Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/31/1995 W (w/Productivity Committee)WORKSHOP MEETING OF OCTOBER 31, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, 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 9:10 a.m. in WORKSHOP SESSION at Golden Gate Community Center, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager David Weigel, County Attorney Ed Day, RECAP Coordinator Mike HcNees, Acting Utilities Administrator Mike Smykowski, Acting Budget Director Tom Conrecode, OCPH Director Vince Cautero, Community Development Services Administrator Tom Olliff, Public Services Administrator Leo Ochs, Administrative Services Administrator CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I want to -- can I have your attention? I'd like to call to order the workshop for the Board of County Commissioners this day, October 31, 1995. And, Mr. Dorrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge? MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this morning, and we give thanks for the wonderful change in the weather that we've had the last week or so. We just as always give thanks for Collier County, the beauty of this county, and the many opportunities that it holds for its people. We ask a special blessing today on the county commission as they hear both the results and the work and dedication of their productivity committee as well as the mid-morning and afternoon session that will be devoted to finalizing our major goals for 1996. And it's our prayer that this would be a fruitful and beneficial time, that you would bless us all. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I don't have a formal agenda, but I believe the first thing we're going to do is hear a report from the productivity committee? MR. MCKENNA: It's even nice and low here for short people. Good morning, Commissioners. My name's Jack McKenna. I'm the chairman of your productivity committee. And I appreciate the opportunity to come back to you and give you an update on what we've been doing here the past six months or so. We met with you in your workshop on May the 30th, and you may recall at that workshop we presented you with kind of a menu of items of which we asked you to choose several items for us to study. And at that workshop we also discussed coming back at this workshop to give you an update. We haven't come to a conclusion on all of the items yet. But we'd like to tell you where we are. I'd like to take a minute if I could and introduce some of our members that we have present with us here today. We have Mr. David Craig if I could get our committee to stand up, please. David's been one of our longstanding members and a member that has single-handedly taken on the mini-grace committee report that I guess you have before you. Mr. Charles Durray. MR. DURRAY: Good morning. MR. MCKENNA: Mr. Ed Ferguson. Mr. Doug Fink is missing today. He wasn't able to make it. He's going to be -- he's the chairman of several of our subcommittees, and Mr. Steve Perkanski is going to be speaking on those committees this morning. And Mr. Victor Kottack. I'd also like to take a moment and thank Ed Finn who's our county liaison who's been a great asset to us really. He's been just terrific to work with and really helped us a lot. We've had quite a bit of turnover here in our productivity committee, as you may or may not be aware of, over the past six months or so. At one point we were down to about 50 percent membership. We're now building our way back up. So it's been -- it's been a challenge. We've had a lot of enthusiasm with our new members and feel like we've got a lot accomplished actually. But we are still needing new members. I think on your agenda probably for next week we -- we have requested another two membership -- members to join us. I had mentioned the items that we had talked about from our previous May 30 workshop. The items were chosen. There's two areas -- two topics in the human resource area. One was an update on a previous productivity report. We're still working with staff on that update. That's looking at the employee leave, and we'll be getting back to you on that probably we're hoping by the end of January. The other HR area that we looked at was employee evaluation and appraisal system. And Ed Ferguson is our chairman of that subcommittee, and he'll be giving you a report on that, on our status. The West Palm mini-grace commission, as I mentioned earlier, was something Mr. David Craig single-handedly took on and created a report on. David's been a great help to us in the committee. As I mentioned, he was -- he was there long before I was and really has been a great asset, great resource for myself and for the committee as a whole. Budget systems and accomplishments, Doug Fink is our chairman. As I mentioned, he's not able to make it. And Steve Perkanski is another member on that subcommittee and will be issuing a brief report on that. And also service efforts and accomplishments, the last item that we had on our list of things to look at, service efforts and accomplishments is more of a long-term study that will probably carry us out for another several years at least if not more. And Steve will briefly speak on that topic also. With all that being said, what I'd like to do right now is to pass over the mike to Mr. Ed Ferguson who will speak to you on our human resource subcommittee and give you an update what we're -- what we've been up to there. MR. FERGUSON: Jack, do they all have copies of these? MR. MCKENNA: No. MR. FERGUSON: I hope you can see this fairly well. Our purpose was to -- and I'll hit some areas that you had some concern with in the HR area. We were to examine the productivity or the process for Collier County employees looking at the performance evaluation system and to make some recommendations for improvement if they -- if it was needed. We looked at some very key areas here of study that we went over with you at -- if you'll remember at the May meeting. We were looking at the idea to determine if the evaluation system was conducive to high employee morale, morale and productivity. We were looking at the process. Was the process working? And is the county following the process the people -- HR following the process? We were trying to look at such key items as were there any perceived or real biases in the performance system. Was it adequately rewarding, the most capable personnel within the -- within the county, and was communication up and down the hierarchy being looked at and actually being done well? And the last thing that we looked at to some extent -- tried to look at really, is there a loss of key people in the organization throughout the county as far as brain drain was concerned. These were the key areas that we wanted to look at, and we did this by looking at an order of work. First, as we said, we met with you at the -- in the May workshop where you had looked at some of the areas that you wanted to -- us to pursue in the HR area. We then formed a subcommittee at that time. And our subcommittee was Jack McKenna, our chair for the -- Vic Kottack, and Charles Durray and myself. The four of us looked at this particular area. And hopefully we have tried to come up with some recommendations, at least where we -- that is our final hope here, to come up with some recommendations that will answer some questions perhaps that the commissioners have. What we did at that time, we structured our subcommittee. We did a kick-off study with the county manager and some of his people very early in August to show them the direction that we were going, to touch base. We wanted to have a very good liaison here. We also did the same thing with the human resource management area in mid August. There was some -- we waited a little while there to get the human resource area on some even keel after some movement there. And we -- I may like to say that we have had wonderful reception from the human resource management people within the county. We have been -- they've been extremely open with us. There's been nothing that we have not asked for that is -- everything that we've asked for has been given us very readily. We have been in the process of data collection and interviews over the past several weeks. We've hit the entire gamut. We have talked to your top managers, your supervisors, and -- and your people on the working line. We're trying to get some feel as to whether the performance evaluation system is working and where are the rough spots, where are the spots it can be improved, what -- what are the -- the real highlights of the system that you have. We are in a data analysis right now. We're looking at it. We've got a few more -- a little more data to collect, but we're looking at an analysis by the end of the year and then a final report to you at the end of January of this year. Again, I -- I would like to reiterate the aspect that there has been no time that anyone within the county government has not given us the fullest cooperation along the way. We have had excellent cooperation from everyone. Managers have been very open with us. They have showed us where the rough spots are. They have -- they have praised certain areas of it. And I think that from that point on we're able to come up with some recommendations and some -- hopefully a final report that will give you some direction in this area of this evaluation. If you have any questions at this point, I'd be glad to take them and along with our -- the rest of our committee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Ferguson, you answered my first question. I was going to ask about the level of cooperation with our staff. And from what I hear, that's been -- MR. FERGUSON: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- excellent -- MR. FERGUSON: It's been excellent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as I expected it to be. MR. FERGUSON: It's been outstanding. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there anything as you proceed through the report that this board or our staff can provide you that hasn't been provided? MR. FERGUSON: No, no. I -- I -- I -- I can't answer that for the -- but from my point of view, everything has been provided for us. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FERGUSON: Miss Edwards has been completely open with us with everything that we've wanted. Mr. Ochs has been the same way. We have not had any time where we felt that everything that we've asked for has just not been there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good. MR. FERGUSON: One of the things that we had -- if you'll remember that was originally discussed was the salary pay study. That is now underway and is -- I suspect that you will have results of that relatively soon. That had answered one of our main questions in this that we would look at, and that seems to be underway. And we have been invited to meetings on that. It's been very open to us. We have no problems at all. Jack, do you have anything that you want to add to this? MR. MCKENNA: No. I would -- I would second what Ed has said. It has been just terrific working with staff. Everyone's been super helpful. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good. Glad to hear that. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have anything, Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Should -- I -- I guess at this point since you're planning to have this portion of a report in January, should we be looking to hear the results of this portion of your work at our January workshop? That would be -- MR. FERGUSON: I see no reason why it couldn't be that way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would be January 30. MR. MCKENNA: That would be ideal. MR. FERGUSON: That would be ideal for us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Dorrill, do you want to make a note to have that on the agenda? MR. DORRILL: (Mr. Dotrill nodded head.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. MR. HCKENNA: Next I'd like to invite Mr. David Craig up here if you would to entertain any questions or thoughts you may have on mini-grace committee report they've prepared. MR. CRAIG: Well, thank you very much, Jack. I just want to ask you folks a question, and that is, did you all get the report? Did you all read it? How about the recommendations we made? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, yes, and more on the third point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: More on it. Yes, yes, and more. MR. CRAIG: No questions? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, no. We have questions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dave, this is something that -- I think you and I came on a productivity committee at the same time about three years ago. Is that about right? Or you were on just -- MR. CRAIG: Yeah, about right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is something that was brought to our attention by Miss J. K. MR. CRAIG: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: She'd been involved with the mini-grace commission on the east coast. And in Dave's report there's a note in here that to me is something we need to restructure ours to be more like. And that is that a member of the Board of County Commissioners sits on the mini-grace commission. Now, we have that situation in the privatization task force, and we -- we have had it in other cases. I see the productivity committee as in essence a key committee. The structure of the mini-grace is such that if I read it correctly, that the 13-member committee is kind of the -- the master committee, and then subcommittees fall off of that. And some of those subcommittees would cover things such as privatization and so forth. And if we're going to put the priority on the productivity committee to utilize it the way it should and could be utilized, I think this board needs to have a member sit on the committee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can't agree more. MR. CRAIG: Totally agree. That's a very constructive idea, and I point out that over time the mini-grace commission changed its character. It's becoming more cost oriented. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's -- that's getting into -- there were a couple of points and I -- Mr. Dotrill, if you would make notes on a couple of these points if it's -- you know, if we need to bring it up at a Board of County Commissioners' meeting to direct staff to work on the ordinance and -- and what to change, that's what I'd like to do because this report is very specific, makes some very specific recommendations. And I see no reason why we can't proceed on some of them. The second one that I wanted to get to, exactly what you just brought up, how the mini-grace is focused on control of the cost of delivery. One of the frustrations we had on the productivity committee was that we were focused solely on process. And Dave makes that point, is that all we did was make recommendations on changing the process. We never really asked the question, should government even be doing this? There are parts of county government that maybe we shouldn't even be handling, that should be handled outside, whether it be private sector or handled differently. And we always seem to be thrown into a process and asked how do you make it work better as opposed to skipping the first question which is, why are we even doing this? So I guess what I would like to see is a review of the ordinance that created the productivity committee. A minimum change to that ordinance in my opinion should be that a member of this board sits -- whether it's as chairman or as a sitting member, I -- I think chairman probably makes the most sense. But we've had such good chairmen between Jack and MAry Weigold -- yeah, Jack wouldn't mind giving it up I'm sure, and MAry Weigold did such a terrific job. You know, I'd hate to lose those talents. I'm not sure how we should structure that. But at a minimum I'd like to see a review of the ordinance and incorporate some of Dave's recommendations. And rather than having that discussion now and then, maybe it'd be better served later. But at a minimum I'd like to see a member of this board serve on the committee. I'd like to see the ordinance changed to allow for that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only comment would be I don't think -- I'd like for the board member not to chair the productivity committee. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm not sure -- as I said, Jack -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, I didn't hear that. I didn't hear that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I said I'd like for the commissioner who's on the committee not to chair the committee. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not to chair the committee. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not to chair. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't -- I -- I would maybe go one step further and suggest that to make sure that the productivity committee stays completely neutral and isolated from the county commission that the -- the commissioner who joins the committee would be an ex officio member. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed. MR. CRAIG: In -- in Palm Beach the -- the commissioner who -- sits as a member of the committee, but he is primarily the liaison. He provides the corporate memory, if you will, of years past from the commission's point of view. It appears to be a very satisfactory -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we have a total of four years of corporate memory -- three years. MR. CRAIG: Well, if you add it up, you got more than that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I like the idea, and I -- and I too believe that the commission member should probably not be the chairman even though on the privatization sub -- sub -- or the privatization task force I am the chairman, but I don't vote by -- by the resolution that is -- is established that the chairman does not vote. So I -- I would like to see that also with this. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That the -- the -- it's strictly a liaison to give input as to how the -- how the county is going to function around whatever the question is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would you think of having the position rotate with the chairman like we do on TDC or couple other committees? And that way we always have -- obviously you'll have someone with a little bit of institutional memory because the likelihood of a first-year commissioner being chair is small, and also it keeps that fresh face annually. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I guess the problem with that as being chairman right now -- and -- and you probably remember from being chairman last year -- the chairman does take on a -- a lot of functions in that -- in that year. And it gets very, very busy. And I -- I think it might be more appropriate to spread it around so that we might have that person be the vice chair, or we might have that person be the immediate past chair -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about the vice chair? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- if you want that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about the vice chair? If -- if we feel -- if we're afraid the responsibilities are falling too much to the chairman, you've been chairman. I haven't. You can answer it better than I can. Maybe vice chair would sit as a member. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like immediate past. I mean, I don't care, but I think either one of those are good ideas. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that way it rotates either way, and there is some history of -- like you said, even a first-year person being vice chair is -- is probably not -- well -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It did happen. But when we're all new, it's going to happen so -- but anyway, what -- I -- I think the direction is that we like the idea of -- of the mini-grace commission. We like the idea of a county commissioner be -- being a liaison. As to who that person should be, we can figure that out, I think, at a later date. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I could ask, Dave, are there some other structural changes you see as key to changing the way in which the productivity committee addresses issues? MR. CRAIG: I'd like to think about that a bit, Tim. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CRAIG: I appreciate the opportunity to answer that. I would -- I notice a couple of things. In Palm Beach they tried to sunset a lot of the committee action, the advisory committees, and were unable to do that for various reasons. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You want it done? MR. CRAIG: I think my suggestion would be for the commissioners to take a look at those to see if we could simplify the structure some. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, we -- we spent what? Three hours talking about it and ended up sunsetting one? MR. CRAIG: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, so yeah, there's an inability there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We've tried to do that various times in the past, Dave. But I might point out that we still have in existence our Collier County horse's carriage advisory committee, so it's a little difficult to get them out once you get them started. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we could -- if we could schedule this on a board agenda item so we can give direction to make changes to the ordinance and ask Mr. Craig if you would bring back a list of what you feel are pertinent points that should be effected in the ordinance to improve the -- I -- I know a lot of them are in this report. Rather than me picking them out, I think you probably have a weight of importance to them. MR. CRAIG: I'd rather bring that back through the committee with your permission. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That -- that's fine. Is that -- is that agreeable? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have no problem with it. Everybody okay with that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Dorrill, if you'll communicate when this is placed on the agenda to the committee -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to ask Mr. Dorrill how long do you think that might take? I know the 7th is a busy agenda now. MR. DORRILL: That agenda will be fixed today so I -- and sent to the printer. So my inclination is probably the following week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The 14th? MR. DORRILL: With your immediate direction, we would have had a chance to analyze the report by then, have maybe some specific recommendations that we'll save for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. HcKenna? MR. HCKENNA: We have just two more items, and Mr. Steve Perkanski is going to give you an overview on those items. MR. PERKANSKI: This is a surprise to me this morning, so I have to apologize for the lack of preparation. But the chairman was not here, and I was informed about ten minutes ago that I was filling in. So this is on service efforts and accomplishments, and this committee is just in the basis preliminary stages of doing some research on this project. And I've spoken to and so has Doug several auditors and accountants on what's going on with this, and we have books and manuals. And we're really not sure where to go with it right now. The government county standards board has issued in -- a pronouncement regarding SEAs, and the pronouncement is not a formal action which has not been taken. Rather they have backed off for a number of reasons in making reporting voluntary. A few years ago there was talk of making this part of the financial statements and trying to establish some service efforts and accomplishments as an additional measurement of government services because there is no profit motive and that this was discussed as an issue and motive. Part of the problem is geographic information systems which are being established, and the National League of Cities is doing some researches on SEAs and trying to establish some statistics -- statistics to measure and evaluate some of the problems that some things can be evaluated and have statistics and have a degree of accomplishment such as response times for EHS. The problem becomes that you can't compare statistics from one community to another so you have to develop your own in-house statistics and compare your improvements over time on those things. And this is another time-consuming task. Plus it must be determined what is worth measuring, and I -- we will probably come back to the commission at some point in time, and maybe there's a pilot program that warrants a look and a good starting point in terms of value -- of evaluation. The problem is even in Collier County with the size of it there is tremendous geographic differences and cultural differences within this county alone, and do you evaluate the same level of services throughout for the rural, agricultural areas that you want to provide within. These are just some of the problems that we've had and what is reasonable, what is not reasonable. Plus the basic question is what services do the citizens of the county expect, and what levels of service do they want and do the commissioners feel is necessary. So that's where this committee is, and I apologize for the fill-in. And Doug was not able to make it. And we're still doing some research and coming out. And we'll probably be back to the commissioners and ask what would you like us to look at specifically rather than just looking at this as a general question. I think we need a more specific direction where you'd like to go, if you have a pilot program or something that can be evaluated. And it's going to be an ongoing task over a number of years and not something that can come to fruition over a short period of time. I'm open to any questions you might want to ask. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? There don't seem to be any. MR. PERKANSKI: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. MCKENNA: Well, I apologize. Budget systems and procedures is something that Doug's been working on also. I think he's had some preliminary meetings with staff. I don't believe that there's been any conclusions that we've come to at this point. And I -- at this point I'm not prepared to give you a date as to when we would have that. I would think that we should be able to have something back to you by that January 30 workshop, though. I think that's a reasonable goal. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you think Mr. Finn could amplify what the -- what the progress is? MR. MCKENNA: He might well be able to. MR. FINN: If you'd like me to -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If -- if you could just tell us where we are in the process -- I know -- I know that it's ongoing but -- MR. FINN: Edward Finn, budget office. Doug and his subcommittee have, in fact, met several times on this particular subject. There was a previous productivity committee report prepared on the budget system and the procedures that are employed in the development of the budget system. They have taken a look at that. Just for everyone's information, that report essentially said the budget systems that we use work fairly well. They provide the Board of County Commissioners with a good overview of what's going on, and they essentially provide the community with a feeling that -- that the people making decisions on the budget are, in fact, informed and they do know what's going on. In general that report said that we were doing a pretty good job. I have a feeling that this committee is going to look a little more closely at some of the procedures, and they may perhaps even suggest some areas where the budget system as a whole may be or could be streamlined. So I think -- I think that's what you're going to see is -- is them looking at streamlining what we do rather than a -- any areas that are in serious need of improvement or raise some concerns for them. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Thank you. Bettye? Commissioner Mac'Kie? Just in the nature of direction if appropriate or request since it's a committee, I -- I would hope that what this committee is going to do is -- if streamlining is the right word but -- but measure our budget process by a similar process in a corporation of similar budgetary size where the board of directors gets all of the information you give us which is wonderful and I want it but also gets an English language translation of what the budget says in a -- in a executive summary kind of format and -- and where the process is clearer than it was for me this time. That's my highest hope for what this productivity committee is doing in reviewing the budget process is that they will allow us to act more like a board of directors for a corporation making budgetary decisions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you're asking for a budget written in laymen terms. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like English. English would be good. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it's great, yeah. Easier to -- easier to understand it. Mr. HcKenna? MR. HCKENNA: Any other questions or thoughts? Well, I'd like to thank all of you for this opportunity and thank your staff also because it really has been enlightening to me. The support and cooperation's been wonderful, and I've -- I've enjoyed serving. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. I think the productivity committee has shown us in general that they are prepared to do and have done a very, very good job over the last -- it's six or seven years I guess they've been -- they've been around. They've been a great help to us in helping us find new ways to do hold things and new ways to do some new things so I -- I'm really pleased with it. And I think we owe them a -- a real debt of gratitude for citizens willing to dedicate so much time to this. With that, I vote -- MR. DORRILL: I might add they're very efficient. Mr. Finn said they would take no more than 45 minutes. And by my watch it's 43 minutes, 30 seconds. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not that we were counting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The next item on -- on the -- on the agenda, Mr. Weigel had asked for a few minutes yesterday to talk about his time tracking program and where -- where he's headed for that. He said he needed about five minutes. And then I would presume we'll take a break, is that correct, Mr. Dotrill -- MR. DORRILL: We'll rearrange the room. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and rearrange the room? MR. DORRILL: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Briefly -- and I've had opportunity to speak with the commissioners individually for background. But last spring in the budget discussions, the county attorney office did receive a general direction from the board to implement a billing system for all departments in essence to provide an accountability for all of the work done from the county attorney office. And with the review and cranking forward to get this implemented with the new fiscal year, we have found that -- of course, that to -- to implement the billing system beyond our mere time tracking and time management system that we have will be rather human resource intensive both from our legal assistants, secretary, and attorneys. We're keeping time presently, always have been, where we can track our work product by individual that provides us the work request -- excuse me -- which is request for legal services. We also have a code number that we use. We have a subject matter number. We have about five different ways to input and come back and show accountability for work that is performed in the office, who does it, over what time span that it occurs, and it assists the county attorney with internal management and also tracking for request for legal services that we want to have, of course, appropriate response time to whomever the -- pardon me -- whomever -- whomever the client may be within the -- within the county and -- and public sector that we work with. My request is that I would like to not implement a billing system to the departments, to the board, to whom all we serve for the reason that my premise of office is to work with the staffs, with the departments, with the individuals of the departments in a preventative basis, in a seminar basis, in an ongoing basis which I think we may have a disincentive to have accomplished by virtue of the fact that our -- our every interaction with the departments will become an element of the next year's budgetary considerations. There is an indirect billing process that's been in place for several years implemented through the direction of the management of budget office. I think it works pretty well, provides an accountability for the kind of service that we provide. So with that in mind, I'll respond to any questions. But my sincere hope would be that the attorneys, the legal assistants, the secretaries can do the legal work and not be tied up with more administrative work -- response is what we want to give -- and be as effective as we can in that regard. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, I agree with Mr. Weigel. We had this discussion a couple weeks ago. The one place it -- it -- the tracking that you do, if the question's asked how much time, you know, and then you can appropriate dollars, how much time is spent on development services issues, you're able to answer that right now, aren't you? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Development services is one of those areas in Collier County that's, in fact, a -- more or less a cost center that is supposed to pay for itself by way of fees, as is utilities. The time you spend on utilities, you also contract that time and put an associated cost with it; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: At the present time we haven't adopted -- we'll have to adopt, unless the board changes its direction, an -- a fee for the attorney service that we provide so that we can actually bill the individual departments all within the county framework with whom we do work. And it all should add up to a hundred percent of our attorney and legal assistant time taking into account our overhead. It's a difficult factor to come up with. We have to do some averaging and make some compromises along that line. But we can certainly at this point with the current tracking that we have show what individual is -- is -- is making request for legal services, the time that's spent for the department, the time that's spent for any enterprise fund. We think we can show accountability for almost any question that's asked generally. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- one problem I have is that I -- I fully agree that we're something as in essence cost centered out of an enterprise fund. There -- there's an -- there's a cost that's incurred through the county attorney. MR. WEIGEL: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But where we bill that, there's a line between billing something that that department has the choice of seeking counsel on or using the county attorney or where it is, in fact, under the auspice of the county attorney to do that work. There's some things that our county attorney's mandated to do in utilities for protection of the public. And -- and -- MR. WEIGEL: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- there's a very fine line between those two, what, in fact, is a -- a -- a needs oriented billable type item and what is a typical work product that -- that the county attorney's expected to perform for a department. And I don't know how to draw that line. And the type of -- of process you're talking about would require you to do that. And I'm not sure that that's that clear. MR. WEIGEL: Well, one thing I'll say is that I don't believe that the county attorney office has an excessive capacity in regard to staff. As we become more and more internally oriented to handle litigation, this takes significant -- and I can't overemphasize -- a significant time for the attorneys that are providing the day-to-day tasks of which the departments rightfully wish to have a reasonable turnaround. The complexities of some of the matters, whether it's capital construction -- and I will say that through the reorganization of what was the capital projects department and continued reorganization, I think we have a -- a -- more of a flow of work coming from those departments and ergo through the county attorney office that we maybe have not had in prior years. Chalk that up to the efficiency of the other offices, but it does create an additional demand on our office. My desire is that the county attorney's office, the assistants, the assistant county attorneys all who work there, we seem to have more work that we can do anyway, and so we're kind of juggling. We're keeping the plates spinning on the sticks. Any time we take more of our resource away from the ability to perform the function of response and turnaround, that makes it a little more difficult to get the work done because it always seems to be there. And we are not looking to be rain makers and create more work for ourselves. In fact, if we can work in the preventative maintenance fashion without distancing any of the staff to work with us, we will solve more problems at the early stage and not have to do the more intensive litigation or outside litigation help on some of the complex matters that we have. It's not altruistic that I -- that I bring this up. It's just that there's so much work anyway that I hate to take on more tasks that gets us away from the immediate response that we want to do of the various types of work that we do do with the -- with the different departments and with the public. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: When -- David, when you and I talked about this, I -- I just to want say I want to endorse David's request because when we talked about it, he said that for this year in the first year of his service as the county attorney, he has a program in mind for seminars training our departments on how to do a -- better jobs in drafting documents, for example, so that there's less work required in the county attorney's office. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I want to give him at least this year to implement that program. And let's talk again next year maybe about billing. But, you know, it's his first year as county attorney. He has a vision for how he wants -- the service he wants to provide, and I think we ought to let him do that when he has such a valid program in mind to train and provide seminars among the different departments. So I -- I heartily endorse and tell you please go and do it on my -- for my vote. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: While I agree with Ms. MAc'Kie on this one, I do need to point out that what brought this discussion forward in the first place was the feeling that there was a lot of unnecessary to even frivolous usage of the county attorney's office. So if -- if now you are not going to do a billing program or a modified billing program, what will you do to try to cut down on the number of unnecessary hours that you have to provide? MR. WEIGEL: Well, obviously it works both ways. If -- if we perceive and I think any -- any attorney, any professional office, if they perceive a client that is wasting its time, wasting its time, in the private sector, yes, you slap them with the bills, and after a while they get the message that, my gosh, I'm my own worst enemy in that regard. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those are our favorite clients. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's in the private sector. MR. WEIGEL: But we're not looking for a -- we want -- obviously we continue the relationship, of course. We're into the system. But I believe it's going to take the county attorney office responsibility. What I hope to do more of is we're going to have to meet with the departments in a coordinated fashion set up over time so that we can assist -- assist them in having a better work product, not that their work product is bad now, but we're dealing with rather complex matters. There's no question about it. So that when request for legal services come to us with six, you know, inches of contracts or more, et cetera, that yes, we'll make revisions. Yes, we'll turn them back to the department. We've already -- we've had in line under Mr. Cuyler that we would get something back within ten business days. Well, if we get something back within ten business days but it's fraught with need for revision and we make the revisions and get them back on the eighth or ninth or tenth day, then the department has to make the revision and get it back to us again, and we're back in the cycle. And I want to cut down the cycles by giving better product in the first place. I respect and I expect that the departments will not deal with us frivolously, and I would also expect that the county manager and his departments will recognize that it's to our own best interest not to dillydally back and forth along that line. I'm fully prepared to call a spade a spade during the course of this first year, particularly if I -- if -- if it -- if it comes my way in regard to frivolous departmental requests. I just -- my charge is to use my staff as efficiently as I can to avoid -- and I must avoid compensatory time for having to go beyond the statutory hours. And it's a difficult task. And I think maybe I can best meet it this way still assuring the board that we have the accountability that if you ask who's done what on what project for whom, we can come up with that answer through the system that we already have in place. We're embellishing it some, but we've had the basic system in place. In regard to the enterprise funds, again, I think an approach to fairness in regard to a -- an allocation of charge was done long ago. But part of the difficulty with the county attorney general practice that we have is that we may have a matter which becomes a lawsuit and who do we charge the lawsuit to? For tracking purposes we can show that it had an initiation maybe from development services or an initiation from the parks and rec. department. But once the Board of County Commissioners is sued, it's a Board of County Commissioners item, and we're defending the board as the county. And in essence we'd be billing you too. If we're -- if we're really approximating the true -- the true budget and billing system of private practice, we could do that. Will the litigation that the county attorney handle be an item of the Board of County Commissioners' budget appropriation in future years? Well, I suspect not. But if we take it out to its true accountable conclusions, that's where we come. And at the same time the work's going to be done no matter who it's billed to at all. It must be done or I'm not doing my job. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I share Commissioner Norris's concern and had -- had asked you that, as a matter of fact, in our little one-on-one session. But I nominated you for the position because I feel you are uniquely qualified to do the job of county attorney, and I've got to agree with Commissioner MAc'Kie that we need to give you the latitude to do that. Obviously that -- the one item Commissioner Norris mentioned is of concern, has been of concern in the past. And it sounds as though you are indeed addressing that. But with that in mind, I just want to give you my support as well. I think what you've outlined gives me some level of comfort that we can address that and still spend you and your staff's time more productively. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with that. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I appreciate that. And certainly during the course of the year at any time we look forward to respond to the accountability requests that may come up as to our allocation to particular agencies or enterprise funds. And I in no way want to seem inflexible at all. But I just wanted to admonish the board that we're just about to get into the billing process, and we've done everything we can to implement it. But I prefer not to if we can use our -- our limited resource that we have on the work that's at hand which is vast, I believe. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Han '- Two -- may I? Commissioner Hancock was next. I -- I just -- again, I support my -- my colleague's comments and would ask that if at some point a department's use of your office becomes excessive and in your opinion to an unnecessary extent that you'll let this board know. MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate that. Yes, of course. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine was just that Mr. Finn is a better estimator of time. You said five minutes, and I don't know. I didn't catch it. And the other one is as soon as we have PCs, buy the program Time Slips. It's a great time tracking program for lawyers. I'll be glad to show you mine. MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's fine. We've -- we've already got two or three programs that we're looking at right now. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It takes all the administrative headache out of keeping time. MR. WEIGEL: It doesn't work so easily with the system that we have, but we'll do it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The PCs will help solve that problem. Thank you. And I think you have the word from us that the billing itself may certainly wait. MR. WEIGEL: I thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock, did you have something that you needed to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did. We discussed I think on October 17 and asked the county attorney to bring to us on November 7 at our regularly scheduled meeting a discussion item regarding the guard house at Lely Barefoot Beach. I said at that meeting that there are a few things that we have to recognize. I made the mistake of thinking this was all about public access about two months ago and found out that that's not the case. So I think what people are recognizing is the guard house has -- has got to -- to be moved. It's in the wrong location. It needs to be done in tract A if it's going to exist at all. And all I did is put together a couple sketches of whether it goes in the median or on the side of tract A, and these would be what I hope are starting points for our discussion on the 7th. I guess the old picture's worth a thousand words. If we have an idea of what's there and what the physical constraints are on the site, I think we can make a -- a better decision. And the one thing I want to stress is that obviously this has been in court in one form or another for a significant period of time, and we can move ahead and surely end up with an injunction, or we can move ahead in concert with all the parties and get a solution that works best for everybody. That would be my -- my preferred option. So with that, I'm just going to hand these out to the board, and I've got some extra copies to make available for people. These are not recommendations. These are just simply visual pictures of what could happen on site so that we have a starting point to talk with, and that's really all I was hoping to do today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just '- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to be sure that we aren't undoing anything -- at our last meeting, whatever the date was, we asked the county attorney's office to have the code enforcement action go forward with all deliberate speed, and we aren't changing that in this discussion. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: There are really two separate items here. One is the code enforcement action about the -- the location of the existing guard house which I think has been recognized by this board to be in the wrong place. What we're then going to have to deal with is if the Lely homeowners want a guard house, it's gotta occur in tract A. How is it going to occur in tract A? And we are probably going to be part of that discussion if not named in a lawsuit when they have to rebuild it. So, you know, I think two things are inevitable. One is that they will want a guard house in tract A as afforded in their PUD, and we are going to be a part of that discussion, like it or not. I'm trying not to eliminate them from this process or their input from the process but include it so we can try and stay out of court and stop spending tax dollars in -- in front of a judge. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously all of us would prefer to stay out of court and save those tax dollars. However, it was some 14 months ago or something like that that we first started in on this process, maybe a year ago. And I assume our attorney's staff and their attorneys and everyone have made an effort. I'm not suggesting we should stop that, but I think it's also naive to think that we can all sit down and be one big, happy family. I think we can make an effort and continue to do that. Particularly you weren't on the board early on. I think you're more in touch with it perhaps than some folks. But I think we need to continue to do that. But they don't need to be separate tracks. I think the code enforcement action and/or the court action need to go on so you have the carrot and stick syndrome. We can talk and try to work things out, but I don't think we should delay the court action because we've already been through one season since that area was cited. I'd hate to go through another. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I said nothing about delay. This in no way stands in -- in -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This isn't a criticism, Tim. I'm just saying I want to be careful. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. And I want to make it clear because I've been mischaracterized about this issue from the start. The word compromise got shown in the paper when I never issued anything. So I'm very sensitive about being drawn a certain way not by your comments. But I in no way am asking that our actions on November 7 are to be delayed, slowed, or stopped. What I'm saying is there is, in fact, a separate course that -- the county permitted that thing where it is, issued a CO on it, just like Hideaway Beach. You know, somebody on our staff who's no longer here made a stupid mistake. That thing never should have been allowed where it is. So I think the developer at that time is responsible, and I think in a very small way the county's responsible for issuing a CO on a building that shouldn't be there. Now, you know, we may not like that comment. Mr. Weigel is writing furiously as I speak. But I -- I think it -- it is something we are going to be involved in. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. And I -- I'm just saying those need to be parallel courses rather than -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And they can be. I fear, though, that this would hold up the November 7 discussion, and I don't want that to happen. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I had -- I don't have a drawing here that I'm going to hand out. I will for next week. But I think there are four key areas to this. There are a number of things that seem to get thrown in that I consider to be unrelated or unnecessary parts of this. But it seems to me there are four simple parts that everybody seems to agree. I've spoken with the residents and their board that lives there as well as CAB and some of the others, and these four areas no one disagrees with. And so it's a matter of how do you implement these. First and most importantly is unencumbered public access to the park itself. I consider unencumbered to be not only do they have the right to drive through there, but there is no barrier, physical, visual, or otherwise, so that you and I know that we have that right. But if Joe and Sally Snowbird come from Connecticut and are not familiar with the area and they see a couple of gates there the way they do now, there is a visual barrier to them. And while they have the right to go through there, they may hesitate. They may not know. So I think the unencumbered public access is the number one item. After-hour security for the residents who live there, no one that I've spoken to disagrees with that. They're very comfortable, and at night they should have full and complete security there. And obviously no one needs to be going into the park after dark. No one argues with that. Third, that there should be some area somewhere for contractors or visitors to the condos or the UPS man who needs directions or whatever, someplace for them to stop. Again, that shouldn't be in the middle of the road the way it is now, but there needs to be some sort of information or security area for that purpose. And fourth, as you said, the gatehouse has to go. And I think even the homeowners recognize it's not appropriate where it is So if we take those four points, I've kind of made up some sketches and talked with some folks, and I'm going to make some alterations to that and have those -- have something next week. And we can play with those a little bit. But I think it's important that those four areas -- and maybe you agree; maybe you disagree. But I don't know that it goes -- the scope of what we're trying to do needs to go a whole lot beyond that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's -- I'm in full agreement with that, and that's what -- what I depicted as "A" seems to be the minimum to accomplish those four things without going overboard. And just, again, for your information, what I depicted as B is what some people may say, what some residents may say, they're entitled to. Whether you agree or disagree with it is a whole different ballgame. But of what I've put together seems like the simplest solution is embodied in drawing A, and that's where I would want to start discussion, and -- and we'll go from there. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other thing just for the legal record, I'm not in agreement that the county's legally responsible for the mess that's up there. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm not -- I'm not doing Mr. Weigel's job for him. I'm telling you that -- that a CO was issued for something that shouldn't be where it is. And who's responsible, I don't know, but we're going to have to have that discussion at some point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, we're on the agenda for this for next week? MR. WEIGEL: Sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: I -- I will say I thought this was going to be brought back to you as staff discussion as opposed to a formal agenda item. I thought it would be tucked away as a formal agenda item under county attorney. One thing I'll note is that inasmuch as all of the interested parties are a part of the court proceeding right now, the state finally having come aboard -- and parenthetically let me state that we always felt the state should be aboard in the court action, and the Court did not agree with our motion that they were an indispensable party, notwithstanding that we in part are merely stewards of the state's rights along that public right-of-way. But ultimately the state has come in, albeit somewhat belatedly. And, therefore, they shall become a player to any type of settlement or action that the Court should entertain. As far as our separate action that relates to code compliance, Code Enforcement Board, that is limited to the extent of the county interest, the county ordinance, the county PUD, the county building permit approvals. And the state is not directly involved in that nor would it have to be. But I dare say -- and I have talked with a few of the commissioners individually -- that the fact that we have a Court of competent jurisdiction with all of the parties and essentially all of the issues before it may lead the Court to not allow us to go forward with our separate code compliance notice of violation, Code Enforcement Board proceeding. We have had a response from the Lely property owners' counsel saying that if we go forward they will seek an injunction in the court, the Court that already has jurisdiction over all of the parties and has all of the issues, the essential issues. So we may -- we, the county, may go ahead and -- and pursue the administrative action of code compliance. But we may not be able to go along that path for very long in the sense that the Court may exercise its options, jurisdictional pleasure, of stopping our action through code compliance until the issues are settled in the court itself. If we had gone forward with the code compliance and not been preempted by the lawsuit that was filed against the county back in February -- and, again, I think the history's important -- the county was preparing to go forward with code compliance but was estopped by the -- by the case being filed against the county by the Lely resident group looking for the status quo of the gatehouse. Having brought us into the Court's forum, the court jurisdiction, is why the county did not go forward with its separate code compliance or non-compliance activity at that time, notwithstanding we did a lot of homework in that regard and had been for years, in fact. But at this point right now, although we certainly have the option of pursuing the administrative code compliance, non-compliance scenario, we may not have the option of getting to the Code Enforcement Board with that by virtue of the fact that the Court may understand and accept the jurisdiction over all the parties and the issues that it already has as not allowing us to use the separate administrative forum. In a nutshell, if -- if the violator, if the alleged violator, was not happy with what Code Enforcement Board told them, they'd go to court. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They'd go to court anyway. MR. WEIGEL: Essentially they're before the appellate tribunal already. They're in court, and all the parties are there. It took a long time to get the state to be there, and now it's there. And -- and what we, the county, are doing is responding to the -- to the -- to the -- to the statements and -- and -- and filing that has been done by the state as is Mr. Hazzard and the group for the Lely property owners. And that's where the status of that is right now. We're responding to the entry and allegations of the state. And from there we'll be looking to be scheduling hearings on the actual issues themselves coming up soon. So you'll hear more about that next week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll hear more about that next week. I think that concludes the workshop portion of our agenda today. We'll take a 10- or 15-minute break while the room gets rearranged, and we will move into our planning session. Thank you. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's -- I want to reconvene the workshop for the Board of County Commissioners for October 31, 1995. We're going to move into the planning session. And I want to turn this over to Mr. Dotrill to give us the parameters and ground rules and introductions. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but could we have Mr. Constantine join our circle? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was told I couldn't sit there. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can't sit there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was told by our chair I couldn't sit there. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. You two split up. Conrecode get in between Bettye and John. It's the mommy in me. I can do this. Constantine, get over here now. MR. DORRILL: By Weigel. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is going to look good on the minutes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't care about the minutes. Come on and play. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would also have made it easier to slip out the door. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I'm watching you. MR. DORRILL: By -- by way of introduction, most of you either remember Mr. Sumek, Lyle. Lyle says that this is -- that he never wears a tie to these things, but he was coming to Naples so he wore his tie this morning. But he immediately said all the dark suits must be your staff people, and he suggested that we be comfortable. Protocol, we're going to try and work through lunch. Mr. Constantine has a speaking engagement. I promised him we won't draw any conclusions during lunch. But we have made arrangements to have some Subway sandwiches be brought over. It's going to be a Dutch treat. Our clerk seems to think that you can buy coffee and doughnuts with the public's money but not sandwiches. So for those of you in the audience, there will be some extra sandwiches. And you can get a Subway sandwich and a diet Coke for three bucks, and it's a pretty good deal. And the arrangements have been made for that. Mr. Constantine will be back about one o'clock. Lyle's had an opportunity to talk to the majority of -- or most of the county commissioners in advance of being here today. We'll be here until about two or three depending on everyone's stamina and hopefully are going to have a great day. Good morning, Lyle. Glad you're here. MR. SUHEK: Hi. MR. DORRILL: It's your turn. MR. SUHEK: You need to tell me because I don't know all of you. I can't remember all of that. MR. DORRILL: Excuse me. Then we'll do the go-around-the-circle thing. MR. SUHEK: All right. Help the outside person. MR. DORRILL: We'll start with Leo. MR. OCHS: Leo Ochs, support services administrator. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tim Hancock, county commissioner. MR. WEIGEL: David Weigel, county attorney. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tim Constantine representing district 3 on the Board of County Commissioners. MR. SUHEK: That's some tie too, Tim. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Tim, we're not campaigning here. You are at lunch but maybe not here. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: John Norris, county commissioner. MR. CONRECODE: Tom Conrecode, public works. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bettye Matthews, county commissioner. HR. SUHEK: HR. HCNEES: office. HR. SUHEK: HR. CAUTERO: I know Neil. Mike McNees from the county manager's Pam I know. I'm Vince Cautero from community development and environmental services. MR. OLLIFF: And Tom Olliff, public services. I would really -- I'm going to take my tie HR. SUHEK: off. HR. DORRILL: HR. SUHEK: one is? You can now. We've started. Anybody else going to join me in this? No COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mine's glued on. MR. OCHS: Mine's clipped on. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's embarrassing to take off. MR. SUMEK: I'm serious. Take your coats off and relax. At least loosen your tie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought we talked about coming in costume. MR. SUMEK: Well -- well, your socks -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My socks are cool. Little earrings here. Get in the spirit, people. MR. SUMEK: Let me go over the -- the game plan for today. We've got a lot to do in a fairly short period of time. The outcomes, by the time we've gotten done today, hopefully there will be a defined direction for the county where the county commissioners want to go looking out five years. And if you think five years out, that's the year 2001. That's not all that far off. The second thing we're going to hopefully get done today is have an action agenda, targets for action during next year. These are not general things but specific things. And most of the counties I've worked with in Florida, they post them in the county commission rooms, and they check them off when they get them done. And in Portsmouth they even put wow by one because they built a children's museum, spending over 18 million dollars in 9 months which -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Holy cow. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just say no, the spending over 18 million, whatever that was. MR. SUMEK: Well, this is -- well, this is -- this is a community that has been known as sort of -- not the most attractive in the Tidewater area. And they even have a flying carousel that kids love, and I'll explain what that is later if any of you are interested. And then another outcome is enhancing the effectiveness of the county government by providing leadership. What we're going to do today is look at where you are looking at successes, where you are, what you gotta progress, where you want to go. And I'm going to take you out in a few minutes five years. I've had a chance to talk with the majority of the commissioners and ask them what do they want the -- Collier County to be. We're going to go out to this destination point. Over here I have taken those notes and translated them into what I would identify as ten outcomes. We're going to talk about each one of those outcomes, identify some benchmarks of success. And hopefully for those of you I talked to, they do look vaguely familiar. If not, then we got a little problem here. And then we're going to prioritize those and get you to say, okay, county commission, which ones do you feel are the most important? Can't do all of them. What is most important to you? And then we're going to back it off after lunch and say, okay, if that's where you want to go, what do we need to do to get there? Build a map of specific targets that we want to get done during the next year. That becomes your action agenda. It's like taking a trip. First of all, you need to know where you're going. You either go to Miami or Tampa, Orlando. Determine your destination. None of those; right? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None of those. MR. SUMEK: And then once we got that determined how to get there. Let me make a couple of preliminary comments very quickly. As I've worked with Mayco and done some things this year, there's some real challenges out there, and I'd like to talk about those. The county commissioners' responsibility is to listen to the community, is focusing the direction, deciding what goals and policies are, monitoring the results and accomplishments, and holding staff accountable on how it's carried out, educating and mobilizing support and celebrating successes. But I think there's some real challenges there. The first challenge that I think you all face is how do you build champions. If you look at your county like most counties, we can draw a normal curve of your population. The group you tend to hear most from is the negative 20 percent. You know who some of those folks are. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: By name. MR. SUMEK: Yes. Tim, I bet if we had those names written down, you'd have a common list of several of those folks. They're not ones that are likely to assume any responsibility for making the county better. But they're always there threatening, firing at you. And this group here has become increasingly threatening. They have -- also know how to -- I believe at times we ought to eliminate the public hearing process because this group knows how to manipulate the process. This group here is networking today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. MR. SUMEK: And this group here is intimidating to the point that a lot of times the goals are set by default by the negative 20 percent. Media tends to love this person because they get great quotes from them. And you know sometimes this group lies. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. MR. DORRILL: No. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Huh-uh. MR. SUMEK: They sort of misrep -- they don't tell you the whole truth, this group. The key then is how do we mobilize the other 80 percent and identify champions that share with us what we want to get done. And today we need to reach out to them. And I'm really urging folks to do little things like rip a page out of your telephone book and call ten citizens on a specific issue. They'd be shocked to get a call. It's reaching out here. Or if you're going to have a public meeting, why don't each one of you invite ten people who are not actively involved in the process and invite them? How will citizens react if they get a special invite from you? Real well. And that outreaches beyond the negative 20 percent because we need to identify champions who are out in the community that share the vision, the goals, and become partners with us. A second thing is I'm finding more and more we're spending time on unimportant items and not the important ones and at the end you go, why did we spend so much time on this matter? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Welcome to Collier County. MR. SUHEK: No. Well, last week I was in Los Alamos County. We got a few golfers here; right? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Host of our elected officials. MR. DORRILL: Three and a half. MR. SUHEK: They have a municipal golf -- it's a city-county combination, and they have a golf course there. The ball went out of the golf course and hit a guy's window, windshield, on this car, shattered it. So he came to the county board. And he said, would you mind paying my $250 deductible? And this group, Los Alamos -- you know where that is where the -- they have seven Ph.D.'s or double Ph.D.'s on their council. So they said they had to study the issue. So they took golf balls. They had Bilotta and Sirling cover, hit them with nine irons, five irons, three irons, and drivers -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like -- I like this so far actually. MR. SUHEK: -- to -- to see whether they can generate the jewels of energy to shatter the windshield. And after all their studies, they found out the jewels of energy could not be generated. Therefore, the windshield must've either had a defect or a crack. Therefore, the county isn't liable. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was worthwhile. MR. SUHEK: And they denied it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For $250. MR. SUHEK: One of the commissioners was ready to write a personal check after they spent about $10,000 on this study for this $250 item. That one may sound a little extreme, but I think what we need is to really focus what is important for us. And that's what we're going to be doing today, saying what's important to you because if you try to do everything, nothing's going to get done. The next one is the courage to decide. Any of you ever own a cocker spaniel? No cocker owners in here. What is -- cockers are born with long tails; right? What tends to happen -- I'm not very good at drawing an animal. But what we do in government today is it's like taking our -- our dog, cocker spaniel, to the vet because they gotta have a short tail; right? So what do we do? We tend to whack off an inch, get it sewed up. It heals. Then you take the cocker back a second time, whack off another inch. By the third time, guess what the dog's figured out? This is not going to be a pleasant experience. And sometimes we do that on issues by recycling them, by delaying decisions, by asking for more information, and sometimes you gotta just do like the vet does, whack it off. The pain's a lot less once than three times because as you stretch -- what's the matter, Pam? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing. MR. SUMEK: Is this making any sense? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. No. I'm really not going to say that. MR. SUMEK: You just gotta whack it off and then take the flack once because if you -- if you wait and delay it, it's -- it's not -- it's not as bad as you do it once. But if you delay it, boy, it mobilizes the 20 percent, media coverage of it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We should have torn the guard house down five years ago. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Speaking of issues we spend too much time on. MR. SUMEK: Well, I was in Los Alamos last weekend, and they have a library that's taken six years, that they've abandoned it, built a new library. They can't -- they've been trying to decide what it's going to do. A petition of 100 people have controlled it over the last 4 years. So my point is sometimes you just gotta whack it off and do it once and do it -- take the pain and move on. What's the matter? You're going to remember that one, huh? MR. OLLIFF: I will remember that one. MR. SUMEK: Well, the next one is I think sometimes we tend to be perfect too much. Sometimes we just need to be ready, fire, and aim. If we're going to produce results, if we have to come in with the perfect plan, we'll lose our opportunity. And ready is knowing where we're going, what is the destination, and have that in mind. It is not shooting from the hip. It is knowing what -- the outcomes you want to achieve. The firing is being willing to commit to that direction, and the other C is the courage to support it. And then the aiming is where we take action, we evaluate, and we adjust. And today we're not going to be perfect on the goal setting. I can give you a guarantee on that. But hopefully we can get ready where then you can fire off for the future. And I think once we get done, we need to take time to celebrate. And I think we don't do enough celebrating, and it's tough for county commissioners because here's your decision, and when the reality hits, there can be a time, a long time. Let me give you an example. One county I worked with has built a municipal-owned -- or it's a county-owned golf course. What is the time between decision and reality? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three to five years. MR. SUMEK: It's going to take at least a couple years. So what did they do? They had a celebration. After they had it all contoured out and before they planted the grass, they had a thing called the Dirt Open. And they had foursomes. And each person got one club of their choice. And -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could play this kind of golf. MR. SUMEK: -- they had a -- they had a big celebration of it before they planted the seeds. How'd the community react to it? They thought it was great. Is it going to be ready to play right away? No, but, boy, that Dirt Open had one heck of a lot of fun. People attended. They raised a little money for it for a few additional items. But it's celebrating as we go along, and I don't think we celebrate enough. And the final one is focus on the future. Today we're not going to dwell on the past because our future is not dependent necessarily on what has happened in the past. Let me give you an example. Since I was with you, I had a -- I've smashed my thumb. There was a big thunderstorm, and I didn't want to -- I was in my garage, and I had a van. And I didn't want to go outside, so I brought the hatch down, but I forgot to remove my thumb, and it hit right at the point of the taillight. Have any of you had that happen to you? No? I'm stuck. Do you know where the latch is on that sucker? Can you reach it? (Mr. Sumek shook head.) And my wife's gone to work. I'm in a new development, no neighbors nearby, and I'm bellowing help for 30 minutes. And I'm taking pens out of my pocket because it's really throbbing now. And so I final -- a neighbor finally gets here and says, well, he thought this was a wounded whale over here. They came over and opened it up. She said, do I call 9117 I said, no, just let it loose. As a result, this thumb is dead. I can move it, but the outer casing of the nerve's been severed. Now, the golfers, there is a severe handicap if you do not have feeling in -- try putting because you do not know how firm you are gripping the putter. So I've had -- can I go back and say, I'm going to have feeling again in this? No. It's dead. So I have to modify my putting style in order to be effective around the greens because I will never get feeling back -- it's a real trainer's handicap, too, because you can't feel when you're hitting paper. So those are some of your challenges. Today we're going to focus on teamwork. I believe governments today and the political process is built around teamwork. One doesn't mean a hell of a lot. You need how many more? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At least two. MR. SUHEK: At least two. And I think that requires some level of teamwork. What is teamwork? If you eat Frosted Flakes, you can remember what it is. It's great. That means we have goals that are unifying purposes that guide action. Are we clear on what our role is? Each one of you contribute different things. The commission's job is to decide what this county's gonna be. The staff's job is to figure out how to make it happen. You execute by taking action and evaluating and adjusting. You build partners, build an attitude that we're in this together where there's community pride. And if we do all this, the trust will come because what we commit to becomes action. And so I really urge you today not just to -- you're going to get back a thing called a leader's guide from me that summarizes what we've done here today. But your challenge will be how do you make it real. I would urge that staff give you quarterly reports on it. It gets posted. It gets shared. And successes can Occur. Let me give you an example back here. Dubuque, Iowa, had a vision of being a tourist destination point for the upper midwest. That was about eight years ago. The reality is they're almost there if not there. You cannot get a room from May to November. What'd they do? They built a municipally owned and operated dog track on the landfill, an island in the miss -- middle of the Mississippi River. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's it. MR. SUHEK: They vented the methane gas out around ponds. They had tiki torches, and it looks like these nice fiery fountains and waterfalls. It actually doesn't look too bad. But do folks realize that's methane gas from the landfill? No, that's really a neat waterfall, fiery waterfall. That's cool. And it's really just venting the -- the gas out. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tim, bring that up in your committee. MR. DORRILL: Write that down, fiery waterfall. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Fiery waterfall at the landfill. MR. SUHEK: Anyway, they in three years paid off all the debt, and today with no debt it is making money. People come there. It's in a good location. They redid a theater. They put in two new hotels downtown. They transformed Frank Lloyd Wright's experimental houses into showpieces. That's at breakfast. So we're going to look at teamwork as you can accomplish your goals. Leadership is where we believe we can create the future. Leaders are path definers saying, hey, I can influence the future. Leaders are team builders developing partners with others in the community. Leaders are drum majors inspiring others to achieve our goals. As we go through some of the -- the goals today, I think you're going to find that some of them need others. In fact, all of them need others to work with you, whether it be staff, your community, or other governmental bodies to make them happen. So what we're going to be doing the rest of the time, I'm shutting up, and I'm going to draw you out. And we're going to take now and focus in on Coll -- Collier County five years from now, year thousand -- year 2001. Some of you, it's real drastic if you start thinking about how old you're going to be in 2001. Now, where do these come from? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hancock's going to break 30. Had to say it. I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, green is your color. MR. SUHEK: Others will go through other milestones too. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, real soon. I'm going to be 40 in January. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, God, to be 40 again. MR. SUHEK: Move -- what I -- when I talked with the commissioners, I asked them what -- where do you want to be in five years and ten years, and what is it important that the county has achieved and contributed to the community? Remember that question? Some of you say yes, you do. Well, what I heard is ten different alternative outcomes. One, beautiful and aesthetic -- aesthetically pleasing community, and we're going to come back and talk about what this means. Effective drainage for storm water. MR. DORRILL: That wasn't number one? Or are these in order? MR. SUHEK: These are not in order. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm so glad to hear that we don't have beauty as our highest priority. MR. SUHEK: No, no, no, no. This was me just sort of writing down my notes, so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SUHEK: -- we got more good ones coming up. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SUHEK: A small town feeling with quality urban services provided by the county. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wow. MR. SUHEK: Okay? Next one is a diversified economy with expanding job opportunities. And what I heard from several of you is the emphasis on family wage jobs and diversifying the economic base here that -- yeah, we'll -- that one's going to take a few minutes to talk because several of you had -- and you've got some specific ideas what you would like here. But as several of you said, I want my kids to be able to come back here and be employed and live here in the community. And right now unless they got a service job or -- or an attorney was the other comment, that they may not come back. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Gee, who made that? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't imagine. And I've already told them I'll pay for anything but law school. Hed. school, fine; HBA, fine. No law school. MR. SUHEK: A fifth goal was mobility for citizens, that our citizens have an ability to get around internally and for folks to come here as well; varied and affordable housing opportunities, protection of environmental quality and natural resources; citizen-oriented county government that is responsive to neighborhoods; sustainable community through managed growth, one, that the community does exist. When older -- there's another group coming in, there's a renewing here and that our growth is managed, that we're able to provide services to those who come here. And the final one was a fiscally sound and stable county government. Again, these are not in order. And so what we're going to do is talk about each one and get you to share your ideas. And then we're going to come back and prioritize those. Do those look vaguely familiar? Do some of you see some of the things you talked to me about? That's helpful if you do. Okay. And I -- I go by first names unless you want to be called otherwise, so that's the way I tend to operate. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's better than what we're normally called. MR. SUHEK: What are you normally called, Tim? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, runs the gamut. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Sample name. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Sample name. MR. SUHEK: All right. Aesthetically -- a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing community, what does that mean to you all? What do you want to see there in five years? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, since it was my idea, what it means to me is -- is we don't have anything directing how we look. You can come in and build anything any way you want as long as it meets minimum building codes. Who cares how it looks? And we're going -- you know, if you don't -- if you don't direct where you want to go, you're going to end up how ever someone else decides for you. So for me it just means everything should fit into an overall appearance and theme that -- that's -- that's here already. People move here because they like the way it looks and feels. And we need to find a way to -- to ask people to recreate that if they're going to build here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See, I'll probably be on the opposite side of you on that because I -- I think one of the things that I dislike, for example, about the Fifth -- Fifth Avenue, Naples, you know, everything's got to be peach. If I have to see one more peach building, I'm going to die. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those are levels of how far do you go, you know, but there are things like metal clad buildings fronting major roadways. I don't think anyone in their right mind wants to see warehouse-type buildings on roadways in Collier County, nor does it help the way we look or feel. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So minimum standards I guess I can buy. But, for example, when I was looking for a house, it's really hard for me to find a house because I did not want your basic Spanish style, you know. I finally found a house with some bricks and wood. And, you know, I don't want everything to look alike. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not -- yeah, my goal is not Boca Raton, you know, where you can't repaint your house without a permit, but we don't have anything. If Wal-Hart comes in front of us on a Tuesday and says, we're gonna put -- we want to put a store here for a fezone and we know they're gonna stick a big, gray box there, we have no vehicle to ask them to make it blend in with what's around. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a real -- I can see that. MR. SUHEK: They have alternative designs. If you push -- they'll bring the one that's concrete block. But they've got a fourth one back there that is very different if the community pushes them on it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have no way to ask them to do it. MR. CONRECODE: If I could just throw one thing out -- MR. SUHEK: Sure. MR. CONRECODE: -- I think -- I think we've taken the first step towards that with our sign ordinance, with our landscape code. I think we -- that vision is there, and I think -- MR. SUHEK: But we're not saying -- by putting it up here, this is not saying that you don't have it. This is saying this is what we want to have here. And it may be building off, again, the successes and what we've got in progress but saying, hey, that is important. And looking to the future, it's even more important. What other things would -- does a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing community mean? MR. DORRILL: It may sound a little corny, but I -- I know the city's made a reputation and the county has tried to invoke median beautification and landscaping. And you get far more positive comments about that than probably a lot of other things that we do. Very expensive, very expensive to own and operate after you put it in. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's part of it. I mean, I '- I've talked to new residents that I -- I send letters to. And those that respond back, almost half of them say, when we came down to -- you know, the difference between Lee County and Collier -- we had to live in southwest. The difference was the roadways, you know. There's landscaping and they're wider or better or freer flowing. And so -- but always they mention landscaping. MR. DORRILL: We even get a lot of comments or requests that, gee, we like the new traffic poles that we see hung on Goodlette Road, the mast arms, you know, the big metal poles with the mast arms without all the wires and all that, and why can't the county put more mast arm traffic lights in because they're more -- they're more aesthetically pleasing than -- than guide wires and concrete poles? MR. SUHEK: What would others see? John, what would you like to see out there? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The median beautification was one I was going to bring up. I know we've got -- we've got some proposals in place for how they're being worked on. But we need to make sure that we have the commitment to go through with them because I think it's very important. We have some of our older roadways that especially go out south and east that have not been done yet. They're planned to be done, but we need to make sure that that process continues. MR. SUHEK: So those older ones, bringing them up then is a key part of that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right, yeah. That I think is going to be very important. And to go along with that, there -- there has been a couple proposals and not all of them successful at this point for some neighborhood redevelopment out in the east section that may be a little difficult at this point. But that's something that we need to at least consider making a more forceful effort to get done. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I agree with that, and I hadn't thought of neighborhood redevelopment under beautification. I thought of it under economic things. And, you know, I mean, it does a whole lot more than beautification but -- MR. SUHEK: That's one where you'd hit it -- that could be a project that hits four or five goals eventually. Tim, what about you? Anything that you'd like to see out there? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have anything new other than what's there. MR. SUHEK: Okay. Bettye, any others? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I do because one of the things that strikes me when I go up north periodically to visit with my clients is how much litter and trash and dirt and what have you is laying all over the streets. And we've been very successful so far in -- in not having that happen here. But I -- I think we need to -- to really stay the course in making sure as our population grows that we invigorate our citizenry not to empty their car ashtrays when they stop the car in the middle of the street. MR. DORRILL: Really. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And you know what I'm talking about. MR. DORRILL: Yeah, I do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And an ordinance that allows you to run right over them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, you know -- but, you know, We -- We '- MR. SUMEK: Well, you're really bringing up there's a citizen responsibility to make this happen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean, sure, the government can spend the money to put the infrastructure in, but it's got to be appreciated by the citizens so it's maintained. MR. SUMEK: Because you -- if you travel around, you'll see cities where they invested a lot in landscaping and then the citizens trashed it within a fairly short period of time, and the investment didn't turn the outcome they wanted. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. MR. SUHEK: Other comments on that one? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing that may cross with number 8 in part is -- is to try and find a way for more citizens to be involved in how our community looks. I don't know that we have a vehicle for that other than the planning commission, and they can't address it because there's nothing in the code or Growth Management Plan that allows them to. So I'd like to see more citizen involvement in the way our community appears and feels. MR. DORRILL: I love your example about the Wal-Hart too because I had a chance to be at Jackson Hole over the summer. They got a beautiful Wal-Hart in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because they could ask for it. MR. SUHEK: And they do have alternative designs. You just have to say, this is not acceptable. And then they'll go, okay, we've got -- Target, Target does not have to be red. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now he tells us. MR. SUMEK: No, no. It does not need to be red. MR. CAUTERO: No, and you're right. These chains do have multiple designs and colors and things like that. I don't think there's any reason why you couldn't ask. But without that mechanism, it becomes difficult because then it looks like we're strong arming people. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. We haven't done it to others; how can we do it to them? So unless the mechanism's there, you know -- MR. SUMEK: If you get into the bay area, go to E1 Cerrito which is in East Bay just north of Berkeley and look at their Target. It is not red. It blends into the hillside there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it peach? MR. SUMEK: No, it's green. For them that's very important. It's gray and green, and you would think that's a Target because you usually see that red Target? It is not red. So anyway, let's move on to effective drainage for storm -- what do you want to see in five years there? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dry ground in wet season. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: High ground in wet season? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Dry ground. MR. SUMEK: Dry. What else? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's basically -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to see the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That kind of says it all. MR. SUMEK: We don't need to prolong it. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Bettye hit on this on something we were talking about. I want to see all of the agencies responsible for drainage in Collier County working together. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At least talking to each other. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've got three different fronts, right hand, left hand, and the middle hand, I guess, and none of them knows what each other's doing. If they do, they're keeping it a secret from us. So it's just, you know, they're not working on a common front. They're all doing their individual jobs, and it's obviously not working. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you guys -- I don't even know who has authority over what as among the three agencies. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless you see the little sign on the bridge as you cross the canal, you don't know who's responsible for it: Us, Big Cypress, or South Florida. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I blame the Basin and just call them and let them tell me, no, it's not ours. MR. SUHEK: And then they sort it out, Bettye? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And they don't know. I'm sorry? MR. SUHEK: Then they sort it out, which -- whose is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, they just tell me, it's not ours, and they leave it for me to go find out who it belongs to. MR. SUHEK: Ah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think something that's real appropriate for me right now is trying to find a way to retrofit older developments with more current water management systems. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. But, I mean, it's not just Naples Park. Poinciana Village needs that bad. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But, you know -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They were -- they were one of maybe ten neighborhoods that experienced significant flooding, and those neighborhoods themselves don't have adequate systems. And the only mechanism is they'll pay for it. I'm not saying that's wrong, but maybe there needs to be a system to walk through. