the headworks, which is -- basically has the most odor emanating from it. Next slide. The south water plant, good news, building permits are all in hand, and they are moving out smartly. Everything on this slide is happening on schedule at this particular point. We plan to have it here online April 2003, and the project cost is $35.5 million. Next slide. MR. OLLIFF: I just want to stop you there and point out, again, that's a reverse-osmosis facility. Again, you'll continue to get questions from the public, how come you're not doing desalination, if you will. Reverse osmosis is a form of desalination that Collier County has been doing it for a decade at the north plant and will now be doing it at the south plant as well. MR. MUDD: Now let's switch to go to the landfill little bit. We've made some significant improvements to the landfill operation, Page 48 January 29, 2002 one of which is the flair (phonetic), which has basically doubled the capacity to suck gas off of the hills to make sure that the bad odors don't get offsite and that they are burned off-- we have an RFP -- request for proposal -- out there on the street to mm that energy source into electricity. And we'll be examining that as we progress through the spring and the summer. Next slide. We're taking precautionary measures to make sure that our contractor, Waste Management, covers the areas out there to make sure that gas doesn't escape from any kind of an open face and that they are doing due diligence to make sure that they maintain those areas that are supposed to be covered. Next slide. This is another opportunity to take a look so you don't have to go walk on the hill, but they are doing great service out there, and it's a very big difference if you took a look at the same kind of picture from last year versus this year. Next slide. They're doing horizontal wells out there to capture them as they're doing open face, and that's an improvement, and it's a new procedure so that when they are piling the trash on top of the open face, it's got a gas collection system underneath already in place, so when it gets to the very top they don't have to go through all the extraordinary measures to drill their drill wells and then cap it. We're basically sucking gas off the open face too. Next slide. Biomass, we went out there one time, I said, "What are we collecting this stuff for posterity?" We had about 60 acres full of yard waste piled about 30 to 40 foot high in piles. And you could see that off to the left. We were just churning and churning and grinding it up, and nobody was taking it. And we've taken all the commissioners out to the composting site out there on Oil Well Road out in Immokalee where we have 147 acres out there where we're doing composting, and you can see to the right-hand side, today's picture, that we moved an awful lot of that material plus any new Page 49 January 29, 2002 materials that we're getting into the landfill out to that site for a compost operation. Next slide. COURT REPORTER: Please slow down. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And the last one is construction and demolition. There was no rhyme or reason of what was going on out at the landfill. And if you can see from the right side, they've started to segregate and get it into a more orderly fashion so that segregating the C and D material, and it's not going to the hill anymore. It is being recycled. We've trying to get a 60 percent recycle out of our present operation in construction and demolition material. Next slide. MR. DUNNUCK: Services Administrator. For the record, John Dunnuck, Public We've got the north county regional park plan in place right now. We've got the design firm hired. We've got a 212-acre park to be completed in 2004, and we're working closely with the transportation division to work simultaneously with the expansion of Livingston Road so that we can have that park up and running in a timely fashion so that while they're under construction we can be doing the construction to the Livingston North Regional Park. Next slide. And as you all are aware -- I don't know if I need to say much on this one -- the facility's been completed. It's CO'd right now. We're loading it with books and all the supplies that we need to make it operational. Come and join us March 1st for the ribbon cutting, because it's probably going to be the premier library facility in the state of Florida if not the south United States. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to comment for one moment. John Jones deserves a tremendous praise for that design. He has been his own construction manager, and he's proven to you you can build a government facility that looks terrific for the same amount of dollars that you can build ugly. So he has done it and done Page 50 January 29, 2002 it well. And we owe him a debt of gratitude that I don't think anyone could ever, ever surpass. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was his name? COMMISSIONER HENNING: John Jones. COMMISSIONER CARTER: John Jones. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And besides that, Commissioner Carter, if I might add on to that, that's going to be a hundred-year facility, and there are a lot of options of what we can do and how it was designed and what can be done inside of it. And I think it's going to be for a long time a focal point of the community, a place to gather. MR. DUNNUCK: The first thing -- just a little story. When I talked to John when I first came aboard to public services, he kind of smiled and took me on a tour of the facility and said, "See, this is what you can do when you have no administrator in place for a while." MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that's the conclusion of the Vital Signs Report. I let John show us a picture of his dog when he did it, so I promised Beth we'd let her put her dog into the end of the Vital Signs. If you're ready we can take a break now and come back in about ten minutes. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take your seats, please. Mr. Olliff, I'll give it back to you. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We're on to the strategic planning portion of the meeting this morning, and we will try to get you out of here by 12:30 at the latest for the commissioners who need to make plans. Beth, if you'll go ahead and hit it. What we are going to try to do today is, obviously, we want to start by reviewing the previous strategic plan, which we went Page 51 January 29, 2002 through, which was the 2001 plan. Mr. Mudd will take you through that. We're going to review some of the information from the other sources, and again, that's from the Focus study that was done, I believe, in 1998. Mr. Ochs will take you through that. We'll walk you through some of the highlights of the citizens' survey, and then, finally, we'll need to have a discussion about how to strategize some of our program priorities and try to develop some strategic goals. So with that, Ms. Walsh, if you'll hit it. MR. MUDD: For the reporter's sake, I'm Jim Mudd, and I will try to breathe between my sentences. The employee investment plan -- what we're going to do is review things that the board agreed to last March and try to give an update of where we've been over-- through 2001. The employee investment plan, we've got it so with the DMG and before that Arthur Andersen (sic). It's a skills-based advancement plan. It talks about recruitment and selection, compensation and classification, recognition, growth and development, and benefits. And we've looked at all of those issues to try to get that thing down. And I will say the advancement plan and the horizontal movement of the employee from the time that they start here in Collier County and time that they finally finish, that is a work in progress as we try to figure out exactly what degrees, licenses that they need in order to do their job in the most efficient manner. The pay-plan adjustment, we went through the second piece of that this year, and we'll discuss more about what the board wants to do during the budget cycle as far as what percentage they want to talk about during that process. That gets us to decentralized government. These are all staff- supported issues. We talk about efforts at the Golden Gate Service Center. It was put into service and opened in July of 2001. The Page 52 January 29, 2002 North Naples Service Center, design started in October of 2001 and will finish in February of 2002. Construction will move out from March of 2002 to March of 2003, and we hope to open that facility in March of 2003 if everything goes according to plan. The Sheriffs Facilities Master Plan, the design started in October and will be finished in October of 2002. And the last item as far as decentralized government that we have on our table is the Main Campus Master Plan, and it's been revised to accommodate some of the things that the board talked about when we were talking about transportation funding. The designs will start in October of 2002 and be complete in October of 2003. The Capital Funding Plan, you've seen the utilities impact fee study that we did, and the board approved those increases. You will see a host of impact fee updates this spring and summer, and the Transportation Funding Plan we owe back to the board in February. We promised them in December that we would get back to you the latter part of January, the first part of February with that process. And we are going to take a good hard look at our inventory report and what our metrics are in order to gauge our concurrency. And that's one of the things that Community Development's, Stan Litsinger and crew are going to take a holistic look at this spring so that we have a revised system for you as you get to look at in the latter part of the summer. Next slide. There's a workshop, I think, Tom, in the near future on this one where the different board members are going to update each other in the updates of that process. I don't know if I want to belabor each one of those issues or not. Affordable housing, its mission is to -- is to make sure that-- we don't need to go through them? MR. OLLIFF: No. I think the board -- this was just to review with the board in 2001 where the board agreed to step in and actually Page 53 January 29, 2002 provide some hands-on assistance with some of these key projects by creating the Horizon Committees. And you -all are very well aware of where we are in the process with those. MR. MUDD: E-Government, you had an update briefing during the workshop that was just completed. It was the last workshop you had. I can't put a three-hour workshop in a couple of seconds. I think you have that information. I think it was quite illustrative for you, and I think you asked some good questions. But we're well on our way to bringing that to fruition here in Collier County. The grant acquisition plan, the board made the decision to rely on the staff and not to go into an extended program with increased staffing in this particular instance because of resource constraints that we had. And the new lobbyist that you voted on today will also help us on that process, as Chairman Coletta mentioned about some of the previous experience he's had or heard about from Lee County. That lobbyist did bring in lots of money to Lee County, and hopefully he'll do the same for us. We obtained about $7.5 million in grants in FY '01. Next slide. We're overhauling contract management. We've gone out in a team. It's a matrix managed horizontal team across the county got together. We brought a lot of different organizations including the Corps of Engineers in here to talk about what they do in contracting, what the good items are, and what we're basically doing is ripping off everybody's good news items in trying to make our system better. Our team is due to have a preliminary draft to us as far as new contracting procedures here in February, and then we'll go about training the staff on those procedures February and March to make sure that they institute this process. That team has been ongoing for a year and had done some yeoman work as far as bringing it all together for us in Collier County. Customer outreach plan, future action is something we need to Page 54 January 29, 2002 pursue in order to get customers' input and feedback, and I think we worked diligently with the commission and staff to try to do that every day. It would be one of the things we're going to try to do here in the future is to come up with a package where we institutionalize and lay out that process on how we get at it in a more detailed manner and organized manner instead of helter-skelter phone calls that we get on different topics. And we need to spend some time on -organizational business management processes, and Tom alluded to that earlier where we need to take a look at those internal things that we do in order to make sure we institutionalize routine procedures so that every phone call isn't a new action and causes us to reinvent the wheel, so to speak; so that we've got a series of standard operating procedures in place for our business processes. Next slide. MR. OLLIFF: That was the update of 2001, strategic planning effort that the board went through, and now we'll step into looking ahead at what we've got in front of us in the '02 annual year, Beth. Just to refresh the board's memory, these are already the current major projects, if you will, that are on the staffs plate for '02. We've already talked about FMS implementation and what a massive project that is putting together our capital construction management program, and just for the board's sake we are having our first quarterly -- what we call CAPS Track review meeting on the 31 st of this month where all of the key project managers with their projects will be coming in in front of a review panel to present where they are in the process, especially in terms of budget and schedule. Transportation funding options and developing the actual funding plan is an ongoing and major issue for the year. Rural lands and rural fringe is something that while you may believe is primarily being driven by the committees that are out there, there's been a significant and will be probably more so a staff intensive project as Page 55 January 29, 2002 they begin to head toward the board. And I will tell you that those two may end up taking front and center stage over the course of the next year, while up to this point they've kind of been silent ongoing projects. My impression is that those are going to be some of the places where we're going to spend a large part of our time and effort over the next year. GIS you know about. LDC amendments, I continue to believe that the board has a desire to get into the Land Development Code, not in just the sporadic way that we have, but in a systematic way. The chairman and I talked about even having a possible series of workshops to take the Land Development Code section by section and let the board review it and get more comfortable with it, especially as we've hired a consultant to go through a major amendment process there. Neighborhood master plans, the board is well aware of some North Naples, some Naples Park, some Immokalee master plans, Golden Gate area master plan, and a lot of significant pressure from other neighborhoods I believe to be included in that as well. E-Government, you saw the workshop, and that will be a continued effort on the part of staff, and we call that "Shadow Staff" just because it requires not within the organizational chain of command a single department. E-Government will require across the agency a number of employees to be involved. The board has continued to want to see public information improvements, and we talked about that as well at your workshop. Contract management is one of the Achilles heels, I believe, of our organization, and we need to spend a significant amount of time on how we actually manage contracts, ongoing projects for this year. Security enhancement is one of the things that was kind of handed to us but something that we certainly do not take lightly. I think you've already been made aware through some memoranda and Page 56 January 29, 2002 e-mails from your facilities management department about a number of security enhancements that we've already put in place, but I think we're going to continue and monitor and work with the sheriffs department to beef that up even further. And, finally, utility billing upgrade, we need to actually implement a new utility billing system, and anytime you switch over to a new system it is very staff intensive, and that one will be as well. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just listening. MR. OLLIFF: Okay. Some major issues that we have picked out along the way from the board's discussions over the last six months, obviously, the asterisked ones are already selected in ongoing work projects, work- force housing, social services, most of those are found in the way of your Horizon Committees. The top are items that the board has talked about, but we really haven't grabbed hold of them at our level as yet, including jails, which you will have a separate workshop regarding sheriff agency operations and jail planning and construction. The rural fringe and rural lands will reach the board's level in June of this year. Service quality levels, we've talked about the distinction between urban and rural services and the long-term policy decisions and stresses that that's going to put on our ability to provide services. And then, obviously, the LDC and Growth Management Plan review and revision process as well. Those are the major policy issues that we hear as recurring themes as we're in front of the board. From the citizen survey information, in addition to what we do well, what we do badly, we try and ask some questions at the end about what are the areas that the community believes we need to spend our attention and efforts on. These were the items in order of Page 57 January 29, 2002 priority as they provided them to us: road and traffic-related matters, which is and probably should be no surprise to anybody. Neither should No. 2, controlling and managing growth; water conservation; preservation of the natural environment; and healthcare concerns. Those were the top five listed issues that came back to us from our sort of open-ended portion of the Citizen Survey. And I'm not sure that there's anything that's amazing off of that list or anything that should take anybody by surprise. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we can go back to that. I think that we can improve that process so that we get better information so that we can make decisions. I think just about -- well, everyone of those is tied with the tax dollar, but I think in the survey we fail to ask the customer how should we pay for those. It might be important to them, but are they willing to pay for it, or how should we pay for it. MR. OLLIFF: I couldn't agree with you more. We've never been able to really get the board energized in years past about being a part of the process of question development and trying to get the board to participate in determining what is important to the board in terms of what do we want to ask the community. I have heard from several of you that you would like to be involved in that question development process, and I think Chuck and Alice are here from Fraser & Mohlke, and the latter part of this session was actually designed to try and see from the board's perspective what is it that you want us to ask the community, because we are scheduled to try and accelerate that and start asking questions in March, peak season, while we've got the largest set of population here. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's key, Mr. Olliff, because I'm always frustrated by where the information comes from. And, after all, this is a democracy. I'd rather hear from the majority than a Page 58 January 29, 2002 few vocal minority who may or may not be sharing the overall picture of the community. And, unfortunately, we have been driven by the latter in the past, and I want to hear from the people. And I want to hear a broad cross-section from Chuck Mohlke, and his associates can do -- where we get what I'm going to call a reasonable database to begin to make those decisions on everything that's on the wall. I couldn't concur more. Everybody wants but nobody wants to pay. And there's no free lunch, and there's no cheap way to get there. So what does the community really want, and how much do they want do they want to pay? MR. OCHS: I'm going to spend a few minutes talking about the FoCuS report. In the winter of 1998, a distinguished panel of citizens submitted the final report of the FoCuS group to the community. The FoCuS report and the group was essentially a community-based long-range planning effort that attempted to chart the course, if you will, for the future of this community, preserving the character of the past, but preparing for future. As I read through the FoCuS report preparing for today's presentation, what most struck me and perhaps will strike you as we go through the foils is the relatively close alignment of the priorities that the community has for the future here as embodied in the report and how closely that aligned with what this commission has been doing on several fronts over the last several months, and as we go through the slides, I'll point out a few of those examples. The first one that the committee in the FoCuS report spoke to was green space and environmental responsibility, essentially recommending that the community look to retain and create green space and open space preserving natural areas in both the urban and rural areas of our community. Of course, the commission has its own Page 59 January 29, 2002 Horizon Committee today on green space. You also, as Tom just mentioned, have the work that's ongoing with both your rural fringe and rural lands committees, and there's also an initiative called "Conservation Collier," which is really being spearheaded by a consortium of environmental groups here locally that are looking, again, to put together a package to promote conservation and perhaps purchase some open space. And they'll be talking to you more in the future about that. I know they've working through Bill Lorenz and his staff over in environmental planning. Next slide, please, Beth. Second area of the FoCuS group report had to do with urban design essentially looking to create a comprehensive urban land-use plan that would encourage the public's desire to create what's often referred to as "small-town communities." And there's a number of bullets here. I'm not going to read them all to you, but a couple of the highlights -- and, again, linkages to what's going on currently through the board's policy initiatives have to do with the amendments to the Land Development Code, the updates to the Comprehensive Plan, your current effort in implementing the geographic information system, which has made tremendous strides and should be on-line by fiscal year '03. Also with regard to -- next slide, please, Beth. Also in regard to the small-town communities, the board has received the Dover-Kohl preliminary report, has adopted some architectural standards to preserve that continuity in neighborhoods. Tom also mentioned just recently the master planning efforts and the neighborhood planning efforts in the Immokalee, Golden Gate area, Naples Park, for example. All of these again, I think, demonstrate the alignment between the FoCuS report and the initiatives that are ongoing currently in the county. Next side, please. Again, with regard to the urban design subcommittee report and the FoCuS report, they look for creating a citizens' academy to better educate and communicate the citizens regarding the community Page 60 January 29, 2002 development process. I think one of the ways that the board has indicated they want to get to that -- and Tom alluded to it a few minutes ago -- is perhaps going to a series of workshops where the board could peel that onion from the Land Development Code, go through element by element, get a good understanding. We could, obviously, broadcast each one of those to the public so they can get a better understanding of the total development process. Next slide, please. Third area was economic diversity. Again, the FoCuS group wanted to maintain and create a balanced and expanded economic base supporting clean industry, environmentally friendly industry, and non-seasonal industry, if you will. The board, obviously, continues that partnership with the Economic Development Counsil, and also put in place some of your community redevelopment authority areas. The Immokalee Airport has been a big initiative in terms of economic development and diversity. Next slide. This has to do with water resources. Again, the FoCuS report attempted to develop a comprehensive plan that would address the future water needs of our area, including both drainage and flood control. There are a number of initiatives that the current commission has undertaken in this area. Most recently you had the utilities master plan presented to you where there were several initiatives there recommended with regard to not only reclaimed water but also amending your water rate structure, which would essentially incent (sic) people to conserve and cause those that use more than their share of water to pay a higher rate than they would otherwise have paid. And the last slide, Beth. This has to do transportation, and the FoCuS group there was obviously looking to create a complete roadway network that moved people throughout the county and was aesthetically pleasing at the same time. I don't think I need to spend much time reminding you Page 61 January 29, 2002 how much time you-all have spent on transportation and road construction over the last year. So those were the essential elements of the FoCuS group, and, again, I think the most important point to take from that is that it appears that there's quite a bit of linkage between what the community saw a few years ago as priorities for the future and what this county commission and staff is working on today. MR. OLLIFF: In closing (videotape playing). We found that clip and just thought it was sort of apropos in telling the board that too much power and trying to bite off too much is not a good thing. I think what you've seen today is an entire list of things that are all over these walls that you've heard from citizens' surveys that we have talked about in board meetings, that we've got on the staff plate, and I just need for us as an organization to try and agree on what out of that entire menu of items needs to be our priority, what's important to you as the board of directors of this organization. And we can do it the way that we were going to, or we can let you digest everything that you've been provided to this point and try and work on an opportunity perhaps at the end of a lighter board meeting two weeks from now, a month from now and try to hone in on it then. But I will tell you that I do need to get some decisions in advance of the budget process so that when we actually develop policy and then the staff starts working on budgets, that we'll know that we are trying to build from the ground up in conjunction with your goals. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: During the AUIR process, I think that you heard from the majority of the commissioners their No. 1 goal is transportation and funding that transportation. And I know that we're short $64, $65 million. And it was my understanding is that we want staff to go out there and find resources to fund the Page 62 January 29, 2002 transportation projects in toto without raising the millage rate. MR. OLLIFF: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is Commissioner Henning finished? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've been saving all of my questions, Tom, and I'm going to take a few minutes if you don't mind. I'd like to commend you and the staff with what you have done and what you're trying to do. There is a lot of experience in the private sector about how to develop indicators of performance. There's a lot less experience in government organizations to do that, and it's a very difficult task, and I commend you for taking it on. So I'll start first with some observations about some of those indicators and then get into some more specific recommendation. Most of what we've seen today, with some notable exceptions, is activity oriented, and I think what we need are things that measure results more clearly than we're measuring results today, and I'll use several examples. One is the permit processing time. I think it does us no good to report the permit processing time is 20 days. It does help us if, however, we establish a standard. And if the processing time standard is 12 or 15 days, then fluctuations above and below that would be indicative of how well we are achieving our goal. The activity reports that we are seeing here are important from the standpoint of understanding workload and staffing and - organizational structure, but they are not particularly helpful with respect to deciding how well we are doing our job. One of the other things that would be extremely helpful to me is if we had an accurate inventory and backlog of dwelling units. And we talked yesterday about this, Joe. And I believe the staff has that, Page 63 January 29, 2002 but if we could begin to report things like the inventory and backlog of dwelling units -- the importance of that is essentially this; there's currently 80,000 approved but unbuilt dwelling units in Collier County. Now, if you figure there might be two-and-a-half people per dwelling unit, you've got 200,000 people -- or dwelling units for 200,000 people already approved and on the budget. If we add that to what we have now, we're already at buildout. Our buildout figure is 457,000 people. If we add what's already been approved and we assume that two-and-a-half people per dwelling unit is an accurate figure, then we're already at 450,000 people. So I'm concerned that we're using a buildout figure that might not be accurate. And, secondly, by tracking those PUDs and those unbuilt but approved units, perhaps we can cause some reduction in those, consequently we won't have such a big backlog. So then we manage that backlog, and we add or subtract based upon what action we can take. The road checkbook report would be extremely helpful for us, Norm. A report that shows by road segment what the balance is in the checkbook, that would be a good reporting standard, I think. Road construction progress reports versus funding. Percentage of completion is never a good way of measuring a project, because a project can be 99 percent completed, but it might take you tens of millions of dollars to get the additional 1 percent. So what I'd like to suggest as far as reporting is concerned is that we take a look at costs expended and cost to complete versus overall schedule. And that will give us, I think, some kind of an indication as to how we're doing on those things. Impact fees and costs of construction, we always lag -- in fact-- and I think the system is designed to make sure we always lag behind, and I don't have a solution to that. I don't know how to collect the impact fees in advance, but it would be helpful if we could Page 64 January 29, 2002 have a report that shows the impact fees that are coming in and construction fees that are going out. I'm talking primarily about road construction right now. And that will give us some indication as to the disparity between the number of impact fees that are collected at the time of permitting and the construction costs that are essential to accommodate the impact on our community. And I think we'll always see a lag there, but if the lag gets too great, we know we need to do something to accommodate for that. So that's another good performance indicator. Water demand versus fees. And so what I'm getting at here, at least in this part of my observation, is that the way the data is presented is extremely important, because I think it can create those kinds of performance criteria that you think are essential to managing things effectively. Now, if we get into a couple of organizational or functional things -- let me touch very briefly on the TDC. I believe we're probably managing that in the wrong way. Apparently what happens is that we are approving a certain number of dollars, and then the tourism alliance goes out and spends those dollars, and then we audit them to determine if they spent it the right way. I think it would be better if we could find an organizational structure and a process that would permit us to define the project we want to accomplish. And that would be best done by people who are experienced in advertising and tourism. They design the project, the tourism alliance or someone else develops a line-item budget for that project, which would include all of the things a normal department head is responsible for; overhead, rent, salaries, travel, entertainment, whatever, and then we would approve the budget. And there wouldn't be this problem of us taking a look at what they've already spent and finding out that it wasn't spent properly. That's an organizational kind of thing, I think, we could deal with. Page 65 January 29, 2002 And, finally, to start getting some priorities out, I fully support Commissioner Henning's suggestion that transportation and road building is important, but there is something that is underlying there that creates that problem, and that is the Land Development Code. And we first must deal with the funding and the transportation, but we will always be in that kind of situation unless we can modify the Land Development Code in a way which reflects the interest of our community in controlling density and intensity, but we must do it in a way that does not violate private-property rights. And I don't know how to do that. That is one of the most confusing things for me is how are we ever going to control the growth and the demands on the roads unless we can get a Land Development Code and a Comprehensive Plan that will provide the legal basis for the decisions we have to make. Right now the legal basis for the decisions we have to make results in exactly what we've got right now. And while we have some discretion, we can't stray far from that legal basis. And it seems to me that if we really want to solve the problem on a long-term basis, we need to deal with the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. I would recommend that that be very close to the top of priorities here. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tom. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Olliff, I agree with everything that Commissioner Coyle said, and I would like to address the revenue streams and tie that to what we want to accomplish by saying what does each revenue stream support and as it fluctuates on projections how do we adjust what we want to get done. The second part of that is, which we have the least amount of control, and that is diversifying the revenue stream where you have Page 66 January 29, 2002 more participating in accomplishing where you want to go. What I mean is, economic diversity where you have a better business base that helps you contribute to your ad valorem tax base. Right now we've got two major streams that come out of tourism and construction. And that's not only for this county; it's for the state of Florida. So we can't lose sight of what provides the base, and at the same time we've got to find ways to operate within that which is highly vulnerable to economic conditions by looking at other more stable enterprises like technological research centers that maybe for medical or high-tech, which does have some vulnerability in itself, but also would help us level out that base. So when we do these things, I would like to get some predictions against what we're doing against the revenue streams as we go along in the reporting process. MR. OLLIFF: Does that summarize what you're saying fairly well, review of the revenue stream versus the level of service -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir. MR. OLLIFF: -- we provide from those, and then a diversification of the revenues themselves. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Okay. Other comments from board members? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me go back to some of the things -- we gave a second pay increase or final of the study of pay increase, and the concern out there -- what I hear is are we giving raises in merit to employees that have been demoted, and I think that we need to, hopefully, keep track of-- make sure that we are not rewarding somebody that we're slapping their hands. Another thing I wrote down here, code enforcement. I'm glad that somebody from the outside has come in and seen code enforcement is proactive. That's the first time I heard that. But I do think that we can do a better job. Page 67 January 29, 2002 Each one of our districts, we have blight, and it has to work very closely with code enforcement. Hopefully, that we can take a proactive of finding out what the community needs are, and they are all different. And it might be the same thing as in Naples Park as in Golden Gate, but it's not going to be the same as in Immokalee. There are community leaders out there, and I think that code enforcement can coordinate between sheriffs department, urban housing development, and those type of agencies to address the needs of the community. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to add as long as you're addressing code enforcement, I think expanding their hours right now. Many of the problems that arise such as too many people in one dwelling as well as noise and so forth seem to occur on the weekends and at night, and that's not when our code enforcement people are working. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly, Commissioner. I think the diversity of the hours of operation, you know, we don't need to have everybody working during the day. I think, you know, shift that to like you said, the weekends and the evening. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I would like to add also that the work-force housing -- I don't know if we're actually coming down -- are we just going to discuss a list here such as work- force housing, things that we need to address? Okay. Because that certainly is something that I'm concerned with, and how we're going to address that problem and solve it. We not only need to address it, but we need to solve that problem because our futures depend on us taking care of that problem now. I always try and think of what's going to happen in 20 years and how we prepare for it right this minute. Also, I'm still concerned with the CREW acquisition. We have to protect that watershed out there, so that's something-- but I don't know if that's something we Page 68 January 29, 2002 want to address as our five major projects. But green space is certainly one of them, and CREW could fall under that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we going in mm, or can I jump in again? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jump in. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you go next. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Fred, I can't quite understand what you're trying to say. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Water resources. There's been a lot of talk about tying our water resources to the pace of development. I'm not really sure how to do that, but at the very least I think we should be able to measure the availability of our water and take into consideration the approved permits and anticipated permits so that if there comes a time when we have a problem with potable water, or if we're going to have a problem, we need to anticipate that far in advance so that we can bring more of our own processing facilities on-line, and that takes a long time, and it's going to be more costly. So my proposal would be to measure the condition of the aquifer on the regular basis so that we can determine if there is a significant impact at our current level of activity and then track that throughout the future to assure that if we start running into a problem, we'll know about it pretty quickly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I can help you with that, you're right, you need to be concerned about the infrastructure, and I think you're heading in the right direction there. They're doing an excellent job as far as Florida Water Management and tracking that aquifer and the level of it as we move through the different seasons and drought and times a plenty so they can react. But without the infrastructure in place we probably should put the same kind of conditions on water Page 69 January 29, 2002 systems as we do on roads. We're going to be coming up with writing the check -- writing the check out for when the roads are in place is when you can put the buildings in there. You can do the new growth. We probably should also include such things as water. It should also include the schools, which the school system seems to be on top of at the moment, better correlated I would imagine. Also, it should include medical facilities. It should include the fire department, the EMS, all these things should be in place before growth goes forward. But I agree with you about the water. The water is a primary concern to everyone. No one wants to be without water. COMMISSIONER COYLE: My problem takes that down to a level lower than that. We determine water capacity requirements based upon the number of permits we receive and the number of permits we anticipate as our community begins to grow. And so we can build the water-processing facilities, but if the aquifer begins to shrink, then the water-processing facility itself will not be sufficient action to take to compensate for that problem. We need to find other ways of dealing with that, and they are long-term solutions, so we must find out as early as possible so that we'll have plenty of years to prepare for the eventuality. So my concern is not so much the water-plant-facility capacity, because I think the plan that staff has developed now is a very good leap forward on our capacity to process water. I'm looking at the availability of water to process. And we must be very sensitive to that because I suspect -- as everybody knows this water flows through the ground at a very, very slow pace. A lot of very heavy development has occurred north of us. They're drawing out of the aquifer that eventually flows this way. Now, it might take 20, 30, 50, even 100 years for that effect to take place, but I don't know how long it's been happening, nor does anybody else. Page 70 January 29, 2002 MR. OLLIFF: Does that summarize that for you if we talk about a focus on raw water resources, because it's not the treatment, it's not the capacity, it's the raw water supply -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about aquifer capacity or condition or whatever? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aquifer, I mean, we can get resources other than aquifers. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, we could. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I could expand upon that. I think what you're going to see is Dudley Goodlette taking charge of writing language to make county -- part of their concurrency is water resources. And also with the governor's commission on growth management, you will see concurrency with the school system. So we're going to have to work very closely with the school system to make sure that happens, the classrooms come online before the impact is there so we don't see what we see today is a bunch of portables. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I think what we have to take into consideration is a lot of it's out of our control because the South Florida Water Management District, when plans are submitted to them, they approve based -- on even if the water is not available in that particular sector, if you can draw from another, and there's an overall balance, they will approve a development's plans. And we have to find a way through the things that are coming down to the legislature to interact with that with South Florida Water Management District so that they don't override what we want to do locally. And that may get us into some legal situations, but I think we need to find a way to see how much they're going to influence everything that we want to do and what our options are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tom, you just wrote down expanded concurrency management, and maybe you could add there, Page 71 January 29, 2002 "revised," because we do -- in my opinion anyway -- we have to revise some of our concurrency laws, if you will, or Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Revise-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Revise and expand, yeah. MR. OLLIFF: What else? Anything else needs to be up on the board? You've got work-force housing, green space. I tried to summarize, Commissioner Henning, the level -- and, Commissioner Fiala -- the level of service distribution versus different and distinct neighborhood needs. And I was trying to get to that. Not only code enforcement, but I think there's a number of other services that we provide that probably fall into that same category. So providing standardized level of service across the county may not make sense is what I'm hearing from you; that there may be a greater need for code enforcement in certain areas or a greater need for animal control in certain areas then there are in others, and standardized service levels don't make sense. Diversification of revenues, review of the revenue streams versus our level of service. What are we able to provide within the revenue streams that we currently have? Growth Management, Land Development Code amendments, sort of an underkey for a lot of what's on the board; transportation funding; performance benchmarks; review of zoned and unbuilt units; raw or aquifer water resources, sort of that supply versus demand versus protection system; and expanded or revised concurrency management system. What else can you think of that needs to be on the board? How about from the staff, anything that we're missing? MR. MUDD: There's two on my list -- I'm not a voting member, but I'm going to throw them up there. One would be to re-establish the public trust. I think that's an effort that -- you're not going to get their input or feedback into our Page 72 January 29, 2002 process if they don't trust you, because they are going to feel like they're wasting their time. And then I would say that program management -- we hinted upon it a little bit, but there's an awful lot of capital programs that are going to be built. We're talking between transportation and utilities alone, and there's more to this with libraries and parks and things like that. But over about every 5 years between transportation and utilities for the next 20, we're going to spend almost a billion dollars. We need to have a good program set aside in order to do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would like to see on the -- re- establish public trust, re-establish and maintain public trust. That would also include that ethics audit we've been talking about. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, there are some members of the public here, and if there's anyone from the public, this might not be a bad opportunity to hear if there's anything that the public might have to say that generates some comment from the board. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any slips that have been turned in? MR. OLLIFF: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we'll just open it up to the public that wish to come up to the podium and speak on the subject at hand. MR. OLLIFF: That would be Nancy or Bob. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's move forward then. COMMISSIONER CARTER: One input that I haven't heard from is legal. Well, I mean, is there anything here that we're missing, anything that legal counsel feels that we need to address in this whole process? MR. WEIGEL: No. I can tell you in regard to questions of concurrency or changes in our Growth Management Plan or changes Page 73 January 29, 2002 in the comp plan, as it's often called, or in the Land Development Code that if we take a tact to -- the strong word would be to "reign in," which I think is perhaps a little too broad, but the fact if we take any tact in regard to slowing development but keep it tied to the demands, the requirements of concurrency, we will continue to stay within the legal parameters and defensibility. But any time in a review that we do to come forward and constrict any area of our Land Development Code where we don't have the firm roots in what we must meet or match with a good policy underpinnings for concurrency, we'll be in very treacherous legal waters. That's not to say, though, that the task cannot only be done in terms of review and recommendation, but I think that change can be made. And it would appear that you're talking about a comprehensive stem-to-stern review. And it's the kind of thing that I would work -- obviously work with Tom, or I should say he would work with us, and we would come forward with a recommendation, probably with the use of outside counsel, so that we would avoid what might appear a parochial or internal type of bias notwithstanding any that project will have, parameters set ultimately by the staff that's directing or the board that's assisting the staff and come to a direction. It's not a short-term project, however. And as Tom pointed out with the initial overview where he showed this past year of introspection and then this year and next year each categoried with kind of a different emphasis, we're talking about probably about a year or two to achieve a goal and a very significant public hearing process and community education process toward the implementation of whatever that final product might be. And, again, it's a difficult territory, both the cities in Collier County as well as Collier County have under the current codes that they are utilizing, and decisions that are made under those codes have Page 74 January 29, 2002 very significant lawsuits. And those costs have to be recognized, not merely the cost of defending, but the cost of potentially losing. And when we're talking about constitutional property rights, those have just as strong underpinnings as the constitutional right to watch one's pocketbook. And we'll be looking at all those things as we go forward. COMMISSIONER CARTER: One other thing I think on the list is the other infrastructure needs including government facilities, not only for us, but the other constitutional officers, for example, the Clerk of Courts. I think we're going to have some tough decisions and discussions that this board is going to have to have in order to put that into perspective with the amount of dollars available to accomplish other objectives. MR. OLLIFF: I'll categorize that as "general fund capital," and the only reason I'll call it that way is because most of the other capital issues that we've talked about, whether they be utilities or transportation, have dedicated funding sources. And that's what makes them a little easier to deal with. But the general fund supported capital, and that includes everything from sheriff, law enforcement facilities currently that don't have a dedicated impact fee through to constitutional officer buildings. Those are the issues that generally end up at the bottom of the heap, if you will, when you get done with your budget process. And there a lot of capital needs that go unmet because of that. The board's pleasure at this point. Tom. MR. WIDES: Commissioners and Tom, just maybe to test or assess some of what I've heard here. Again, Tom Wides for the record. As I look at the items up on the board, they are very critical. They are somewhat -- maybe what I'd call strong objectives to be worked on by possibly different parts of our divisions, etc. And what Page 75 January 29, 2002 I'd like to test with you is possibly these can roll up as maybe three or four yet -- three or four strategic intents. Something from my old world, but something I'd call "strategic intents." They might fall under something that might be considered as community needs, which would take in a number of these categories. What is a community need? Planned development needs, okay, could possibly be another; optimization of level of service or mandated needs. And I guess what it really comes down to, you call them whatever you wish, but you've got three or four intents that the entire -- all the divisions of the county can be out there working toward those and seeing how they slide underneath. And I think we can find maybe a structure of three or four of those that we could fit all of these up underneath and still accomplish what we need to do. Just thoughts for you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would suggest that a lot of these are interrelated, and some of them would have to be taken in sequence in order to be effectively accomplished. And what I would like to suggest is that the staff take this list, determine the sequence in which it would be necessary to attack this list, and categorize those. I am concerned about categorizing them too much because the intent might be lost. But that's why I think we need another meeting to -- after the staff can consider our recommendations here, come back to us with recommendations, and we can respond to that at that time and perhaps refine this guidance a little bit. I'm sure the other commissioners and I will come up with other ideas between now -- and I'd hate for you to start out on something without getting the final -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, you bring up a very good point. I for one agree with you. I have no problems with working this out to the point that we do reach a solution rather than just come up with a partial answer to it and then walking away from Page 76 January 29, 2002 it. How does the rest of the commissioners feel? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fine with me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have five commissioners that are in agreement with you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Four commissioners in agreement with you. And you're in agreement with yourself, I hope. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. OLLIFF: Norman. MR. FEDER: Pretty much Commissioner Coyle's item that was just raised. What I was going to ask is beyond the obvious items that are up there covering much of what we're looking at is instructing staff to go back and looking at all the things that we think would fall under that that need to be action items or efforts undertaken to basically implement. But we go to some other things -- very, very definitive things that go beyond maybe what's up there. You saw in your FoCuS group and other things in a debate since the year and a half I've been here is community character type of concept or community look-- landscaping, out of your FoCuS group. I've heard a very big shift. Is there truly that shift on this board from where when I came on board the impression of what this community wanted in the way -- and I'm getting very specific here -- in landscaping on roadways, but that broader issue that goes beyond just roadway landscaping. Is that a shift? Is that something we want to pursue? Is that something that we're saying money-wise we're not ready to do now? I think those are the things that if we come back to you with specifics, then we can tie those issues to the financing and to the dollars and try to get more specific direction. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You bring up a point that's near and dear to my heart, obviously, and I've seen a lot of people over the Page 77 January 29, 2002 past few months, especially at different meetings and so forth. Plus I've received a lot of e-mails saying that they want to make sure that we protect our bike paths and our sidewalks and median landscaping, character of the community and so forth. And I think we have to be very cautious as we protect tax dollars that we don't shoot ourself in the future of our community. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the community spoke out loud and clear during that referendum vote. Work within your means. So if we can do that with -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But you know we have hurt ourselves in the past because we have protected the cash dollars to a point where we're in a fix, and I think we have to think very smartly. While we're working within our means, we also have to plan for the future, and I don't think we should lose sight of that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, and I think we are, but maybe it's a different philosophy of planning for the future. You're talking needs instead of wants, and that's what I'm looking at -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Community character versus what? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is a healthy discussion-- no, I'm glad you brought it up, because the community perception, what they want does change. Maybe it's changing again. This is one of the reasons -- I think Norm brought up a very good question. Maybe at the next meeting we have we might want to consider this. Maybe we'd like to get some people in here to speak possibly from the Taxpayer's Action Group, possibly from some of the beautification committees. No, I'm serious. Get everybody's input. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I am too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: TAG has changed considerably of the makeup. And let me just say we do have opportunities through that beautification through MSTUs. If the people in the area want it -- we talked about this in the community character plan, smart Page 78 January 29, 2002 growth. We still do have mechanisms, so anyway I think that we need to do the capital improvements, and I think the public is going to come out on other things if it's really important to them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree with Commissioner Coletta. I think it's important that we determine what is absolutely essential and use our resources there. And then if we can find sources for other things, we do that. I believe that there's an entirely different answer if you ask somebody if you want to have bike paths and nice landscaping on the roads, the answer is "yes," and I'll agree with them, and I'll vote that way every single time. But if you ask me do I want my ad valorem property taxes increased to get that, I'm going to vote "no" every single time. And I think most voters will do the same thing, but I think you've got to put it in those terms. I don't have a problem if we have to increase ad valorem property taxes to satisfy the voters' needs. But I don't want to presume that because they've told me that, that they want it, that I should then go for a property tax increase. I don't think that's the right way to proceed. So if we get to the point of finding we've got a shortfall in doing some of these things that makes our community nicer, then what I would suggest to you is that we identify the cost of that; we determine a funding source; and if that funding source is ad valorem property tax increase, we put it to the people and let them decide. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you're -- you're heading in the right direction, but I do think we need to bring this back again. You brought this up in the beginning -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm glad you brought it up, and I'm glad that Norm brought it up, and I hear everybody on this, but we're running short on time to get into it to the point that's really going to be meaningful. Page 79 January 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: That wasn't intended to impact this meeting at all -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I understand. What you said is true, and what Donna said is true; every one of you are right. Now we have to figure out what the public really wants. MR. OLLIFF: I think the opportunity for this discussion -- and it's a healthy discussion, and that's the level of discussion we need to be at, and frankly, we haven't been in a while. But when you look at the budget that we proposed to you this summer, my hope is that it's in a format that allows you to have this kind of discussion with the information that you need to be able to make decisions in front of you so that you'll know within the existing revenue streams for transportation construction, that you can either provide the basic level of service or what the expanded levels of service that Commissioner Fiala's talking about will cost you. And if you want to stay within the total revenue streams that the county has to work with, then the board may decide that certain programs are of a higher priority to this community than some of the existing programs within your currently funded revenue stream. So there may be some movements within your current budget in order to be able to satisfy both. Or the board may decide it wants to continue to provide every service that it provides today and it needs to increase its revenues. And those are the kinds of discussions that I hope that we can have when we get to the budget process this summer. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to summarize it and categorize it, and we're going to take a look at it again? MR. OLLIFF: The direction I think I'm getting from the board is that I'm going to try to clean this up a little bit. I would ask the board members if you have something that you leave out of here and a light bulb goes off and you think, "Boy, that should have been on Page 80 January 29, 2002 the board," if you would let me know that within a week, if you can let me know that by next Tuesday, then I will try to finalize a list. Depending on what the agenda looks like, we will either reschedule the balance of this discussion for the end of the board meeting, the first meeting in February or the second meeting in February. Either one of those provides us enough time to be able to plug this into our actual budget process. Joe. MR. SCHMITT: Joe Schmitt for the record. I just -- for my short time here, I just wanted to bring an issue up for the commissioners. I see there are many initiatives, at least in my area, that are competing for the limited resources, and I'll just throw some out for your thought, because I think it's going to be an important part when we figure out where we're going to fund and what we're going to fund. But these things; the Immokalee initiative, the Vanderbilt Beach beach study moratorium, the Naples Park study, the Golden Gate area master plan, I think a big one coming up, the rural lands rural fringe, and, of course, the revision of Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. These are all things that in my short time are on my plate. Each are important and each will provide for a certain part of the community. But I think what I would like from the board is what are your priorities when I look at those, because any one of those may take a year to provide a product, and what I don't want to do is get into a position where if you want it bad you're going to get it bad. And I've got some pretty heavy issues here that I would just throw on your plate as a matter of where do we want to go, because they are all important. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you. Let me just add -- Page 81 January 29, 2002 just add one thing that I saw glaringly missing from that was the redevelopment of the East Naples area. Not only U.S. 41 corridor-- MR. SCHMITT: Another one. That's right. I just kind of wrote some down by memory -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Bayshore and, man, I think that that must be a priority as it continues to erode around us. MR. SCHMITT: So I'm trying to bring it back up to the strategic level, and some of this is down what I would call "tactical," which we handle every day, but I'm trying to get you-all to think strategically because that sets the vision, so to speak, of what you think this community should look like 15, 20 years from now. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The strategic level really is, in my opinion, the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. And all of the studies you mentioned are essential to reaching that point, and they are not all scheduled to be done at the same time, unfortunately. So that's going to make your job even more difficult, but, certainly, we can gather information now about where those studies are going. We know certain things about the conclusions that are being reached, and we can begin taking a look at our Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan in view of those things we know. I don't think we can wait until all those studies are completed before we do something to the Land Development Code, but I do believe that they must feed information into the staff to arrive at the appropriate conclusions with respect to the Land Development Code. And, remember, as those other studies go forward, we will no doubt learn more, and we'll have to revise the Land Development Code again in response to what our community needs. So the bad news is it's all got to be done at once. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. Page 82 January 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Joe, there is a lot of-- you're going to see a lot of initiatives to revitalize existing or older neighborhoods. MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And during the process of the Dover-Kohl plan, it was identified that Naples Park should be a good example. Commissioner Fiala brought up one, and I can tell you that my community is going to come hard and heavy to the Board of Commissioners for funding on that. What we need to do is get creative and look at community development funds and see how we can use those as a resource for that, and I'm sure you're going to have to work with the man over here to my left -- MR. SCHMITT: And we talked about that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- find out about all those Land Development Code, Growth Management Plan, and so on and so forth. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder. MR. FEDER: It may be appropriate for the first or second meeting as Tom mentioned in February, but I guess what would be helpful as well to staff is if I asked you the question as commissioners. I want-- if I had the opportunity, I would change the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan to; and fill in the rest of that blank. What is it you want it to do? If you could change it, we could work through it legally, what do you want it to do differently than it's doing today? And I think that's something that would be very helpful. I'm not necessarily asking for an answer to that right now. I'm just saying that would be something that would be very, very helpful to make sure that as we're trying to make changes, I think I'm going after some things I think this board wants, make sure that we know exactly what it is you're looking to accomplish from that plan. Page 83 January 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm gathering from the discussion that's taking place here that the priorities that we set -- and I'll be honest with you. Everyone of them that I've heard is an absolute necessity, but I'm gathering that we're all competing for a limited resource. And the limited resource has possibly already exceeded its capacity. Is that what I'm hearing? MR. SCHMITT: People and time. When I talk about resources -- well, we're not even talking dollars. It's people and time, and I'm going to get my arms around this; it's just a matter of where are we and when will I get to you with the commitments that you've asked us, the staff, to provide. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll even tell you that the particular studies that are underway -- and we've already invested the human resources on the public side, and we committed the money, and the dollars are there to do it. And it's going to be up to you to find the people to do it. I don't think we're going to back off one of these projects, and we're probably going to come up with even more. So we're going to have to reallot our time, energy, and resources to make sure we fulfill these needs, and these are very basic needs. These involve the community directly. And I don't know if the other commissioners feel this way. It will probably come up again in discussion at the next meeting we have. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Two areas that I know we're already committed to, Vanderbilt study and Naples Park. And I think we need to move to time line to accomplish those. One, because it's under a development -- interim development control -- nice word for moratorium, which says we have legal implications if we don't get it done. The other, you don't face that, but there is a sense of urgency in the community, which I think can be worked out with them. Page 84 January 29, 2002 The other one that I see here is right back to what you asked earlier, how do we get the major input out of the community, and that was to get a questionnaire and work with Chuck Mohlke & Associates to do that. And so at what point do you want us -- do you want us to provide questions to you to consider that, because a lot of the things that I'm hearing here are not just in our hands, but there are a lot of people out there that would like to make an input. And, again, I'd like to get to that majority to hear what they have to say. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, three things and I think we can go home -- actually, Chuck, if you want to come talk just briefly about the citizen survey process, the time line, and how you see the Board of County Commissioners. I think we had originally, frankly, intended to have some time today to talk about questions, but I think given the place we're at, I don't think that's possible. And maybe we can do this by having you provide some input to Chuck and having him come back to the board in full. MR. MOHLKE: For the record, Chuck Mohlke. If it pleases this honorable board, what I would suggest that you give consideration to is you list topics. I would caution you to try to avoid writing questions. Everybody has their own syntax that they use in a manner that suggests a certain outcome, usually, that is a preferred response to a question. We want to avoid that at all possible opportunities. Secondarily, I have heard loud and clear the message that you want to relate responses to available resources. And if that means that we need to get into the business that we were very much in, as the manager recalls, as long ago as 1989, 1990, 1991, '92, in which we were asking revenue questions. And they were very direct and aggressive questions. The difficulty is that if you ask a revenue- related question in March or April, environments change over time. Page 85 January 29, 2002 And it is very difficult to be highly predictive of an outcome unless you are prepared to deal with the revenue issues after you have learned what an initial response is. And, lastly, directly related to some of Colonel Schmitt's remarks, it is, I think, important that each commissioner and each staff member that recommends has it in mind, generally, what's the objective. If I knew the answer to this general topic list that I have in mind to be included in a survey, what will I do with that information once I have it. So if it can be related in some manner to the very expanded agenda that you've created for yourself in this important meeting that will lead to a decision outcome, I would encourage that you have in mind that approach as you suggest topics. We are prepared, if we have direction from the manager and his staff, to go into the field on this in late March. It will be hard to improve on that at this particular point in time in terms of the preparation necessary to get a study underway, but if we proceed in a timely manner, by the time you begin your budget discussions, the manager has asked us to have a work product available which you can use as an agenda setter for those discussions. Sir, have I responded in the way in which you wanted me to? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not too sure what exactly staff is doing with Chuck here as far as the study -- the ongoing study you're talking about? Is this the every-year study that we do? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. I thought this was something -- MR. OLLIFF: This is the citizen survey, and for the first time I think the Board of County Commissioners is very, very interested in being involved in the development of the actual questions that we ask the community. And a lot of what I've heard from board members is Page 86 January 29, 2002 not only that we want to be involved, but we want to see some revenue-directed type questions to see not only what services do you want, but are you willing to pay certain things for certain services. And so, Chuck, I think, is suggesting that board members need to provide him topic areas. Chuck and Alice can craft the questions, get back to us again, let us review those, and make sure that we're all on the same page before we go out to actually do the survey. But in terms of time frame, Chuck, when do you need to get the topics back? MR. MOHLKE: Well, I would like to be as timely as possible. If we could look toward a time no later than a week following your next meeting, so if we were looking at a time ! 4, ! 5 days from now in which we can have topic listings, we'll be able to stay within the schedule that we have in mind. But if we go much beyond that, it will become difficult. MR. OLLIFF: So if they can get you topics within two weeks, we can usually stay on that same cycle that we had anticipated. MR. MOHLKE: And I would encourage very much -- because our experience over the last 14 years is it doesn't work unless we do it this way. That these topics be suggested to the manager and his staff through whomever it is that he designates, because if you have a vendor of a service talking to five separate elected officials, that is a daunting task indeed, one that we have done before -- MR. OLLIFF: Tell me about it. MR. MOHLKE: -- but had not always yielded the kind of outcome that all participants think it should. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chuck, I totally agree with that. And I think we need to get it to the county manager, compile it, and give it to you in some sort of format. And I do believe -- A great suggestion that we don't write the questions, just cover the topics. We have some historical questions in there that has been on the same Page 87 January 29, 2002 level, waste management questions. I don't know if we really need to ask that continual question. I think we need to ask different questions -- green space is one of them, roadway beautification. And those are the type of questions as how important to you, and then some of the things that historically -- health care. We're getting a mixed message there in the survey saying that they want government to provide for it, and we do. But is it an expanded service? Is that what they want for us to do? Or do they want to take out of the property taxes or take it off our money tree that we've got growing in the backyard here? Those type of questions, you know, resources. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Will we have a chance to revisit this questionnaire issue before it goes out? MR. MOHLKE: Oh, I hope so, indeed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. MR. MOHLKE: That has always been the objective since the day we began this, as the manager remembers. Very often we get what could be referred to politely as a laissez-faire response. MR. OLLIFF: That is polite. MR. MOHLKE: "Thank you for alerting me to this, and we will -- and let me see the result when you're through." We hope you commissioners will be much more proactive than that in the future. Mr. Manager, before I leave the podium, I would be remiss if I didn't introduce my business partner, Alice Fraser, the handsome lady sitting in the back of the room who has a very important role to play and has for 14 years in the development of the tabulation of the data and its timely and efficient reporting to interested readers. So we will look very much forward to the opportunity to be of service. MR. OLLIFF: Chuck, thank you very much. We did have Bob and Nancy both raise their hands, so if you want to make some comments. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Page 88 January 29, 2002 Federation. I just wanted to comment on in the list that Joe went through in the rural lands that appeared on this, and I wanted to emphasize that the rural land study is being done under a final order, a mandate from the governor and the cabinet. And, therefore, I think that should be at the top of the list because it's serious business, and if we don't resolve this, then there are serious consequences for this county in terms of its state funding. And, therefore, I wanted to emphasize that that's an extremely important study. It's going to be some interesting months coming up. You're going to get your first presentation of the rural fringe in February, late February for a transmittal hearing. And there are some significant issues that are unresolved. So I'm just emphasizing that that should go to the top of the list, and what staff is needed should be working on that study. Thank you. And it's that study -- you're not going to make too many changes to the Growth Management Plan until that issue is resolved, quite frankly. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think all the board members recognize that this is something that's on the top of the list, and it's a mandate coming down from Tallahassee, and we're going to address it. MR. OLLIFF: Actually, it went without saying, but I guess that we probably need to say it, that there are sort of, in my mind, four different categories. There's sort of a "have to's," "want to's" or "need to's," -and then "like to's" and "wish we could's" down at the bottom. And I think we've not dealt at all with the have to's. You know, we provide health, safety, and welfare-related-type services whether it be EMS, law enforcement, things that come from the governor and the cabinet that are dictated and have to be done by certain time frames. Those aren't issues that we've actually discussed because those are assumed that they are at the top of the list. Page 89 January 29, 2002 Bob. MR. KRASOWSKI: opportunity. I appreciate it. a citizen of Collier County. citizen. Hi. Good afternoon. Thanks for the My name's Bob Krasowski. I'm here as I'll be brief, 21-year resident, blue-collar I notice on the board here most of these issues that you're identifying are related to growth, and I think that maybe I'd make the suggestion that the concept of growth paying for growth be placed up on that board. I see there --just to pick out an example -- work-force housing. And I'm familiar with working folks. I've already done on this issue (sic). Well, the school board announced that they are going to build six schools over the next three years. They will require an awful lot of teachers. Now, if a teacher comes into the system at $30 to $40,000 a year and tries to buy a house in Collier County, it could be very difficult. I think the developers or the new communities that move into the area should accommodate, at least to some degree, for those teachers without them being given exception to the responsibility of paying impact fees. We shouldn't have to pay -- if new teachers are needed, more schools are being built, the community that develops to create that -- those schools or the need for those schools, it should all be in the plan. So that's the one thing that I wanted to bring up as just a regular guy here today. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, with that I think from a staff perspective we are fairly concluded. I will tell you that we appreciate your time; we appreciate your honesty, I think, in the discussions. I'm no Phil Donahue, so you'll have to excuse the job that I've done. I thank you for bearing with me. The last think I'll leave you with is one more quote that I read last night, as a matter of fact. And it said that, "In calm waters Page 90 January 29, 2002 everybody's a good captain." So in the times ahead, we're looking to you to provide the kind of leadership that this organization needs, because, frankly, the waters are a little rough. We need a little help from the policy makers. We'll look forward to getting back to you either the first meeting of February or the second meeting of February and wrapping this list up. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything to add? MR. WEIGEL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioners, any final comments? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just two real fast. Rough waters have been here for a whole year, and, No. 2, thank you for getting us out of here on time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're welcome. Motion to adjourn? That's it. Page 91 January 29, 2002 There being no further business for the good of the County, the workshop was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:30 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN Atte s l~t~I~le~ minutes approved by the Board on presented ,~ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY PAMELA HOLDEN, COURT REPORTER Page 92