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, since this is my -- my chance to tell you guys what I've been saying to community groups about how we pay for storm water systems, I think that there are two benefits to storm water. One is a quality issue. One's a quantity issue. The quality is how fast does the water get to the bay and to the Gulf and how well treated is it before it gets there. And that is a community-wide benefit that everybody ought to have to pay for, treating the quality of the water, improving the -- the output. And then the other one is a quantity issue, and that is if my house stops flooding, then I should pay for that. But county-wide there's a benefit to storm water management so that individual neighborhoods shouldn't have to be paying for it all by themselves because there's a county-wide benefit. MR. SUHEK: So you're really getting at that quality, what's the water like. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. CONRECODE: One thing back to the retrofit comment that Commissioner Hancock had, in parentheses, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, no, not in parentheses. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Capital H. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Capital letters, please. MR. SUHEK: Why don't we put it as a separate bullet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about a maintenance plan county-wide? MR. CONRECODE: Well, in some cases these older developments and subdivisions have a responsibility on themselves to maintain it, and they're not doing that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. They don't know that when their pipe clogs up under their driveway that that's their responsibility. That's their crossing, their pipe. MR. SUHEK: So a real -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Realistic maintenance. Well, and -- and county -- we haven't -- and I keep thinking about that this is a Neil Dotrill issue, so tell me if I'm wrong, that in the budget process, for example, this year, why didn't Archibald or somebody ask for one of those trucks that they have in your old department that pushes the -- unplugs it? MR. CONRECODE: It's on your agenda for Tuesday. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why wasn't that in the budget? MR. DORRILL: But she's saying why was that not a part of the original budget request. It was the preceding year, and it got taken out of the budget by the county commission. And so I think what the staff did this year was it tried to redirect having that type of heavy equipment. And they went to their second priority which was the large track excavator, and we're out for bids on a hundred and forty thousand dollar track excavator to do canal maintenance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, maybe that question belongs over there in the form of equipment needs to meet the situation. I mean, once we understand what our maintenance responsibility is, we need to have the equipment to perform it. If we don't, we need to know that. MR. SUHEK: So having that proper equipment available. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because we just don't even have it right now to be able to have prevented some of the problems. We don't have the equipment to do it. MR. SUHEK: And again, we're going to come back and focus what needs to be done to achieve this, but I think we've done a good job getting ideas out. Bettye? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Another problem that I have been hearing pretty consistently for the last couple of months in the eastern part of the county is that citizens are being told, yes, the county is going to clean that ditch out and, you know, we're going to do what we have to do. And they -- you know, the citizens say, well, okay, and then nothing happens. MR. DORRILL: That's a good point. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's true. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nothing happens. We -- we have some ditches out in the eastern part of the county that are drainage easements that have not been maintained in ten years or more. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Promises are not fulfilled at times. MR. DORRILL: I told the staff that it's -- it's the expectation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just don't lie. MR. DORRILL: Don't -- don't tell them we're coming in the dry season if we're not, or -- or don't tell them you're coming in the dry season if -- if the commissioners' expectations are already three times what we can legitimately accomplish. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But at the -- at the same time, the -- the county commission needs to accept the fact that if we're going to do this kind of maintenance, if we're going to fully take on a realistic responsibility, it's our duty to make sure the equipment and the manpower exists. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. MR. DORRILL: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- and I don't think we've done that. MR. SUMEK: And what happens is when you don't meet those commitments, you lose momentum. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, you do. MR. SUMEK: Because if I have an expectation that tomorrow I'm going to go run a marathon, my reality would be death, and I wouldn't be real satisfied with it. That's not all that dissimilar to what you're just talking about. We'll be out there to take care of your drainage ditch. Nothing happens. The citizen's very dissatisfied and says, ah, look at, that's just county government. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, you know what else? That fuels that 20 percent. MR. SUHEK: Boy, does it because then they -- they go to you and say, look at how the county messed up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- so how -- how can -- how can we get the 80 percent to work with us? MR. SUHEK: We'll talk about that this afternoon. But I think the couple of the things I talked about, getting that 80 into the room, we don't get them into the room. MR. CONRECODE: I'd like to just throw out one conflict between number 2 and number 7 and 9. The water management district, the storm water management department of the county, are in constant conflict between aquifer recharge or natural resource protection and storm water management. And it's part of getting caught in the middle of that this year that created some of the flooding problems we've had. We've got control structures and weirs that are set at a slightly higher elevation and increases the rate of aquifer recharge. And it's unfortunate that over the last ten years as that level's been increased, we've benefitted by increasing the amount of aquifer recharge. But now this year you caught us with a bad -- couple of bad storms. And we've never caught up with that, and we'll probably not catch up till the end of November or December. MR. SUHEK: Where I live in -- in Orlando -- the golfers will appreciate the golf courses, a lot of them, are closed because of the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that comes down to striking a balance by having the flexibility when you start seeing a higher than normal rainfall pattern to be able to adjust what is there. MR. SUHEK: So one of the things would be a flexibility, Tim, to adjust to what the rainfall is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, and that goes back to the three agencies and who's in charge because -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I -- I called -- many times I've called John Boldt and say, I just drove up Airport Road. There's a two and a half foot elevation difference between the water on one side and the other, and the gate's only partially open, and it's going to rain this weekend. Dah. You know, where's South Florida? You know, that gate should be open. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I talked with Paul Van Buskirk before the last heavy rain that we had. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is he the district or the Basin? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's the Basin. MR. DORRILL: Brandon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I talked with him. They're responsible for the maintenance on the 951 canal. And I was talking to him about this difference in the water level at Vanderbilt Beach Road along 951. And I said is it -- you know, at one point the water flows north and at the other point the water flows south. Is there something we can do to pump the high water to the low water and get it out of here? And he says, well, I'll put it on my schedule to go look at it Monday. And I said, Paul, you've missed what I've said. It's going to rain five inches tomorrow. We need to do it now. And I don't even know if he got out there to look at it. MR. SUMEK: I'm going to move this on, but other comments on that one? We're capturing a lot of points, and then we'll come back and do some focusing as to what needs to be done. Next one, small town feeling with quality urban services provided by county government. What does that mean? What do you want to see there? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To me it means that when we did our Growth Management Plan, we set an urban line. We drew it out by 951 and said somewhere in the future this is going to be our urban area. But it doesn't address what -- what today should be urban and what is not. I mean, there's some areas out by 951 that there's no way it can handle four units an acre because the infrastructure isn't there. And if it were to develop significantly, if -- if you look at where your water and sewer lines go, and they don't match the urban boundary. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But doesn't it cost the developer to put in the water and the sewer that the county doesn't have to put in? If they want to build out there, they gotta put it in and get the lines paid for through private sources that way. MR. CONRECODE: Or package treatment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But exactly what you're talking about is part of the problem. They go out where the land is cheapest to do the development, thereby extending lines out, thereby stretching out the urban development when you really want them to build next to where your most logical system expansion occurs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you talked about sprawling. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, and I think setting an urban boundary is a good idea, but Seattle set one too, and they're all proud of it. It's about 50 miles wide. I mean, it's this big circle on the map, and they're all part of the urban boundary and then -- MR. SUMEK: You know what they've had to do this year? The state has mandated that cities take over certain county -- services provided by the county, King County, because they can't fund all those -- at an urban level -- are you following me on that, Tim? -- at that and so the city of Kent is going from 40,000 to 65,000 in January of this year, and another 20 is being added to that city year after next mandated by the state because of what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just afraid that -- that the urban boundary was driven by the wrong reasons. I mean, the urban boundaries idea is it's where we can provide urban services, and I'm not so sure that we can provide them all within that yellow area in our Growth Management Plan. I think realistically we have to admit we can't. MR. CAUTERO: Doesn't the capital improvement element show a time frame for that to happen, though, because if that didn't happen, then the plan is internally inconsistent? I'm assuming that's not the case. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just -- it just makes sense to me that the boundary should be a flexible one that reflects what our ability to provide those services are, not a hard, fast line but one that -- that can move as -- and it allows us to focus more on what we have as opposed to being fearful of what we're going to have. MR. DORRILL: It sounds to me like what -- what you're talking about is is trying to equate density and design parameters for developments against the cost to provide the services or have major government infrastructure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that's what I heard him say. The -- I guess you've got to leave a little bit of room there for the marketplace to take care of themselves. Those out areas aren't going to sell as well if they're too far away from all the other services that are available. Case in point -- and -- and no offense to them -- but Lely has not been selling like gangbusters until some of that fills in in the meantime. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Orangetree. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so I think some of that is corrected by the marketplace itself. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. And I -- I -- I'm not '- I'm -- I'm careful to walk that line of not trying to decide what should be marketable and shouldn't in Collier County. I'm just concerned that we've set preliminarily an urban boundary that we're not ready to serve. I know we have concurrency. I know there are other things in place. But we've in essence tried to determine by just drawing a line on a map what's urban and what's not. And it doesn't take into consideration those things that define an urban area such as services, such as, you know, response times for emergency services. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that urban boundary is on the future land use, not the -- not the present land use map. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But it does -- it does allow for densities, and it does allow for some level of sprawl beyond -- and -- and again, that's -- the idea here was that we have such a tough time in Collier County -- city of Naples, in my opinion, has got it easier. They can focus on a project. They can focus on a building. They can focus on the details. We are dealing with such a large geographic area that we have a -- we have a very tough time focusing on the details because it's kind of like putting your arms around a charging elephant. You know, you're lucky if you can get a piece of the tail. And the area we're dealing with is so big that I think we're -- we're missing the details to go along and not to our fault. It's just the nature of it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we're trying to balance the reality of growth that we're experiencing with the long-term interest. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, in -- in -- in whatever way -- and I don't have any solutions. That's the problem. I recognize it as a -- as a -- as a -- a problem to be dealt with, but I'm at a loss as to how to address it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you suggesting that we contract the urban area as depicted on our future land use? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Initially that was my thought, yes. MR. CONRECODE: And time phase it? MR. SUHEK: Wasn't -- wasn't that urban area established pretty much as a -- more of a boundary between what would be considered probably developable land versus environmentally sensitive land that would probably be unavailable in the future for development? Isn't that the way that pretty much has happened, one of the major factors at least? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's my understanding, and I think that line needs to remain as far as differentiating those two. But if you just go ten feet to the west of that line, that doesn't necessarily mean we have an area that's ripe for urban development. And that's the recognition I think that isn't there. That -- that line -- I don't have any problem with that line separating the areas that we recognize are environmentally sensitive to a point that cannot sustain urban development. I don't have a problem with the line meaning that. But right now what it means to people is that the density of X can go all the way out to here as soon as we can make it affordable to do it. And I'm -- I'm not sure that's the message that we want to send, particularly when we're looking at -- at -- and Mike can recall from utilities. If you had to -- you know, if you look at providing services throughout that entire urban area in a manner which would be phased in, that's not an easy task. MR. MCNEES: Orangetree's a good example, too, because they now want county at least sewer and probably some day county water. And there they are way out, and I know Tom's working with them partitioning out directly to bring urban services to them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hey, Mike, what happens if they pull a Vettar on us, whoever's running their plant walks away? MR. CAUTERO: A what did you say? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I call it pulling a Vettar. It's what a guy did. They just walk away from it. We're stuck with it. MR. MCNEES: They're in a little bit different situation but perhaps. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what's wrong with -- I mean, if Orangetree wants to pay to lay the lines, I mean, will they pay for it, or is it gonna -- is it gonna come out of the general revenue? MR. CONRECODE: They're willing to pay for it, and they've presented a deal to us. But it has to be an economically sensible deal for us. In other words, we don't want to pick up a hundred customers that are fifteen miles out that it's going to cost us, say, forty or fifty thousand dollars a year staff. That doesn't make sense. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They gotta cover that too. I mean, they have to cover the staff costs. It's not just laying the lines that they have to cover. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't -- isn't it fair to assume that we deal with that somewhat -- I mean, you mentioned package plants and they have a responsibility to maintain those until such a time that it's appropriate and economical to run lines there. I think we do deal with some of those issues now, and I agree maybe we need to take a look at it. But I would hesitate when you start talking about contracting those lines because, as you said, I think the marketplace drives that. The 951 corridor is full of places right now that are preparing to develop. But over the past eight or ten years, you've seen that grow. When I was first here, Santa Barbara didn't exist all the way through. But you didn't have -- there was a definite distinction between East Naples and Golden Gate. And in that time frame we've had Countryside go in, the Barkshires go in, and all that. And all of a sudden there isn't a break anywhere. When I drive home and I go through East Naples and into Golden Gate, there is no area where there isn't an activity, and now that is naturally progressing beyond that. It's starting to go out Radio Road and starting to go out Davis. But it didn't start out there and then fill in randomly. So I think the marketplace corrects some of that on its own. People aren't going to go and buy in the middle of nowhere if it's not convenient, if they can't shop, if they can't do things. They aren't going to build a development there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, and I -- and I'm not saying that we should shut down any part of that or not make it a possibility. I just get a little concerned when we look at what growth patterns we're experiencing and how we're experiencing them. I get a little concerned that we are not able to provide the services that are what I call urban services to all those areas. And I'd just like to find a better way to address it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my last point on that one would just be that I don't want to see a lot of little cities popping up, I mean, the city of Golden Gate and the city of East Naples and the city of Pelican Bay. And -- and if we don't -- if we don't meet that goal, we're going to have more cities. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you're right. One of the things we always hear, we don't want to be like Hiami; we don't want to be like Fort Lauderdale; we don't want to be like the east coast. And if you go between Hiami and Fort Lauderdale, you've got 12, 15, 18 little cities or towns. And I think it's -- not only is there higher density and higher crime and all those things, but you've got 15 little governments you're all working with, and I don't see a whole lot of people saying more government is better. So I think you're right there. MR. SUHEK: So no small cities just popping up as part of that outcome. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if we don't provide the services -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we can't give them the detail, the level of detail that most government's expected to, then they're going to have the thrust to try and incorporate. And, you know -- and that's all part of, again, trying to focus on the areas that have the most growth. MR. SUHEK: And that goes back to that goal up here provided by county government not by these little small cities popping up here and there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Different item under that heading, Lyle -- MR. SUHEK: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- security or safety, feeling of safety and security. I think you can maintain a small town feel simply by having people feel safe in their own town regardless of their size. And that's the case in some places that are very large and not the case in some places that are very small. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And somebody mentioned earlier, part of the county's small town feeling I got is that as I go to different planning conferences and talk about issues and the things that you can do, requiring some type of landscaping inside neighborhoods, you know, the old tree lined streets theory and sidewalks on streets and that kind of thing that make today's neighborhoods feel a little smaller, a little more secure, aesthetically pleasing. MR. DORRILL: That's -- that's a good point because if you've ever been to Winter Park, you would never know that downtown Orlando and Church Street Station are like seven or eight miles away. My youngest brother lives in Buck Head in Atlanta and Buck Head -- to get back to the title, the small town feeling, Buck Head is the most charming area you could imagine. And you'd never know that you're literally five miles from just downtown Atlanta. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's because there's something between you and there. MR. SUMEK: Bettye? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, the -- on the small town feeling I -- I -- have to question whether the -- the road system that we're building with so many private gate-guarded communities off of very residential collector roads going to more heavily used roads is an appropriate way to keep this small town feeling. An example of what I'm talking about is I live up in the north county. In order for me to go shopping anywhere, I need to come out of my development which is gate guarded to a collector road that goes to Immokalee Road which is now four laned and probably is going to be six laned. And if we continue on this pattern, in order for people to shop in North Naples, Immokalee Road is going to have to get eight laned or ten laned or I don't know what. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What happened to neighborhood commercial? MR. OLLIFF: It's funny. I was talking to Bob Blanchard in -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's like -- I think it's a problem that -- that -- that we're funneling this traffic into maybe a dozen corridors, both east-west, north-south. And we're probably not going to be able to maintain the lanes of traffic that we're going to need, whatever. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's that whole power center, activity center concept that controls that. And I hope we're going to do something about that in the EAR. MR. OLLIFF: I was talking to Bob Blanchard who is one of the planners on our regional Growth Management Plan who's out in Colorado now. And it's funny how planning sort of comes full circle a lot of times, and then they are back where he is at now looking at neighborhood level zoning where they are looking at more community-wide zoning, creating neighborhood commercial in the center of those areas so that that traffic does stay in the neighborhood as opposed to what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to add to that. Part of the small town feeling is not having four corners of -- of major commercial at every intersection. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: nodes. That's a big one. So I think -- He just did that. Pardon me? Put stars by that. While limiting massive commercial MR. DORRILL: Bettye's observation is a good one. We don't build blocks anymore. We build pipelines. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you know, we did. MR. DORRILL: And you've got to go get in the pipeline in order to get to point B. You can't just weave through the back way through the old neighborhoods. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I know you guys hate hearing about city of Naples, but what is -- what is -- the best community in Collier County if you ask me is the old plat of the city of Naples with those grids, those blocks that run down to the beach. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Now we're going to throw the -- the football of reality into this in that Collier County will deal with enclave development for the simple reason that the -- the economic base and the economic style of people that move here want higher levels of security and so forth. But I think we took the wrong approach. When we were trying to require interconnection in our code, we said, if you don't interconnect, we're going to take away one unit an acre. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That ain't hurting. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Big deal, big fat deal. I mean, what does that do? So unless we require binary or spine roads on perimeters of developments and require pedestrian connections, you know, there -- there -- there are other things we can do that don't take -- requiring perimeter roads for enclave development, basically to keep it from going wall to wall to wall and dumping everything on to collectors and arterials. Let's look at, like, Royal Poinciana when they built their golf course. You know, we should be kicking ourselves for somebody back then not getting right-of-way, you know, and -- so every time we get these -- these enclave developments, we should have some ability to get something on the edge of it that can connect to behind it so that we don't -- we're not putting everything on the collectors. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the way -- and the system that we have for that -- we'll take away a unit -- ain't going to get us there. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not going to do it. There's got to be incentive in -- in some form to do it or a flat-out mandate that the county can -- can get the perimeter road -- MR. DORRILL: Has anybody ever done anything like that for existing neighborhoods? I mean, I live in Pinewoods, but could you develop an incentive to connect Pinewoods to Naples Bath and Tennis so that if I wanted to go to the Target store at Pine Ridge and Airport, is there a -- a tax-related incentive to connect older neighborhoods that don't -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, but stop and think of the cut-through traffic issue which we deal with with every neighborhood in Pine Ridge or whatever. And if you say, we're going to open you up so that the next neighborhood can drive through to Target, there's no way anybody's going to buy it. MR. SUMEK: And then you've violated this here because you've -- you've lost him some of that -- that feeling there. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's why I said perimeter roads because if you -- if you require them to provide something through their community, that's one thing. But like in Pelican Harsh, Vanderbilt Beach Road is in essence a perimeter road. They're going to build enclave development off of that road. So it doesn't impact the people who buy in there. They're still buying in their own communities. So we have to recognize if you ask the planners of -- of the century these days, they'd tell you that -- that enclave developments are bad, and you should not allow them. Well, you know, somebody needs to slap them with reality because they're going to happen. But they can happen differently than they have. MR. SUHEK: John? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Let me just -- let me just give you my observation that really the way we are developing does promote the small town feeling and simply because of enclaves because like Pam says, you know, the city of Naples with its grid is fine but -- yeah, but it's -- it's a small geographical section. If that were spread over the entire urban area of the county, then you would have a real nightmare of not having any through streets, arterial streets, that you could get quickly from where Bettye lives to the mall or somewhere else like that. I mean, if you had to go from stop sign to stop sign to stop sign to stop sign, it would just be a -- a nightmare. So yes, it's great for a small geographical area. But when you're talking about the thousands of square miles that we have, in my opinion, if you want to keep the small town feeling, you're much better off to have the enclaves because if you live in -- in Enclave X, when you get home, you feel like you're in a small town. You don't have all these people milling around all the time. MR. SUMEK: So keeping viable enclave developments is a key part of that -- that cannectiveness (sic) that you're talking about, John; is that right? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. And the only way to -- to -- to keep this functioning as we develop into the future is by doing the roads the way we are doing. And that is to six lane them and make them -- make them connect -- grid up to the -- the larger grid and connect pieces of the pattern, one to the other, in a -- in a manner where you can quickly move, and that's the way we're doing it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There comes a -- there comes a reality -- we're going to hit 200,000 people this coming year. And there comes a reality when you get to a quarter of a million people and beyond that you do have to have certain things like major roadways and so on. And while there -- as I -- one of the things I used up there was balance. The reality of growth is there is a reality there. We -- we have a lot of people and a lot of needs. And then how do you balance that with trying to maintain some feeling of a safe small town? But it's not going to be all of one or all of the other. MR. CONRECODE: I -- I think there is room within the current camp. plan and -- and current zoning where you're going to have enclave commercial as well where Commissioner Matthews won't necessarily have to go through that process to go shopping because there's going to be commercial right near where she lives, right near 1-75. She may not be able to go -- she may still have to take a long trip to go to the mall or to go to Home Depot because there's not going be a Home Depot on the corner where she lives. Little grocery runs, dry cleaning, and those sort of things -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's room in our current camp. plan for that? MR. DORRILL: That's what Tom was talking about about neighborhood commercial. You know, if I need a gallon of milk, I've got to get in the pipeline and then drive a mile north to the Mobil station. MR. SUMEK: Which clogs this up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which clogs up the pipeline because you've got people making a -- MR. DORRILL: But neighborhood commercial to him is strip commercial to somebody else. If we start putting -- everybody put a Mobil food mart in front of everybady's little enclave thing just for convenience, and you know we all love to hate strip commercials -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: We hate strip commercial, but the -- but the activity center concept has -- has spread us out so we have to get out in the major highways to get a loaf of bread. MR. CAUTERO: But that -- but that's for large commercial centers. And what I think needs to be done to accomplish what I think I hear the board saying is that you have to have ability in your codes, in your ordinances, to allow that neighborhood commercial within various subdivisions or at the perimeters of subdivisions without having a strip of commercial in there. And that can be done. I mean, you may not have it in your plan now, but you can do it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can avoid the strip thing by simply making it an internal access. They have to go into the -- the roadway that is the project entrance and access the commercial pieces internally as opposed to on the main road. MR. CONRECODE: DiVosta Village Walk is a -- a good example of that. They're constructing a village now that's going to have a post office, a dry cleaner, a little convenience store and all that within the village that's going to serve a thousand families. MR. SUHEK: I work with the city of Hilton Head Island. They've had -- their recent developments have done exactly what you're talking about. You -- you come out of the development. There's an area there that services -- you can do everything from your stockbroker, accountant, attorney, convenience store, and it's -- and it's very attractive. It's not metal buildings thrown up. It's got the architectural integrity then of that development, and so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we're going to reward you, so to speak, with commercial property that has a higher value, we're going to expect more from you in the way of cohesiveness, in the way of architecture, in the way of access. In other words, it's -- it's tit for tat. We're going to give you something, but we're going to expect -- MR. SUHEK: And those developments have sold out quicker than the other developments, at least in the Hilton Head area. Anyway, moving on -- any others on this one? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- MR. SUHEK: Diversified -- Bettye? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me say one more thing -- MR. SUHEK: Sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- because I -- I think I like what I heard Mr. Conrecode saying, and that -- and that may be that we want to take a look in larger PUDs or DRIs where we insist on commercial pods within the PUD. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- and just, you know, little convenience stores, dry cleaner, that type of thing. MR. DORRILL: Tim -- Tim called those village commercial. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Actually DiVosta's done it. It is -- it's -- you can call it whatever you want, but it's neighborhood commercial or village commercial. But the -- the focus is internal, but the -- the truth is there's a financial reality that Hobil's not going to build a little gas station, convenience store unless people on the main road can see them. MR. SUHEK: That's right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So these can be internal, but there are very few uses you can put in the middle of a 1,000-family development that are gonna -- that has a viable population there to sustain it. So there has to be some -- some level of recognition on drive-by traffic or else no one's going to buy into the commercial node. MR. SUHEK: Well, on Hilton Head they put the gate back here. Here's the major thoroughfare -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. SUHEK: -- and the commercial is here before that gate. So it's folks coming out that it's convenient to, but there's also the drive-by that gets what you're talking about. And it has the integrity. Anyway, John. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, that's -- if anybody wants to see how this will work out really well, you can go down and look at the two new shopping centers that are on 951 and 41 on either side of the road. They're -- they're connected in one case internally with the housing development. But if you're going to have the quality of stores and businesses that are economically viable -- and on one side it's Publix; on the other side it's Winn Dixie. If you're going to be able to support those, you're going to have to be open to the arterial roads as well. But still the concept is there, and it's just like Lyle said. It's open to the main roads, but you can also access internally the development from there. MR. SUHEK: And the developers like it because they can get pretty high -- there -- there's big bucks for that property, and they get higher price for that than in their residential development as well. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where many people failed in the neighborhood commercial ten years ago. MR. SUHEK: Anyway, there's some real good ideas here on -- diversified economy with expanding job opportunities. And what I heard from several of you -- I'm not sure this captures it, but it's not the $5, $6, 7. It's family wage jobs where kids, your kids, can come back and earn a living. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me start this one. MR. SUHEK: You ready to go, Bettye? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. SUHEK: Fire away. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we need to find a way -- I mean, what we need to find a way is for better paying jobs for our families. And part of our problem is attracting light industry. We all say we want light industry. We don't want heavy industry. We even want high tech industry. We're being very specific about that. But at the same time, we don't have the labor force to support that type of industry. We don't have the educated labor force. So we're having difficulty attracting that kind of -- of industry. So this is something where we need to meld our education with our economic development with our post-high school education so that we can truly diversify the economy and provide a place for our children to work and earn money when they graduate college or high school even. I mean, right now they graduate high school, and what's available? McDonald's, five bucks an hour. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, we have always said -- this board has always said, while I was on it, we want light industrial. Everyone makes that known. We want high tech commercial. But nothing's ever done, and the reason is -- and this is one of those you have to ask yourself, what is government's role in doing this? We have an economic development council in this county. Most communities have a partner. The EDC does almost all of the work to bring businesses in, to -- to stimulate the economic vitality of the community. And they bring to a local government body what they may need to do to be attractive. There was a -- a -- a speaker at the Florida APA, the American Planning Association, that -- that studied for a very long time what it takes for companies to relocate. He said the CEO has a method. They authorize a study, spend two years doing a study. The study gets dropped on his desk. He throws it in the trash can and puts the company closest to where he wants it to be, you know. And let's face it. We have the place people want to be. We have businesses in this town -- International Packaging is one of them -- that the CE -- CEO moved the business here because he retired here. You know, we have everything to offer in the way of a community. But I -- I just -- you know, again, I get lost that I don't know that it's the county commission's job to go out, grab companies, and drag them to Collier County, you know, kicking and screaming to show them what we have. I think we need to work closely with the EDC and find out what we can do. MR. SUHEK: And that's on this year's target list, to develop a viable plan with a clear role for the county. That's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And part of that's looking -- MR. SUHEK: -- coming up later. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- at how we classify industrial lands. I mean, we're so restricted. Right now you can only fezone industrial if you're next to existing industrial. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But -- but let me comment. When you talk -- talk to the EDC and -- and the business development group up in Lee County, what -- what you often hear is that yes, we're wining and dining big business to relocate corporate offices. But what happens is that they locate in Lee County and the CEOs live in Collier County. And -- and that's okay. God bless them. That's okay. But we still have people who need to provide the restaurant services, the banking services, the construction services -- I can go on and on and on -- that need better paying jobs. And -- and it -- it -- it all boils down to that. MR. SUHEK: John? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good jobs are up in Lee County. MR. SUHEK: John? John? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, this -- this is the point where we need to make a decision is -- is this the function of Collier County government to -- to get in here and do this job or not. Up to this point we have as the board fairly consistently said that we're not going to get into this directly. We're not going -- we're not at this point willing to give major or even minor tax abatement incentives to attract business like other communities. We're not in that competitive mode. So if we -- if we want to get in here and attract a lot of new businesses to our community, the way that we have to do it is to compete with other communities. And obviously we can -- we can compete with what Commissioner Hancock has said, and that is that if we can show this place to the CEOs, the CEOs are going to want to come here. But then again, as Commissioner Matthews has said, Lee County will offer them more to come. And, therefore, they go there, and the CEO lives here. So our decision is how important is it to us. Is this -- is this the function of Collier County government, and so what are we going to do about it? MR. DORRILL: I remember that was very frustrating to Pam last summer when we presented the -- the priority program budget for housing and economic development because we do not have a marketing arm. And next month's issue of Florida Trend Magazine is going to have a special highlight edition on southwest Florida. And we worked with the -- our own staff. We showed Bettye an ad. We bought a $4,000 ad we're going to run in that supplement that highlights Collier County government. And we just picked two themes and we got some -- some advertising advice from a professional company that's an environmental shot of a bird on a beach. But it makes the point that Collier County has the lowest taxes in the state of Florida. For more information we just give a phone number, nothing else in the ad. And it's going to be intriguing to see if -- if that can be, you know, our -- our hook is the lowest tax rate in the state of Florida. But we are woefully inefficient at marketing Collier County as a place to relocate to even though we've got a tremendous environment and the lowest tax rate. And you would think that some CEO might be interested in that from a bottom line perspective. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm in agreement with John, and I said earlier I don't think it's -- it's the commission -- I mean, we've got enough things that we're not doing as well as we'd like to do to go taking on the task of wining and dining and competing with Lee County on who buys the best dinners to -- to get a company here. But what I think we do have to recognize is that we don't have the vehicles to even have industrially zoned lands. I mean, let's -- let's say -- let's say there's a certain type of industrial we would like or certain type we would like. Well, heck, let's make that a priority in our -- our development services side to say, if you bring in this type, there's a streamlined process to go through that allows for that type of zoning because we want that business in this county. We're going to move you to the front of the pack as far as review. We're going to cut down on some of the process if you meet these criteria for the type of business we want to see here. That -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You just said exactly what I wanted to say, and that -- that is we're already in the business of economic development by zoning property and setting taxes. I mean, we are already in the business. So to the extent there are doors we can open and -- and those kinds of incentives, I'm not ready to -- to do -- we don't -- we don't want to be Lee County. We don't want to do like they do it but exactly what you just said. MR. CONRECODE: But do you want to compete with the folks like City Gate and White Lake and those already industrially zoned properties who are out there trying to woo these same businesses? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But neither of those is the type of -- of limited industrial we're talking about. I -- I wrote the White Lake document. MR. CONRECODE: I know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm -- I'm very familiar with it. It allows C5 and heavy industrial -- C5 type and heavy industrial uses in a lot of the areas. So what I'm saying is the list could be much more limited. And you're not really competing -- City Gate's a paper tiger. It's been out there forever. When you really look at the viable industrial lands, White Lake is about it, and it has no infrastructure at this point. So I'm not so sure we even have an inventory out there that's viable. I -- I kind of cut Vince off. MR. CAUTERO: No, no. That's all right. MR. SUHEK: John? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I was just going to say to Commissioner Hac'Kie that we are in the business of allowing economic development. We are not in the business of encouraging and competing for it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I suggest that we are -- we're in the business of disallowing economic development by our comp. plan, by our zoning, by how difficult it is. If -- if -- if you were an outsider deciding whether or not to come here, I think your observation would be -- mine would be that they really don't want any industrial development at all in Collier County because look how difficult their process is compared to the places that would fall all over themselves for us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me comment, though, on -- on that, though. We are going to be as Collier County government in the business of trying to attract industry to Collier County probably within the next year. And we're going to be doing it through the airport authority and a whole lot of money that's being sunk in the Immokalee Airport industrial park. We own that. And we're going to be experiencing the very same thing that industrial developers in our own county are experiencing. And that's being able to attract viable businesses to come in there and put their businesses there. Now, that's what we need to start to think about. City Gate's been out there for eons and hasn't -- hasn't been able to do it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You -- you can't build anything on there anyway. They don't even have a management -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- plan for wildlife and all that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But -- but that -- but that's not the point. We as a government have absolutely no incentive package right now to attract industry to build these jobs. We have no incentive package. And -- and I'm not really saying what it should be or how far it should go. But when we started on the Immokalee Airport industrial park, the concept there was that that was an enterprise zone and that there were state and federal incentives. They're gone. It's not an enterprise zone anymore. And -- and we may have to develop our own enterprise zone concept to get the industry. And certainly if we do it for Immokalee Airport, we're going to have to do it for other -- other industrial areas also. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you -- you speak of us not having a -- an incentive package for industry as if it's a failure of Collier County government. But, in fact, there is a conscious decision that we don't have one. In the past we've made that decision as a conscious decision. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it sounds like that -- that a majority of the board may be wanting to make a different decision. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's why I said at the outset of this -- this page that it's time for us to make that decision. MR. SUHEK: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And -- and sure we can sit here and discuss that we don't do it right now, but the point is we don't do it because we have decided we're not going to do it. MR. SUMEK: And it may be -- and there's a spectrum there of differing things that one can do and -- from revising your processes to make sure that they are getting you to the end that you want which you do have a hundred percent control over to being an active part -- there's a whole spectrum there, and that's your choice. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm way over there. MR. SUMEK: And -- and what -- what I've got as a target issue -- it's on the large sheets -- for next year is to resolve that issue. And if you do that in the next year, resolve it and put together a viable -- you know, whether it be revising your process, that may be a hell of a year right there addressing that issue. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the word package that Bettye used may have got us going down a different road. If you think package, you think dollars, incentives, tax breaks, and that kind of stuff. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It doesn't have to be money. MR. SUMEK: And it goes back to the processes and regulations to support what we want here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think that's a starting point, but that's why I think -- MR. SUMEK: Some good discussion here on that, and I think John's right in terms of you got a spectrum. Now it's time to say, gee, if this is really a goal, this is where we want to be, what do we need to do as a county which may not necessarily mean changing our role but maybe changing some of our processes to facilitate the achievement of that. Some good points there. Let's do one more or two more then before we break for lunch. Mobility for citizens, what would you like to see there because several of you talked to me about how folks have an expectation of moving quickly around here and sometimes the quickness and the expectation don't necessarily match up? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, from January to March nobody moves quickly. MR. SUMEK: So what would you like to see for mobility for your citizens? What is that, Tim? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to see an increase -- increased attention to the construction of new roads, not just the increasing in lanes on existing roads particularly when we look at the north part of the county. And anyone who thinks that area's not going to grow has got their head in the sand. But Livingston Road isn't the solve-all. You know, there -- there are a lot of new roads that need to be created. I was looking at that David Plummet 20-20 plan. Basically if you give me three different sizes marker, I could have drawn that plan. Every year I make this road fatter and more lanes, and next year I make it fatter and more lanes. And there aren't enough new roads being in that process because the new roads are going to save the existing roads from having to be widened for another period of time. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But mega bucks to acquire the property. MR. DORRILL: Yeah, you're not going to be able to acquire the right-of-way. If you can just imagine what the right-of-way is going to cost you at the intersection of Airport and Pine Ridge, you can't add anymore lanes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We can raise taxes, but you can't put that add. It's one or the other. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the point is that right now when there is little or no development in that area, the -- our ability to acquire right-of-way is greater than when someone starts building -- MR. SUHEK: So one of the outcomes is to acquire a right-of-way when it's a more reasonable price in ahead of the growth that may be coming. And some of you talked to me about you've got a university coming here; right? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. SUHEK: And that's going to impact the north part of your county. How am I doing? Okay so far? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. SUHEK: And, I mean, that could have big impact. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we have two roads up there that are north and south and almost no east, west south of Bonita Beach Road. And the truth is bedroom communities are going to spring up that are based on the -- the university. And if we don't at least have an idea of what right-of-way acquisitions are necessary to -- to keep that from becoming like a -- well, like there are portions of Lee County that are the same way. There are just apartment complexes on top of each other and no real road network in there, and it's just a -- a -- an accident waiting to happen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me -- let me talk about one too, and this one may be a combination with the drainage. In representing district 5, we're mostly wet right now. But anyway, one of -- one of the things that came to my attention in the last couple of months is the extension of 951 north to Bonita Beach Road and eventually Tree Line which is the university road. But what -- what came to my attention was the fact of all this sheet flow coming down from the northeast into the northern part of Collier County and some conversations with water management, with the water management district, that may -- now may be the appropriate time to acquire that right-of-way and with the help of the water management district do the control structures with the roadway across the top of it. Instead of 20 years from now when it's planned, we might need it sooner. MR. SUHEK: So there's some real joint projects there, Bettye. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Some joint projects that will not only handle our roads but our drainage as well. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we're talking about the north part of the county, but I -- there are other properties that are going to be in similar situations. I think if you look at the area south of Golden Gate City and the Davis and -- and -- and that area, something's going to happen down there between Davis and Radio out towards 951. You know, you can kind of see it starting to cook down there a little more seriously now, and there aren't that many roads there. So I -- we're talking about north county, but I think there are other areas of the county that are equally strained. MR. DORRILL: I -- I agree, and I think you'll see that also. I -- I cannot personally explain the Hanatee Road phenomenon. It doesn't make any sense the way that has grown. And I think the shops of Marco have contributed somewhat to a growth spurt there. And I know that there's a new group of developers who are going to acquire a major part of the old Marco Shores DRI. And they are shrewd, effective developers. And the linkage between 951 and 41 going -- going east could also be something that we need to anticipate. MR. SUMEK: Other comments on mobility for citizens? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One that -- MR. SUMEK: John? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Part of it is connected as we -- I think we mentioned when we were doing number 3 that our decisions regarding density are going to affect the mobility for citizens in the future too. MR. SUMEK: Another one that I heard was mass transit and how that can -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we don't like to say that. We like to say -- MR. SUMEK: I know. I was -- I was stepping on the old pile here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was just going to bring that up. And -- and when Mr. Sumek and I were talking on the phone, I had mentioned to him that the FOCUS group was currently an ongoing situation. And we all read the paper every time they have a FOCUS meeting, and one of the top five priorities every single time now has been some sort of public transportation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm probably going to preach the Norris gospel on this one because I think I heard you say this, and it's true. We don't have that employment center, the population center. And most of the towns these people come from had mass transit because it maybe made some level of sense because there was a downtown, there was a business center. You know, there are -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're going to have a university, though. How about -- how about connecting to that system? How about that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: May I ask you to suggest where you're going to go from to the university? Fine going to the university. But what are you going to do? Go around every street and pick people up? I mean, where are you going to get them? Where are you going to get them? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, there -- there are centers of town. I mean -- MR. CAUTERO: Isn't that indicative -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But there's no population centers of town. MR. CAUTERO: Isn't that indicative, though, of communities in Florida that have grown like Collier County, Naples area where it's basically a service sector economy where you've got spread-out development? I think Commissioner Norris is absolutely right. You've got a -- probably would have to put stops all over the county. Yeah, there are some major centers. There's the mall. There's -- MR. DORRILL: Hospital. MR. CAUTERO: There's the hospital. There's some industrial parks, county government center. There are some, but it's basically spread out. I mean, you probably would have to do it in a lot of different spots. MR. SUMEK: Tom? MR. CONRECODE: If I could throw out one important thing -- MR. SUMEK: Sure. MR. CONRECODE: -- that ties back to a couple of things, Neil had mentioned that he'd like to get from his house through Naples Bath and Tennis to the Target or to the Publix to get a jug of milk. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With a court order you might be able to. MR. CONRECODE: Actually in the area of mobility, though, rather than -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good old eminent domain. MR. CONRECODE: -- him getting in the Bronco and driving out to Airport Road, going through three lights and in and parking and so on and so forth -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought it was a Jeep. MR. CONRECODE: -- access, I think we lose site of pathways as a way of providing mobility for citizens for some of these trip generations. I need a jug of milk. I need a newspaper for Sunday morning or whatever and, you know, different people have different impressions about it, but I don't think -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think Tom and I both have kids the right age. My eleven year old now, I send him to Publix on his bike. MR. SUHEK: Pathways that link up. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pathways, bike -- bike paths. MR. CONRECODE: Well, it relates to these enclave developments where they may not want roads connecting them, but you could have a pathway. MR. OLLIFF: The other thing, I think for some reason when we talk about mass transit, we always envision that old brown bus that you see in a big city. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not the way mass transit is today. MR. OLLIFF: No, and I think, you know, when we start talking about the small town, the quality of what we have here, I think maybe, you know, we can change the community's impression of mass transit by getting it away from that old diesel bus syndrome. And, I mean, I think you could have a transit system that blended very well with this community in that we do that internal transportation, maybe not all the way to the university. MR. SUHEK: Well, let me give you an example that I heard. MR. DORRILL: Go ahead. MR. SUHEK: You have older citizens that are getting older all the time that may not feel comfortable driving anymore, and how do they get around because I was brought up by -- I'm doing it -- trying to do it tactfully. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, you know, again, we're back to the same problem of if -- if they're unable to drive and they're 85 years old and getting around is tough, they've got to get to a bus stop. MR. SUHEK: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They've got to get to it. And if we are as spread out as we are -- MR. SUHEK: And it may not be bus. That's what they're talking -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. If we're spread -- as spread out as we are right now, the distance -- the distance of these collection points becomes greater because of the lack of density. unfortunately, you know, we're in a tough cycle to find any mass transit, but I agree these huge buses -- MR. SUMEK: You can define mass transit where my folks live. My folks are 89, and he still -- my dad still plays old man softball, so he's in not too bad of shape. But driving, that's a -- that's not what he wants to do. So to get to the ball field, they have basically a voucher system with the -- the -- the city and the county do. It's San Diego. And he relies on the private sector to do that. That's mass transit in its broadest definition. Tom? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Public transportation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please don't call it mass transit yet. MR. DORRILL: We've -- we've been stigmatized. There's a local columnist in the newspaper. A point of reference for that is 1975 Cleveland, Ohio, and -- and John is beating us to death with his 20-year-old impression of Cleveland mass transit. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who -- whose job is it on your staff, Neil, to come up with -- I mean, is that a planner function? Is that Vince's job? MR. DORRILL: I'd say MPO with a little mix of transportation reality because those MPO types are known to sit around and chant in the dark and -- MR. SUMEK: And that is on the target list for next year. Tom? MR. CONRECODE: If I could just give one other -- MR. SUMEK: Sure. Fire away. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Steve's here. MR. CONRECODE: Under mobility I think Collier County needs to take advantage of technology in light signalization, traffic management, some of those issues. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ding, ding, ding. MR. SUMEK: He gets applause on that one; right? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Welcome to the Collier County family feud. Good answer, Tom. MR. SUMEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's something we get a lot is -- is the timing of signalization. As we get more and more signals, as they become required, they're going to have to be timed. And that's expensive too. MR. SUMEK: Good ones. Why don't we go get our lunch. MR. DORRILL: Are we going to work through lunch? MR. SUMEK: Yeah. I'm gonna -- I'm gonna take bite, write, take bite, write. And you're going to talk and bite; okay? (A short break was held.) MR. SUMEK: Varied and affordable housing opportunities. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Next. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get that on the record, please. Commissioner Norris said next. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What John just said, what are we going to do that we're not already doing? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I got one too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We got way, way, way -- affordable housing, you know, what is it? Four fifty, six fifty a rent -- rent a month that counts for affordable housing in Collier County because it's based on median income? COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Depends on who's presenting it as to what that says. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But what we -- we need to do something about more incentives for low and very low. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: More density. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I don't think we need to go in that direction. But what -- what's happening since we have offered our affordable housing impact fee waiver ordinances to offer a variety of things based on what it is, you can -- you can get it totally waived if it's very low. You get it partially waived, partially deferred for low and deferred for medium. But if you give us a -- a zero coupon bond for the amount of the fees that matures in six years, you know, you don't have to pay them at all now and -- and -- and what -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A derivative? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know. Maybe that's what that is. But what's happened is -- MR. SUHEK: You want to see some creative options? Is that what -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We want to see, yeah, some -- some creative options on it because what -- what has happened because of the way our current impact fee waiver and deferral ordinances are, we're only encouraging moderate income. That's all. And -- and because that's the only thing that's economically viable with the system that we have between the sale loans and the -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Income tax credits. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- income tax credits available and so forth. And maybe what we need to do is to create within these affordable housing developments requirements for certain levels. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For some very low, everybody. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That if you want the moderate -- if you want to build a moderate income housing project, then you've got to have a certain percentage of very low or certain percentage of low. We don't require that right now. And, therefore, we're getting all moderate which is only 10 or 15 percent off market and not really a big help. I mean, it helps, but it's not a big help. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All these divisions to me are -- are ridiculous. You know, you're low or you're very low. What's next? Very, very low? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Welcome to federal government. I mean, you know, they made that up. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we don't have to mimic federal government. We don't have to -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We do if you're going to get those programs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, for the impact fee credits and sale loans we do. And -- and -- and we've -- we've set ours at 50 percent of the median income. And because our median income in Collier County is so high, a family of 4 earning total income $20,000 a year is very low. And, you know, that's a fact of life. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My problem is -- MR. CAUTERO: I think it's more -- I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My problem is -- in the affordable is that -- and I think my actions in the past have indicated that I'm supportive of affordable housing in Collier County if it's done a certain way. If you look at what's at the corner of Santa Barbara and -- what is it? -- Green or -- on the north side, I think we can look ten years down the road and see that the -- that that property is not going to be in all potential attractive. It's going to speak of -- in essence you look at it, and you see affordable housing. It looks like affordable housing. But if you look at Bear Creek on Airport Road, it has less of an appearance of affordable housing and will probably have a -- a better longevity, a better upkeep. So, you know, affordable housing at all costs is not the approach I want or at any cost not the approach I want. If we are going to offer increased incentives, we need to see a project that has a character that makes its residents proud of where they live. And I look at what's on Santa Barbara, and I don't think that type of project is going to achieve it. So just making blanket -- you know, blanket approaches to make more affordable housing I think is a step in the wrong direction. We need to improve -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wasn't saying that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, but how -- what we do and how it's interpreted and utilized -- sometimes the intent and how it ends up being utilized may not be the same. If we're going to go down that road, let's do it in such a way to say that there's a certain quality of affordable housing we expect, you know, that we don't want something that looks like these cookie cutter projects elsewhere. Otherwise, you know, I'm not -- I can't be supportive of just any affordable housing. That -- that's the caution I wanted to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, you gotta be real -- real careful when you start to talk about you want your affordable housing projects, especially when they're for the very low, to not take a cookie cutter approach because then you start adding amenities to this project that then make it not economically feasible. So -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I'm aware of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- then you don't get the very low. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm aware of that, but there are still things that don't cost a lot of money. You know, we're not talking about just packing them into sardine cans and getting the dollar out of it to make it very low. I think there are things that communities need that we've talked about everywhere else. And if we don't provide the same focus for community on affordable housing that people are not -- you know, we're -- we're creating a future blight. And so when we look at affordable housing, we have to recognize the potential for it to go in that direction because we've seen it happen in communities all over the U.S. And we have to take steps to avoid that. And whatever those steps are, if it does mean limiting some, then we have to limit. But I -- I -- that's my -- my caution that affordable housing's one thing, but quality affordable housing should be the goal. MR. DORRILL: What is it about Farm Workers' Village in Immokalee that can -- can result in Fred Thomas renting those things for I'm told as low as $235 a month? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's HUD. That's HUD. MR. DORRILL: So -- so is that subsidized -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Section 8 housing. MR. DORRILL: Well, you need to tell me a little bit about that because I just don't understand that at all. MR. CAUTERO: Well, in a nutshell that's really what it is. It's subsidized by the federal government, so they're able to keep the costs down so that the homeowner that goes in there pays such a low mortgage payment. MR. DORRILL: Okay. But Fred's always getting me to sign letters of support to -- it's -- it's not HUD. Who -- who is it that loans him all his money? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He gets it from -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He goes through the housing finance -- MR. DORRILL: Farmers' Home Administration is always loaning him money, and I'm sending these letters of support. So -- so he's getting low interest money or -- or no interest money to build these detached single-family homes. MR. CAUTERO: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And then the federal government helps him pay the -- helps the residents pay the rent. MR. CAUTERO: And there's also programs for them. MR. CONRECODE: Plus he's also getting CBDG grants for some of the infrastructure work and some of that. MR. DORRILL: When -- when -- when I ride through there, it's -- it is well managed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's beautiful. MR. DORRILL: It is attractive. They don't take any crap from anybody. How come he can't have a project on the coastal area that's, you know, west of 9517 MR. OLLIFF: He can. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That project does not succeed because of its physical layout. It succeeds because of strong-handed management. That's why Farm Workers' Village succeeds. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or both. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, both, but let's face it. Most homes don't want iron rods sticking out of the plaster wall as a curtain rod. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Plaster wall? They're concrete block walls. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Concrete block, whatever, the point being, you know, you know, because that way they can't be yanked out of the wall. They are -- they're built in such a way and they're managed in such a way that that is part of the success of that. And the problem we have is a lot of developments that are now coming on line, people are using affordable housing to obtain tax-free bonds and grants. And what they're building is not the construction nor the management to -- to perpetuate what originally shows up there. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So management is something that needs to be in our goals. MR. SUMEK: Right, because those folks may walk away, Tim, and then you end up dealing with that -- the blight that may come out of that at some point in time. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's the danger we have is that increasing incentive in affordable housing is great. But with that increased incentive comes increased responsibility for the viability of the project. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So build both parts in. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I just didn't want this to be one sided in the sense of allow for more affordable housing without recognizing the responsibility that comes with it. MR. SUHEK: There's another part to it, and I'm going to quick turn my head and facilitate around to share some insights from other communities. When you have younger folks in affordable housing, it goes back to the church key example. You say how does that relate? A lot of younger folks do not know how to do basic maintenance around the house that some of us grew up doing. And they don't know that there's a problem there if they don't caulk or they don't deal with that leaky toilet. And it doesn't need to be costly. And several communities that I've worked with on affordable housing have required residents to go through a home either ownership or tenters' training. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have that. MR. SUMEK: And they have a deal with Home Depot to get discounts, and -- and -- and they'll put on the -- the classes for free. So anyway -- MR. DORRILL: Fred did tell me one time that they -- I guess they don't air condition their units. And one of the main reasons is you cannot get the people to change the filters in the air conditioners. And as a result of that, they -- they -- they ruin them in a very short period of time for that very reason. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, granted, Farm Workers' Village and affordable housing are not always the same thing. Farm Workers' Village -- Village is dealing with generally -- a lot of people in there have never had a checking account in their lives. You know, there are affordable housing for people that are on the -- the bottom rung of starting a family and trying to work their way up. They understand those things. So I -- I appreciate the comparison. But it's -- it's -- you know, when we're dealing for low and moderate income, typically we're talking starter. MR. SUMEK: Well, E1 Cerrito, California, it's defined as half their city employees. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a number of our employees. MR. DORRILL: Half? MR. SUMEK: Half. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Our employees, the sheriff's department, the entry level school teachers. MR. SUMEK: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, nurses at the hospital -- MR. SUMEK: That's affordable. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're -- they're low income, low to moderate income. MR. OLLIFF: I'll also tell you I think a lot of the steps that we took as part of the comp. plan to allow for increased density in affordable housing have worked too. I mean, if you look around the community at the number of affordable housing projects that are either under construction or have just recently been built, whether it's Bear's whatever it is up there or Osprey Landing and all of those, there's a bunch of them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys go look at Jasmine Cay in the city, and it's got some very low. It's got some low, some very low, some median. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, there's -- MR. SUMEK: I'm going to move this on because we can get into that one a lot. Any other comments on that one? Protection of environmental quality and natural resources, what would you like to see there? MR. DORRILL: John would like to skip that one too and go on to number -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: John, next. MR. DORRILL: John wants to dig this big ditch that goes out -- MR. SUMEK: You do, John, with golf holes around it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They're making light of it, but I -- I have at times seemed to be -- well, I've been characterized, let me say, as anti-environmental, and that's just not true. But I hate to see -- I hate to see somebody go to one extreme on one end or to the other extreme on one end. I don't think that environmentalists should control property rights that they have no interest in other than their own special interest through government regulation. And at the same time I don't think that we should allow developers to go back to the old slash and burn mode either. But as with everything else, there's a balance in the middle that we should strive for. In Collier County I think we're doing a very good job. MR. SUMEK: Maybe instead of voids let's say continue that balancing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. Balance is the key, and I think we have a very good balance here in this county. If you look at how we are growing and developing and the attention that we pay to the environment here which is -- which is very sensitive, I think when you compare us to other communities, you have to admit that we do a very good job. So what I want to do, my -- my preference would be to continue what we do and take whatever steps we can to -- if there's something that we're missing to -- to close any gaps but to always aim for the balance between protecting our natural environment and protecting private property rights. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here again is a situation where I think we in the past in -- in policy have gone with the stick instead of the carrot. We have an open space requirement. That open space requirement fails to recognize what is more valuable open space than other -- in other words, the whole mix of things that counts as open space, you know, a -- a isolated wetland or a -- a -- a scrub oak area counts the same as a grass lawn or a lake. And, you know, if these -- if there are priorities in our environment of things that are more important than others, then give them weight, then tell that property owner, if you're going to set this type of thing aside, we're going to recognize that's more important than digging a lake or having a lawn, and we're going to give you additional credit. Maybe we're going to reduce your overall open space requirement by -- by prioritizing certain types of -- of things that are important for wildlife and so forth. MR. SUMEK: So updating those regulations would be a key in five years. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I always hear that everything in the environmental site is enforceable, every single thing. The scrub jay is as important as the 300-acre wetland. We have to save it all. Every single thing is of equal importance. That simply isn't true. Larger systems are more important than isolated ones. Prioritize them, and -- and give the incentive for the more important things to be set aside, and stop fighting over every little tiny thing. And I know we don't have control over that because we don't set all of the -- you know, the Corps, Florida Fresh Water Game and Fish, and so forth. But locally, you know, I just think we can be more flexible in -- in -- in promoting instead of penalizing. MR. SUMEK: And sometimes those negative 20 percent, they may not truly be environmentalists. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No kidding. MR. SUHEK: But they will shove that right up. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They got those band wagon Green Peace stickers in the mail, though. MR. OLLIFF: That last point -- MR. SUHEK: What, John? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We know those names, don't we? MR. OLLIFF: That last point you made is what -- COHMISSION NORRIS: We have a list of specific names. MR. SUHEK: Oh. MR. OLLIFF: That last point that you made is what infuriates us when the county becomes the developer at the overlapping agency deal that you have to go through, whether, you know, it's different wetland jurisdictional lines between South Florida or Army Corps. Those kinds of things just make no sense, you know, even from us who are on the regulatory side. And we will deal with Fish and Game, South Florida, Army Corps, and our own county a lot of times over the same single issue throughout. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It tickles me to death when the county has to get a permit for something, though, because they finally get a little reality check about what it's like out to there to try to build something. It cracks me up. The Livingston Road thing, I think it's hilarious. I think the stuff we're going to go through with Lake Avalon, it's great because it's reality check. What -- you think you own a piece of land and can build something, do something with it, and you can't. Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And they slowly came and moved her soap box. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I feel better now. MR. SUHEK: Comments from staff on this one? Tom, do you have any comments? You're sitting there smirking. MR. CONRECODE: Well, particularly to that comment because I've been pulling permits for years, and I haven't found a way around it yet. So I -- I certainly understand it and recognize the cost of that. And I'll chime in on the side of the environmental extremism. We have a lot of the 20 percent active group that are environmental extremists. And the best -- best recent example I can give you is we're trying to site our next landfill. MR. SUHEK: That's on the next list. MR. CONRECODE: We've doubled -- we've doubled our buffering beyond -- we've doubled what was required. And we are at the very, very, very earliest stages of getting to the landfill siting issue. But as a concession to the environmentalists, we've doubled that buffering capacity now. Well, this is going to go through ten years of development and -- and public hearings and everything else. And before you know it, we're going to have this thousand-acre site with a hundred -- a hundred-acre landfill in the middle of it. MR. SUHEK: The problem with this group is they're never satisfied. You could give them 100 percent of what -- and then they shift the wall on you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it's better to give them nothing. MR. SUHEK: That's right. And sometimes no is the best solution and do the cocker routine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Cut the tail off. MR. SUMEK: Yeah. And say, hey, this is it, boom, cut it because as you prolong it, they get nastier. And the media loves it because, man, they're getting quotes every day. MR. DORRILL: I've got -- I've got one great example in -- in support of just totally the staff on this one and disregarding the fact for a moment that we work for the board. We -- as a staff we got blind sided this past year over a little incident called the Palm River Canal. And, frankly, the board got caught up in it, and it wasn't even 20 percent. It was two people. It was a former county employee who left -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Former disgruntled county employee. MR. DORRILL: Disgruntled and a single reporter in the Naples Daily News. And we spent more time, and by the time the board got wrapped into that thing, it was like the board wasn't going to be happy until I delivered Bill Lorenz's and George Yilmaz's head on a silver platter in order to punish them over the Palm River Canal situation and -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cardboard platter. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- well, and -- and I get the situation that people in Palm River read the article, they see gloom and doom, my phone starts ringing. I have got to be in a position to get the facts. And -- and -- and the assumptions or the assertions that the story was based on may be correct or may not, and I didn't even have the time to find out. MR. DORRILL: And my only point being that was one of the more amazing incidents of 1995 to me, and I just -- almost an unbelievable wild goose chase as to whether or not there were trace levels of heavy metals in certain mud sediment samples of a certain ditch and -- and the probabilities. And it was just -- it was mind boggling to me the amount of resources we threw at that thing. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And you know, Neil, you'd think the residents were concerned about contaminants. Their concern was that signs were going to say, this is Love Canal, this is polluted, and it's in our backyard, and our property values are going down the tubes. So their concern is the opposite of what -- you know, it's just amazing. MR. SUMEK: Other comments on this one? It's really continuing what you -- what you've got and keeping that balance in place. John? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if we're -- if we're saying that, we're agreeing that we -- as a board we're agreeing that we are going in the right direction. And we don't want to do backslide. We want to continue it, and we want to strive for the balance. If anybody disagrees with that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that -- that you and I will probably disagree with what -- how that translates into reality like CEG NRPAs. MR. SUHEK: But that's getting into the how, but the key is this -- again, these red things are not saying you're not doing them. It's saying this ought to guide us looking as we go to the future over the next five years. And then you get into the details of how we do it, and that's where some of the difference is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My point is that we're not dissatisfied with the direction we're going for the next five years. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Take a plane flight over Collier County. MR. SUHEK: And maybe put a -- a preface there. Continued protection would be a good way of capturing that so it's not intimating that you're not. Yes, Bettye. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One -- one other thing we -- we may want to consider in -- in that item 7 is what we -- what we as a county board can do. And I'm not sure there's anything we can do, but I think we all know that some 83 to 85 percent of Collier County will be federally or state owned at some time in the future. And the state has taken upon itself the listing of properties to be purchased at some date in the future essentially devaluing the properties and making it very difficult to do anything with. And I'd -- I'd like to see our government find a way to work with these acquisition programs to either get them off of the list or get them bought. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd love that absolutely. MR. SUMEK: And not prolong that where the value may dip. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The last thing I want to do is spend county staff time on an ill-fated program that's going to end up in court. I mean, eventually a class action suit's going to be filed in the CARL program. I'm just so surprised it hasn't happened yet. And I'm -- I'm just wondering if -- if -- I don't disagree that we want to be, I guess, in the process rather than outside of it. But I'm -- I'm concerned about spending staff time on a program that we disagree with on the surface. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But, Tim, we -- we have a project called south blocks that a former board entered into a settlement agreement with DCA on which we have essentially said we will do nothing to enhance development in that area. And for nine years now this property has been on this list and not yet purchased. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not saying that's good. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm saying -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let's do something about it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's -- let's either say -- stipulate an agreement you violated it or something because you haven't bought the land. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whose department is that, Neil? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I misunderstood you as -- as advocating us being a part of the advocacy of the purchase of the property down there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. MR. SUMEK: No. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SUMEK: It's sort of protecting the interest of the county and not let that get forgotten in this prolonged process; is that right, Bettye? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't want to get caught up in an inverse condemnation proceedings as a third party. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I fully support, you know, blank or get off the pot, you know, I mean, as a -- as a statement to -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fish or cut bait I think is another one. MR. SUMEK: How does she type that? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Blank. MR. SUMEK: Okay? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we all understand the intent. MR. SUMEK: I think that's real clear. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we've communicated. MR. SUMEK: Citizen -- I'm going to bring this over here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you put 80 percent in front of the citizen? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't want the 20. MR. SUMEK: That's true. That's true because there's this negative 20 percent, particularly in communities where you have a larger older group that I call professional citizens. They show up, and they bring boxes and files. I don't know whether -- you got some of those around here? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Last week signs and things. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Lyle, we have a new name. My husband and I came up with it. Or no, we didn't come up. We read it in the paper, but it's called CAVE people. MR. SUMEK: Citizens against virtually everything. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Virtually everything. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, we have our share. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're assisted by the bananas, build absolutely nothing nowhere near anything. MR. SUMEK: But this is really reaching out to the -- it -- it's a couple things I've heard as I was talking to you. It's not the 20 percent. It's getting the other 80 percent involved. Maybe we -- this is the 80 percent here, not the 20. And the other part I was hearing is being more responsive to the neighborhood, staff listening and working with various neighborhoods. That's something I heard from a couple of you. Yes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The thing about this one is that it's fundamental, is that what we talked about before about don't lie. So -- so many communities that I've gone in and they've said, well, George Archibald told us 45 times that he was going to fix this light, and he never does, and we've lost them. So -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We gotta get them back. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we've got to start over and not lie to them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean, this is a picture of the guy that -- the -- the sales guy that just lost his biggest client and at the -- the last frame on the TV screen is he's going to visit that old friend. I mean, we've got to do that. We've got to get them back. MR. CONRECODE: If I could tie into that -- MR. SUMEK: Sure. MR. CONRECODE: -- we have to be honest with people, but we also have to be honest with citizens to the point where this is government responsibility. This is your community's responsibility in terms of costs because too often we get, what's the county going to do for me, why -- why can't they just absorb all that costs? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know how many times someone's walked out of my office or got off the phone and said, well, I'm not real happy with what you said, but at least you told -- you know, I hear that a lot. And it makes sense. MR. SUMEK: There's another part to what you're implying there, Tom, is this community responsibility is every citizen's responsibility. And that goes back to some of us older folks who are taught that in our civics classes that if our community's going to get better -- right, Bettye? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have to do it. MR. SUMEK: That's right. And if folks don't dump it on our doorstep, they got -- we ought to ask them if they dump, what are you willing to help us do that? That was taught -- that's old stuff. But a lot of younger folks today, that's a whole alien concept for -- if you're in a real young community. Trying to get them involved is tough so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's -- there's something that's happened in -- in communities larger than -- than ours, and I don't know if there's a way to implement it in looking at the small town feeling or the aesthetic parts of the community is that you can -- there are identifiable areas. You know, Golden Gate City is very identifiable. There are probably people that live in Golden Gate City that would like more say of what goes on in Golden Gate City. So these CACs, it's five or seven people county-wide or something. It's -- it's just kind of broad reaching. I'm not so sure that maybe we wouldn't be better served to implement a more neighborhood-oriented CAC approach that if something is going on in a neighborhood, people within that neighborhood that sit on a CAC, their opinion is forwarded as a part of the package to the board of commissioners. There's got to be a way for people to -- neighborhoods to feel they have some responsibility other than taking work off Tuesday or calling their commissioner that their concerns are considered. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, I think as many property associations, homeowners' association, I think they serve that function very well. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: They may very well or they don't feel recognized. MR. SUMEK: Or linked to the county is what I hear Tim talking about. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I -- I guess I'm looking for a way for -- to -- to let the citizens feel that their opinions are important. And maybe we need to draw out someone other than the 20 percent that are there. I -- I call them the fabulous 20 on Tuesdays. And I came up with that long before here or the golden 20 is what I referred to them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We might all be able to use channel 54 to generate a lot of the stuff. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know about you folks. I never watch channel 54. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me either. MR. SUHEK: There is -- there are cruisers out there that surf the TV channels. And some of that group watch some real weird stuff, the guy polishing the car and lighting it on fire. They go, hmm. They watch it more than -- you've watched it. How many times do you think there's a different conclusion -- MR. OLLIFF: I've seen that. MR. SUHEK: -- that's going to come out of it? Maybe this time it ain't going to polish up. Same thing happens every -- I have one county that has a -- they have a 14 -- program of 5 to 7 minutes. One of the funniest ones is called the Search for Willard. In that county they have responsibilities for sewers. And so they show sewer tapes on TV as they are searching for Willard. And they have a little cartoon character. And the employees put this together because -- and this is in the northwest. And if you plant certain trees, the roots get in and clog the sewers. And so they -- do you think they got a lot of -- people watched it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Conrecode, public works. MR. SUHEK: The other place you need to put information out is in the bathrooms. I'm serious about this. If you're standing at the urinal, there's not a hell of a lot to look at. And put it on the back -- if you're on the crapper, the door's right in front of you. What a great opportunity, and I think I -- we need to reach out to the citizens in differing ways, and that's what I hear -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, if there's one place they think of us, that may be it. MR. SUHEK: Lake Oswego, Oregon, was closing their senior center for Martin Luther King's birthday, and I made a bet with the manager and director. I said, you post it just in the bathrooms, and I'll guarantee you no complaints. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Lyle has come up with a unique way for us to spend a few quiet moments with our constituents. MR. SUHEK: That's true, but what -- what you're talking about, Tim, is looking at new ways of communicating with our citizens where we reach out to them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And maybe channel 54 hits 5 percent and something else hits another 5 percent. I had -- all during this Naples Park drainage issue I kept -- every time I talked to someone and I told them that the pipes under their driveway are their responsibility, they said, I didn't know that. And, you know, I thought, wait a second. Who do you think needs the driveway? The county? You know, we don't need it; you do. It's your pipe. It's your responsibility. And I came up with the idea that -- I don't know whether it's going to happen on -- on this particular issue. But I thought whatever happens, my next step is to have something I'm going to call clean your pipes day. We're going to get some people in Naples Park with shovels. We're going to go street by street. One weekend we're going to hit this street and then go -- shut up, John -- hit one street and then another street. And the reason I got the idea is I went out and helped some people in Vanderbilt Beach put up new road signs in their community. And it was only six people but -- yeah, Pam, you spend a lot of time out there, don't you? But we put up road signs in the community. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I love this job. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I saw that there was like a handful of people that weren't doing it just for themselves or just on their street. And I thought maybe that's a way to let people know and -- and -- and to get involved. And, you know, I guess I'm just looking for more innovative ways or different ways than telling people one at a time as they call me of -- of things that we know are problems. And a lot of this storm water drainage stuff, people call and say, my pipes are clogged. MR. SUHEK: That's a great one you could do because I think given the water we've had here this year in Florida, they're cruising. They go, hmm, let me watch that. Up north, how to fix a pothole. What do citizens think it should -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, the Colony Cablevision info things. MR. SUHEK: Five minutes is usually what they think it should take. Get your public works crews and go out and film it. It doesn't need to be fancy. Citizens will watch that stuff. I didn't know that. Hell, if they watch a guy polishing a car, this is a heck of a lot more interesting. But what you're saying is look at new ways to communicate with them. Other thoughts, Bettye? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've -- we've -- you know, every month we send a bill to our water and sewer customers, and -- and on that bill there's a space for verbiage. MR. CONRECODE: Sixty-four characters. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sixty-four characters. I mean, we -- we can do some creative thoughts in 64 characters even with that, even to get them to watch channel 64 and a search for Willard or -- or something like that. MR. SUMEK: Watch our new episode. There are some things out there -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Every single month. MR. SUMEK: -- that can get it out to folks. Other comments on this one? MR. DORRILL: One that -- that I would like for us to at least explore to -- to go borrow ideas, when I was at the ICMA meeting in Denver, Arvada, Colorado, had a -- a new program they had launched on the heels of community-oriented policing. They now have got sort of community-oriented governing, and they've got a little team of city employees that they will send in to your neighborhood. Rather than that, you know, becoming, frankly, George Archibald's 3,589th promise to go check into something, they send a little team of city employees to say, this is what we think you can do, and this is how it can happen the quickest, and this may be how you help need to organize yourselves and have a Saturday, you know, clean the culvert day. And that's one of the things -- I need to follow up on that. MR. SUMEK: Watch Arvada. Arvada's does not work well. MR. DORRILL: It doesn't? MR. SUMEK: No, because I worked with them. MR. DORRILL: Okay. I -- I picked up some -- MR. SUMEK: Champagne's the one that I would suggest. Champagne, Illinois, is one that really has worked well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What a great idea if I had somebody who knew something about Poinciana Village or knew something about -- MR. SUMEK: Any other comments on this one? The next one I think we've already handled, haven't we? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we take a break? We have a new court reporter here, and they're going to be changing out. MR. SUMEK: I was going to do one more and then take a break. (A discussion was held off the record.) MR. SUMEK: Number 9, I think you already covered that -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, pretty much. MR. SUMEK: -- under -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Everywhere else. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, everywhere else. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So that finger still has some feeling. MR. SUMEK: So we'll scratch this. MR. DORRILL: The planner's having a little inferiority -- you just threw away managed growth. MR. SUHEK: We put it under this one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's okay, Vince. MR. CAUTERO: It's okay. It's all right. I'll get by. MR. SUHEK: I just put down anything they tell me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's his managed growth. He can carry it home. MR. SUHEK: It's drawing blood. Metal coming out of the walls. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't cover workman's comp., do we? MR. DORRILL: Independent contractor, he's on his own. MR. SUHEK: Fiscally sound and stable county government. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Find a way to afford half that stuff. MR. SUHEK: No. There -- there's some of the things that we talked about. Low -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ad valorem taxes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Lowest taxes. MR. CONRECODE: Can I throw out a suicidal "but"? MR. SUHEK: Yeah. Well, they say all that's -- all -- all that's before but's BS, so just say what you're going to say, Tom. MR. CONRECODE: It's set realistic tar -- revenue targets. And -- and just like we plan everything else, let's plan the way our revenue stream's going to grow rather than just consistently hitting rollback every year because I think with things like we want effective storm water drainage, it has a price. We want effective road maintenance. We want effective traffic management mobility. Those all have price tags associated with them. And those price tags aren't necessarily associated with rollbacks. MR. SUHEK: That's not a "but" COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's realism. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, we -- we're -- in this -- this last budget cycle, rollback is what we kept talking about. And once I learned what rollback meant, it made it a little easier, but it still is kind of cumbersome. But I kept thinking during the whole thing that last year, last fiscal year, we provided everything that Collier County provides at cost X. This year we have more people. The cost per person this year should be the same as this year with an increase of whatever the CPI is, and government doesn't grow. You know, people need to know that every year because -- because what we take in in taxes is larger, it doesn't mean the government's getting bigger. As there's more people, government does get bigger. But it needs to stay at a consistent rate that achieves the lowest tax rate, you know, possible. And I just -- it seems to me we were just missing that -- the perspective of, you know, if property values sky rocketed one year yet our millage rate stayed the same, we're in essence growing incredibly. So I'd like to see it based more on what did we spend last year, what's the increase in population, what's the increase in CPI, and how does that relate to what -- MR. DORRILL: You're getting back to unit costs. And then I think the -- the opportunity there is to create incentives for your staff to try to lower the unit costs which is your whole gain sharing concept. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or, as we said before, improve service and maintain unit cost, either way. But the idea is to let people know that government is only growing as its citizenry grows or shrinking as its citizenry shrinks. And our budget process doesn't allow for that assumption to be made anywhere. You have to really dig through and put it together to create -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Tim, the -- the only problem I'm hearing, though, with -- with what you're saying is that you're making an assumption that we're doing everything adequately now. And -- and we've discussed effective drainage earlier, and I think we all kind of decided that in order to do effective drainage maintenance, we need to hire the people and provide the money so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not saying this is a concrete ceiling. I am saying that should be in some form of goal. If things come up or things arise that cause us to have to expend more dollars, if we're sure we've cut everywhere we can cut that's unnecessary and we have to do that, then you don't have a chance. You have to. I'm not saying it's a concrete ceiling. I'm just saying it's a significant baseline for the growth of government that we need to address because, you know, people don't want to see government grow. MR. SUHEK: John? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Really these -- these issues that we're just discussing are almost ancillary issues. The real thing is that we want to know that the things that we are doing and are going to do we are doing in an efficient manner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And effective. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And effective meaning should we be doing it at all. And we've taken some measures on both ends of those, and we want to make sure that we do continue that. Whether -- whether we spend less money or more money next year is really not what we're talking about directly when we say fiscally sound, but how we spend that money and on what do we spend the money is really the issue. MR. HCNEES: Lyle, I'd like to make a comment on that -- MR. SUHEK: Sure. MR. HCNEES: -- as sort of an observer of the budget process over the last how ever many years. And in -- in light of some of the comments recently about why doesn't George Archibald have a jet vac truck and why aren't we doing certain things, I made a note earlier that we need better links between the service impacts of what we do and the budget decisions that we make. And I honestly don't think that that link is missing because we're missing the information because I think the information has to a large degree been provided. What I think one of the gaps is, in the last half a dozen years, the number one driving force in the development of the budget has been millage neutrality. That has been -- and I think Hike would echo that. Decisions are made at that point. When it gets to be June and July, pretty much a lot of other things go out the window. Hillage neutrality is the issue. But then we get into February -- we get into November now, and it's, why doesn't George have the vac truck? And I think we need to find ways -- the information I think is there. I think the budget office has done a good job, particularly in the last couple years, of trying to make those service links. But it's -- the priorities during the summer somehow are different. And we need to find ways to make better links between those budget decisions and what is framing the budget decisions and those service issues. MR. DORRILL: Brilliant point. And then the -- the effect of that has been that for about the last three years we have been cannibalizing general government under the county commission in order to give the constitutional officers whatever they ask for. And our -- our response typically has been that, well, we're not the sheriff and we don't understand law enforcement so we want the sheriff to tell us what he needs, and then we always give him what he needs. But then frankly we don't understand EMS or we don't understand the dynamics of road building any more than we understand law enforcement. The -- the commission in order to get beyond millage neutral mentality is going to have to hold the constitutional officers just as accountable if for no other reason than you are the only source of appropriation. Regardless of what they tell you, the county commission is the only one and the ultimate one who appropriates money. And we're in kind of a downward cycle as it pertains to what the board is funding with general revenues in order to dole it out to other political officials based on what they -- they ask for. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Isn't that the danger of being lumped together because even though we're looking at the budget, we can look at what the BCC section is? When it gets in the paper, it's as an overall lump sum. So what happens is if the sheriff has grown more than we have grown, that means we have cut back in areas or had to cut back in areas that we wouldn't have had to otherwise. I'd like to answer for our own shop first. MR. DORRILL: John talked to me about that very thing just last week. He said, I wish you would format the budget to where we can confront the issues and show in categorical form how the money's being spent because John says, I'm -- I'm tired of being blamed for the whole budget -- MR. SUMEK: John, remind me -- MR. DORRILL: -- when the general revenues -- MR. SUMEK: -- in a moment to write that down later. MR. DORRILL: -- when general revenues -- 60 percent of general revenues are going to the sheriff. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, and that's -- that's a valid point. If all we had to be concerned with at a given point is the BCC allocation and people knew how little of their taxes actually go to the Board of County Commissioners, that's creating -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we beat that to death. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and that's creating a more realistic picture for expectation of delivery of service. They think 350 million dollars goes to the board and -- and we spend it all. And that simply isn't the truth. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not even close. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And so maybe we need to through the budget process create a more realistic -- realistic expectation for people by treating the board budget separately from that of the sheriff and talking about increases individually and not lumping us together and we take all the beats and bruises for -- for everyone. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Another thing that -- that we do and some -- something that I've talked about for a couple of years now is that we -- we always pull the previous year's leftover uncompleted projects into the current budget as revenue, and that's part of your 350 million dollars. It has nothing to do with the current year's projects. That's a project left over from the previous year that's not finished. But we're going to finish paying for it this year, and that winds up as part of your 350 million dollar revenue even though it's equally an expense. So, you know, we've got that going on too. Our budget is growing, yeah, because the capital projects are getting to be more complicated, takes them longer to get them done, so the budget grows and grows and grows. I mean, it's -- we're not talking about new projects each year. We're not talking about operating costs each year. We're talking about a budget in its entirety. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we have a problem with trust in -- in county government. And that's why ad -- why -- why millage neutralism has been so important is because the public doesn't trust local government to spend their tax dollars. They'll go spend $200 a month on condo association fees for mowing grass. But, my God, $4 a month for increase in taxes is -- is the world coming to an end. And it's because they don't trust local government. And maybe that's the sign that we're not communicating what we're doing for their tax dollars effectively. If they knew how -- how little we actually get and what we have to do to do it, I mean, we may not get the 80 percent people to understand. We would be lucky to get to 25 percent. MR. SUMEK: But it's better than what you got now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's better than what we have now. MR. SUMEK: Go ahead. MR. OLLIFF: One of the things at the staff level that we face -- and it's -- it's a prevalent feeling at the staff level -- is that because of growth management, because of impact fees, it's easy to build new. It's extremely difficult to maintain what you have, and I think as this county grows, we are becoming older and older in terms of our facilities and the things that we've built. And the maintenance costs for a building like this one, for instance, which is, you know, 15 years old, they start to sky rocket. And so our maintenance costs are growing much faster than we can keep up with them. And I think the quality of what you have out there in the field continues to degrade almost every year because we're not able to maintain it the way we always have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the same problem we addressed in utilities. And the reason we were able to successfully address maintenance in utilities is because it was an enterprise fund because the money was there and we weren't going to have to raise rates. But if we address the same thing with parks and rec., it comes back to taxes. That means we have to raise -- MR. DORRILL: And it's not so much parks and rec. It's -- it's Leo's division because if it gets down -- and it's him and it's poor Skip Camp who -- we now own and operate over a million square feet of space. But his unit costs usually are going down, although the age of our facilities are going up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, these are the same things I was talking about when I said every year government has -- local government, if we have increased population, increase in consumer price index, the local budget has to creep up. It's got to creep up commensurate with that. And you throw in new construction and additional staffing, it's gotta go up. And -- and if we fail to recognize that every year and we fail to -- to relate that to people, it doesn't mean your taxes have to go up. Maybe, you know, property values -- if we do those things right, property values are going to stay ahead of where we -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. We've got a 3 percent cap on property assessments right now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- we are going to be raising the millage I would think. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But not -- not next year because next year's an election year, and we don't dare. MR. SUHEK: But I think you're -- you're hitting a couple of key points here. One is that -- enhancing the -- the public's understanding of it. As I travel around, there's also a need for staff to deal with this as well. As I talk to a lot of groups, I can really irritate firefighters real quickly and fire chiefs by bringing up a bat. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do that regularly. MR. SUHEK: Well, in a lot of communities, they -- they want big trucks, bells, whistles and all. Mini pumpers can work as well if not better in most urban areas. You know what a mini pumper is? It's a little truck. But you tell that -- go to a fire chiefs' conference and say mini pumpers. It's worse than if you had used the "f" word there. I mean, they'll tar and feather you before you're out the door. And I think sometimes we need to get out of the tradition and ask, what is the service we're trying to provide here? Dubuque did a study recently where they analyzed how much time a firefighter spends fighting an average fire in a year. What's the matter, Tom? You think that -- 27 minutes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bring that up in your committee, Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just facilitating. I'm not steering consolidation. MR. SUHEK: Anyway, but that's one I think we're going to see the demise of fire departments being replaced by a department of emergency services. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No kidding. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, what a concept. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next. MR. DORRILL: You're about to -- you're about to open an old wound here. MR. SUHEK: Okay. Moving right along, my point is it goes back to what John was talking about in terms of efficiency saying, what services should we be providing and are they efficient because there's some services we ought to wipe out as a county because they're no longer valid. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As an example, we just did something I thought about transportation that -- that I have -- I don't -- I've yet to understand. We have -- we make road signs in our road and bridge department. We have a little department that does that. Should government be making road signs? MR. SUHEK: Ah. So part of this -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, there are -- are how many hundreds of companies? So what do we do? Well, we got a privatization task force to look at it. And what they did is they privatized a portion of it. And I went and visited that department. What we ended up privatizing are the more custom ones, not the bulk ones. We're sending out orders on individual street signs, and you have to have ten before they can send it out. So we have ten street signs waiting to get made while we're making stop signs. You know, it's one of those things that should we be doing this at all. MR. SUMEK: And that's a basic question today because a lot of the things we have inherited by tradition. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You need to read the minutes from the privatization meeting on -- on the road signs because that's our question. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I walk into a department and see how it's operating and something stands out and says, this doesn't work, you know, there's something wrong there. And I'm not accusing privatization of doing anything wrong or -- or -- or making a bad decision. But sometimes we need to -- to do just that. Should we be doing this, and can we do it on the same cost basis as private if we can't? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's Neil's job. That's Neil's job. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you know, there are a lot of things we talked about today that aren't my job. MR. SUMEK: The part of governance is the board knowing when not to get involved too. Part of it is delegating it and delegating it to either citizens or others. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, Neil. Get them all done, and don't raise taxes. MR. SUMEK: Okay. I'd like you to look at these nine -- MR. DORRILL: No. First you promised to let her go back to the office. MR. SUMEK: Well, this is going to take two minutes. This will wrap up -- this will wrap up this part, and then we do a shift; okay? (A discussion was held off the record.) MR. SUMEK: Looking at these nine from your point of view, what are the four most important? What -- what -- you're the policy makers here, and give me a fifth one for a tie breaker. And all I need are numbers. All I need are numbers. You're saying these are five-year destination point from your point of view. Assuming nothing, what are the five most important? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In no particular order. MR. SUMEK: No particular order. All I need are five numbers. Who wants to help? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And the fifth number would be the alternate? MR. SUMEK: Yeah. Circle it. You guys know how to do one, two, three, four, five? MR. OLLIFF: Yeah, I think we can handle it. MR. SUMEK: Good. First five. You gotta get out of the way so they can read them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom, get out of our way. Is somebody singing the Jeopardy tune? Oh, it's Hart. MR. SUMEK: With his tie he can probably do other weird stuff too. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. That's why we love him. MR. SUMEK: That was easy, wasn't it? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: There was only nine. I was just deciding which four I didn't like. MR. SUMEK: They're not ranking them. They're doing one, two -- we're doing majority vote because if you do ranking, then it loses its -- do you follow me on that because I want to go with the majority of the board because those hold? Ranking don't. All right. Ready to go? You guys can divide -- one. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Make a mark. You go one, two, three, four, five. MR. CAUTERO: I know that but one what? MR. SUHEK: One mark in one. There we go. Good. Three -- now you're getting the swing -- nine, five, one. MR. CAUTERO: Do you think you could put these a little higher for me? MR. SUHEK: Two, three, nine, two, four, six, nine, two, four, three, eight. And when Tim gets back, we'll get his ranking too. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, he's not here. He doesn't get to play. MR. SUHEK: Well, he's got -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've got three to three right MR. SUMEK: Those that are top priority are effective drainage system, small town feeling with quality urban services provided by government, a fiscally sound and stable county government. Do you want to let Tim vote, or do you want me to go to your tie breaker? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tie breaker. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tie breaker. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Tie breaker. MR. SUHEK: We'll see what we've got. Two -- put it in the first column -- eight, seven. Doesn't help anyway, so what the hell? Okay. Let's take the break, and we'll let you get out of here. (A short break was held.) MR. SUHEK: Now, we will give reasons for what you have just said. And what are you going to do about it? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Direct staff. MR. SUHEK: This is your one-year map. You said outcomes. You want effective drainage, county urban services provided by county government, and a fiscally sound and stable government. But there's others out there that are really secondary; citizen oriented, diverse economy and beautiful and aesthetics. So you really got two levels looking at your votes there. Given those in mind, I heard 21 targets. Targets are things you can say, yup, we did, or nope, we didn't do. And I really urge you after we vote on them to put them up on the wall. Let me run through these and I'm going to see whether -- we're going to talk about these; and, again, there are specific actions. By the way, to the staff, you get this all typed back and if I get it Federal Expressed today, faxed to you tomorrow, so don't worry about taking copious notes. With technology today -- it's hard faxing these big suckers. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You need a big fax machine. MR. SUHEK: A great big, huge one, so you have to overnight it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That means we need big paper; right -- MR. SUHEK: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- on our end. MR. SUHEK: So, if you look up here, some of you should see some things here that are vaguely familiar. Or I had some bad dreams last night or this morning when I was writing them up. I did change a couple. I did add 21 for your interest, John, budget process revisions. So the intent is -- over the next few minutes is to briefly talk about it, not reiterate it, because some of them we have already talked about before, but add specific things. And then we're going to vote priorities. If he does not follow through or his staff, fire him. Hello? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have had that discussion before. MR. SUMEK: I'm very serious about this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So are we. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So are we. MR. SUMEK: You set the goals and say, here's what we want to do, folks. Now, you all figure it out. You didn't know I was going to say that, did you, Neil? MR. DORRILL: Not in that particular way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Neil is going through the list of facilitators as we speak. MR. SUMEK: But I'm very serious, because the Board of Commissioners are the policy setters. It's your job to say, here's what we want, here's where we want to be in five years, and here's what we want done. Now, staff, you figure out how in the heck to do it. Work with citizens and your own staff to make it happen. Okay, these again are not in any priority order, okay? Public transit feasibility study and direction: What I heard -- we did change that a little bit, didn't we? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was that it, John? MR. SUMEK: -- is work with Lee County, determine what the needs are, explore options and funding and determine where you really want to go with this, if anywhere. Does that capture your ideas? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Gee. MR. SUMEK: Any other thoughts on that one? Some of these will go quicker than others. Youth programs: This was saying we're doing a lot of things, but what's the impact of those, and do we need to redirect them? Can you read that, John? Good, you've got good eyes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. MR. SUMEK: That's better for golf. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I ought to have good eyes for all the money the -- cost me. MR. SUMEK: Oh, you've got some of those. They help putting, too. Review current activities and programs: What are we doing in the county? What are the needs? Determine the desired direction and explore options. What are successes that have been used by other governments rather than reinvent the wheel? What else would you like to see on this one, because a couple of you talked to me about this? Tim? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to see us closer -- work closer with the school board in sharing not just responsibilities, but resources. Let's use their gyms. Let's use their facilities, a little more consistent cooperation there. MR. SUMEK: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Time out. You have got to back me up for a second and tell me how we're reconciling what you're calling an action agenda and what I'm calling, like, in our annual work plans specific performance and then dates, milestones -- MR. SUHEK: You can take these and build it right into those, Neil. MR. DORRILL: Okay, but reconcile action agenda against major goals. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The top three. MR. SUHEK: They're easy. Where's my map here? Here we go. They said where they want to be in five years. You're not going to get done on those in a year. MR. DORRILL: Right. MR. SUHEK: You've got some benchmarks of success here. So, this is like we want to go to Orlando tonight. Now we need to build the map on what route we're going to take. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if we decided where we want to go with stormwater drainage, where are we going with the youth programs? MR. SUHEK: You're going to prioritize these. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SUHEK: These are specific actions. These were when I said, What do you think needs to be addressed by the County Commission. I didn't have the advantage of all this prioritized. So what I did was write down anything anybody said you wanted to get done and addressed during the next year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we may add to this now? MR. SUHEK: You bet, ya. Okay. And when the priorities come out, there will probably be a high likelihood of close correlation, but there will also be some other issues that you feel really do need to be addressed. MR. DORRILL: And so specifically while there is no action agenda as it relates to the 1996 work plan, effective drainage and stormwater control is a major goal. MR. SUHEK: We've got it coming up here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, that ain't -- MR. DORRILL: Number five. MR. SUHEK: Okay. I'm all right now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me try, if I may, just get something in, if I can here. The youth thing was one thing I was -- MR. SUHEK: You weren't alone. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- was bringing up, and I brought it up because it's something I'm working on currently. It's something I think I can achieve in the next year and get some direction on. even though those may be big goals of mine, this is something I would want to get done in the next year, and that's why I think the two don't have to be the same. MR. SUHEK: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: These don't have to be all the steps to just those priorities. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SUHEK: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SUHEK: This is what you want to do in the next year. Now, if you got an 80 percent correlation or 70 percent between this and that, you're in great shape, because there will be other things that you will individually may want to deal with, and there may be crises out there that you've got to deal with anyway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to have distractions, yes. MR. SUHEK: Right. MR. HcNEES: That fits, though, with small town quality of services to youth issues. MR. SUHEK: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A safe place for the family to go. MR. SUHEK: Well, wasn't there a feeling of safety there? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. SUHEK: Okay. Are we all right? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got it now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good pick, Hike. MR. SUHEK: Growth management, we talked about this one. And this is dusting off your existing policies saying is this really where we want to go and then reviewing or revising the Land Development Code to be consistent with where you want to go. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That encompasses just about everything on number three up there. MR. SUHEK: And it does take a big step to get here. And it's saying that our policies and processes are consistent with this goal. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The state's mandating that we do that. We're in the process of doing that one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but we can cookie cutter it, or we can tailor it to get there. And I think what we're saying is tailor these policy directions to achieve what we've said is important. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, I agree with that. All I'm saying is, we don't have the option of putting that one on or off of this year's list. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, but we can do it next year, too. MR. SUHEK: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can amend our growth management plan once a year and our LDC twice a year. So we can do that. It could take five years or more to get there, but maybe this year we need to pick a few off that list that we want to get accomplished and move in that direction. MR. OLLIFF: Well, the EAR is allowing you to do several of those steps -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At one time. MR. OLLIFF: -- to review existing policies. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But aren't the EAR recommendations going to be what the five -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes. I think in many cases the answer to that is yes. MR. SUHEK: And then it gets back to the board making those decisions, and we really want to revise it to reflect that goal. So this is looking at really the policy direction there. Are there other things that I ought to add to that, staff, that you see? Is that one clear? The next one is redevelopment plan for East Naples, and that is work with the community, identify the needs and opportunities, define what the county's role is going to be there, and develop a redevelopment -- revitalization is another word that was picked up from this morning's activities -- plan for that area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about identify funding sources? That seems to be the lynch pin in almost all redevelopment efforts. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bonita Springs is doing it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know anything about their plan. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're going to be getting a copy of it. MR. SUHEK: Does that capture this one? MR. DORRILL: Does that also take into account some of John Norris's previous suggestions about beautification and landscaping in older areas, that sort of stuff, too? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MR. SUHEK: Is the focal point -- MR. DORRILL: I'm going to ask a lot of questions -- MR. SUHEK: This here I heard on East Naples. MR. DORRILL: I'm going to encourage the staff to ask a lot of questions -- MR. SUHEK: Fire away. MR. DORRILL: -- because if we've got to go prepare our work plan and have this submitted -- MR. SUHEK: Or if you have other ideas, fire them out, too. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please. MR. SUHEK: Does that capture what we talked about? MR. DORRILL: I think so. MR. SUHEK: Drainage, this one is hard because it looks like Lyle spelled weird. Same letters. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you want that renamed after you, we can do it. MR. SUHEK: No, I don't think so. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, I don't think you do either. MR. SUHEK: What needs to be done on that one this year? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's part of what we were talking about, the joint organization. We don't control that canal, do we? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is really -- this is really a problem, because the Lely canal and the Lely outfall is fed with water pouring down out of Hendry County is where it begins. So it comes through Collier County, through Lely, and empties into wherever it's going to go. We need, I guess, basin studies to even begin to think about it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, how about just more capacity? MR. SUHEK: John? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just say a little bit. As long as we're on drainage, let me say the one thing that all of this rain this summer has done for us is eliminate the need for any plans. It identified very graphically where our trouble points are and where they're not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Water is going to go where it wants. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's going to go where it wants, and it very clearly identifies where our problems are. What we need is to get some equipment that we can use and make sure that we have the easements. MR. SUMEK: obtain easements? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: with. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: improve flows. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know if you ever got it -- So on this one here, John, would be to Easements and equipment. We need the equipment to do it Equipment and easements to Yeah. And not only for that canal, but for all the other canals in the county that didn't have -- MR. SUMEK: Same thing? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Same thing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That will be the same thing, yes. We know now where the problems are. We don't have to study it to guess. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: All you have to do is look at the street addresses of the damage and those areas that are more rural, the roads that were under water. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as much as everybody hates to talk about Sabal Bay, the Lely canal drainage plan is a part of Sabal Bay that the Colliers would have done for free if we could have gotten Sabal Bay built, and we can't. So, you know, let's don't redo their work. They've already done the work to figure out what needs to be done on Lely canal. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, but we're sort of going to get off of the main track here, but they had put in very elaborate roads, which I don't think the county is either obligated or necessarily should do. Most of that was enhancements to their developments, but it had a lot of benefits to our drainage system as well. But I don't think the county should necessarily go in there and do the full scope of drainage improvements they wanted to do. I think we have the responsibility to make that canal flow. MR. SUMEK: And on both of these, John, you have responsibilities for; right? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. SUMEK: And so the keys on these two is getting the easements and getting the equipment to go in and maintain it. Tom? MR. OLLIFF: Well, on the Cocohatchee canal there's some shared responsibility because that falls under the Big Cypress basin. MR. SUMEK: So it would be working with them then, too. MR. OLLIFF: They've got a phased approach to that where they're constructing and we're excavating additional canal. They are constructing and we are excavating an additional canal. So they've got that phased in three distinct phases. They're working on the second one now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I was going to ask you earlier, Tom, but we got off the subject was is there a map of ours, theirs, and private? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I get a copy of it? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Also, the joint effort that I was talking about before lunch on the 951 -- the roadway extending up to Terry and eventually to Treeline in a joint effort with water control structures, would controlled water be moving into both of these canals? MR. SUMEK: So C -- we ought to add a C out there, right, Bettye? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was about to say those two canals are great ideas. But C -- you can go right to the number two list right there of agencies working together on common goals, that's got to be a part of our action plan in the next year. I don't think we can wait another year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've got to establish those. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Later are we going to talk about how? Right now we're just talking about what, sir? MR. SUMEK: What? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Later we talk about how. Right now we're just talking about what? MR. SUMEK: No, you can get into the hows a little bit. We're just not going to decide the color the equipment is. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That one about how to work with the other agencies baffles me, because I don't want to have a bunch of joint meetings, sit around in a room, and waste a lot of time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The basin, that's agreed to establishing a meeting on this basin study, that's three or four years away. And Neil and I and Glenn Simpson and Paul Van Boskirk (phonetic) and John Boldt are going to sit down and try to work that out, just the five of us, and bring a plan to each of the boards for the group. So we're already beginning that C now. MR. SUMEK: C is working with other agencies to identify what our goals are and to develop some joint work projects. Tom? MR. OLLIFF: We can't ignore political boundaries that come into play here as well, because the majority of the serious flooding -- serious, and not to belittle any of your folks calling it -- but the serious flooding occurred in Bonita. The water management district of Big Cypress basin is looking to Collier County to receive a lot of that drainage and to evacuate that water through the Cocohatchee River, down 951, out the Golden Gate canal. But our system performed during those storm events at capacity. They were at the top of the bank. They were washing the other sides of those bridges. So politics is going to come into play as well, because they're going to want to move a few tens of millions of gallons of water. MR. SUMEK: So you have got to protect your interest as part of that process, too, is what I hear you saying, Tom; is that right? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we got that berm built on the north part of the county yet? MR. SUMEK: So we ought to put that down as a reminder bullet to protect your interest and not let others -- MR. OLLIFF: Because Bonita won't flood the next time, but everything along the Gordon River drainage ditches will. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you imagine what Lely would look like if that water were redirected into that system? The Lely area would be swimming. MR. SUMEK: I have difficulty keeping a straight face on this one because in Colorado after the big Thompson flood, when that broke the city did a mass -- it had five different water basins, and they called it the master basin report. And so when the chair introduced this, Bettye, can you imagine the TV's going, hello, what did they say there. It did get folks' attention. So when you were talking about this, Pam, it's hard to get that one out of my mind. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We might be able to use that because we've got all of these sub-basins, and then we have this big basin. MR. SUMEK: Right. And that's what they called it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That might be a good title for Channel 54 to get them to watch it. MR. SUHEK: At least they would listen to what the heck it was if you think you can get their attention. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you mind leaving my name off the credits? MR. SUHEK: Is there any other -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got one. MR. SUMEK: Pam. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there anybody from your staff who goes to these meetings and participates, represents the county staff, and if not, I would like to suggest it. MR. DORRILL: John Boldt goes to all the Big Cypress meetings. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: But in a year, we never saw a caution flag from John. MR. SUHEK: So report would be regular reports from staff on activities here? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That affect Collier County or could, both from the basin and the board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The year I have been in office I have received nothing that said here's an area of potential concern that South Florida or Big Cypress is working on, yet I have to believe in that year there were things to be concerned about. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, people from the public have written me letters about raises, that South Florida is going to raise the water level 5 feet. MR. SUHEK: One of the things I would suggest for those items that come out as top and high priority, get a quarterly report from staff that is brief and focused, here's what we've done in the last quarter, here's what's coming up in the next quarter to alert you, Pam, so that you know what's coming up. So it's not like you just met here today and I go away and it's gone. You use it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Neil, especially the here's what's coming up, here's what we're afraid might happen, even more than -- MR. SUHEK: So regular reports from staff on the heads up on that. MR. DORRILL: And we have got the mechanism to do that already through a -- we have a monthly work program and a summary and it's -- MR. SUHEK: I saw the thick one. MR. DORRILL: That's the annual one. And we're to expect to do even a weekly one? MR. SUHEK: You can get all of this stuff on two pages. Ready to go? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. SUHEK: Does that cover that one? What needs to be done on the Gordon River bridge? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hoot point, case closed. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next question. MR. SUHEK: Can I rip this off? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. SUHEK: That's all done? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's done. MR. SUMEK: Who wants it? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Put it this way, in the next 12 months nothing is going to happen on it. MR. SUMEK: Crumple that up and give it to Conrecode. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we send it to Mayor Muenzer instead. MR. SUMEK: I enjoy doing this. It gives me a sense of -- who gets this? This is all yours, Tom, folded up, personally given to you; right? MR. CONRECODE: Can I make a paper bridge out of it? MR. SUMEK: At a later point in time, you may find it valuable. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we're in deep trouble, you can pull that out of your scrapbook. MR. SUMEK: All right. Moving right along. Hello, Tim. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We knew that was coming up. MR. SUMEK: What are some realistic options -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me comment on this, because I asked Mr. Dorrill about architectural controls and reviews two years ago, and we had staff look into it to some degree and -- MR. SUMEK: It's back on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- it's not going to be an easy thing to do, and it's not going to be a fun thing to do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bettye, whack it off. If we're going to do it -- if we're going to do it, if we have agreed that we need to address it, then what we're going to have to do -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would never say that. Please. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, it's difficult. Yes, it's cumbersome, and, yes, it can be a quagmire. Other communities have done it; they've done it successfully. Let's not reinvent the wheel. Let's take a -- I would like to see that next year we take a sample area, whether it be certain arterial roads, and we isolate them to commercial and industrial properties. We say we're going to start here. If you build a commercial or industrial property along these arterial roads, here's some criteria for architectural control, here's a review process that has to be done. In other words, let's set the parameters and give it a try based on what other communities have succeeded in doing. And unless we take that step, we're never going to know whether we can succeed. We're just going to continue to fail because it appears difficult. MR. CAUTERO: I think this has a lot of merit, but I don't think we should do it in a piecemeal fashion. Because the day that happens you're going to be in Dave's office, private property rights and the whole bit. If we start tackling commercial and industrial first before we do residential, we can open up a can of worms. We don't even know the full extent of the private property rights legislation anyway. MR. SUMEK: So what are your options here? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Residential houses typically don't build fronting arterial roads. And if they do, make them subject to it. I'm just saying let's find a way to sample through this without becoming a Boca where we're telling people what color they can paint their house. I don't think we have to go that far. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it has to be countywide, though and not -- I like the idea of arterials, but you're going to get all kinds of lawsuits if you do that. Youwre going to have to do it on a county-wide basis, and maybe the walk before you run is that we start with small requirements. What you said this morning that got my attention is Wal-Mart has something besides a big gray box. Iwm all for coming up with some new regulations to prevent more gray Wal-Marts. And Iwm not sure that Iwm for much more control than that. MR. SUMEK: This is looking at it -- today wewre not going to resolve it, but we can understand it, and say this is a potential target for the next year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why canlt we find out what has worked in other communities? MR. SUMEK: Thatls what it says. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And then we find out how we can apply that into our community and customize it. MR. SUMEK: Thatls what it does. And then make a decision really whether you want to go ahead with it. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: So this year would be to study it? MR. SUMEK: And decide. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. This year is to get it in place. This year is to stop -- MR. SUMEK: We need to put another one, decide, and I wonlt put a copy down. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I donlt want this to become another study that we decide that, gee, itls kind of difficult. My goal is to do something about it, because if we donlt, welre going to end up with more of what we have. MR. SUMEK: And this could get checked off two ways. Yes, welre going ahead with it or, no, itls dead. And that would be one way of checking this one off. This does not say youlre going to do it. This is saying youlre going to investigate it. Comments on this one? MR. OLLIFF: Just a process question. Are we developing a consensus at this level? MR. SUMEK: No, no, no. Theylre going to vote in a few minutes. MR. OLLIFF: Oh, okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Iive got some problems with wanting to do architectural control countywide. And I understand that it probably needs to be countywide, but we have got areas within this county who are in no way, shape, or form Naples, and they have no desire to be. MR. DORRILL: Thatls a good point. There are people in Immokalee who, frankly, think that retaining stormwater on site and handicapped parking requirements are a communist plot. MR. SUMEK: So youlre really talking about countywide versus differential. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: But it can be -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I was saying here again welre getting in the trap that we make it so specific that it all has to look like Fifth Avenue South, and by no means is that what Iim saying. Iim looking for a vehicle to allow us to have some say in how we physically develop. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thatls fine. Iim just saying that we need to consider the fact that not everybody who lives in Collier County wants to live in a place that looks like Naples. MR. SUMEK: Iim going to abbreviate this. Iive got the decision on differential versus countywide. Economic development direction and action plan, this was to evaluate what are we doing -- we talked about this one basically this morning in a little specifics. Evaluating the current activities, look at where we want to go, define the county's role -- remember that discussion -- and develop a viable, real economic strategy and action plan. Does that capture the discussion this morning? Comments there? Staff, comments? MR. DORRILL: How does that relate to the draft report here? MR. CAUTERO: I just want to say for everybody's information, especially the board, the Council of Economic Advisors has recently submitted a memorandum or letter to Commissioner Matthews and copied all the divisions with phase one of the draft economic plan which is data collection and analysis. Phase two is to establish a work group and bring in a private consultant that has expertise in developing strategies. So what that team would do is produce, in essence, what you have there, and then their product would be recommended, again, to the chairman and the board for the board then to initiate policy. MR. SUMEK: This is a policy-shaping system, right, Vince? MR. CAUTERO: Advisors -- MR. SUMEK: MR. CAUTERO: HR. SUHEK: Yeah, right. What the Council of Economic This would be the next step? -- is that step right there. Good. This is very consistent with where you are. Other comments there? Water Supply, work with South Florida Water Management District. Are there things that need to be done there this year? Tom, are you shaking your head? Bettye? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're finishing up their water supply plan. MR. SUMEK: That will be coming to you this year? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've already gotten two pieces of it. It's called the west coast water supply -- MR. SUMEK: What's the county's role in that? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To receive it. MR. SUMEK: Receive the file or comment? MR. OLLIFF: That's a very large scope, broad issue that the water management district is dealing with and it impacts us, but beyond that we're in the process of doing our consumptive use permits this year. MR. SUMEK: So we need to add that up here, review permits? MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. It ties into the west coast plan. In addition to that we're going to have to kick into the next phase of our water conservation efforts which is going to be a major policy issue for the board this year. MR. SUMEK: Next phase of water conservation? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does this have to do with water reuse, because I'd love to talk about that? MR. OLLIFF: Water reuses can be a main part of that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MR. DORRILL: As part of our getting our permits renewed to control water -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because about a year ago -- it couldn't have been quite a year ago, but about a year ago we talked about providing some incentives for communities that wanted to retrofit or, you know, something in the dual system, and we hadn't done anything about that. MR. SUHEK: We ought to put up there discuss -- explore and discuss water tense -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MR. SUHEK: -- as parts of this? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MR. SUHEK: How are we doing on this one, Tom, okay? Other comments on that one? Good points. Vision for the Future, you have got a group working on the vision that will be coming to you from what I understand -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In Hay. MR. SUHEK: -- and you will decide what your role is and where that goes from here. Does that capture that one? Are you being called, Pam? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are some master plans that are being done to the different localities. I believe Marco Island should be finishing its master plan. MR. SUHEK: Is that part of the visioning process? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, it's not. MR. SUMEK: Or is it separate? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's separate. MR. SUMEK: Does that need to be up there as 22, or is it linked to this? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it's in progress. It should be nothing for us to worry about. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: North Naples is in line next. I mean, we have other communities that are stepping in line, so as the staff resources become available, so do we want to make a decision over the next year or two to complete or continue the community master planning process? MR. SUMEK: I think that goes up here. MR. CAUTERO: Can I make a comment on that, though? Personally I think that duty belongs under number three as an offshoot of number four really, even though it's East Naples -- MR. SUMEK: So it would be a bullet here; right? MR. CAUTERO: It could be. It could be because -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Neighborhood master plans. MR. SUMEK: So put it under there? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Neighborhood master plans, yeah. MR. SUMEK: Does that capture it then? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. DORRILL: Yes. MR. SUMEK: Okay. Landfill decision. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I just thought it was Commissioner Constantine's car. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pick it, permit it, pile it on. MR. SUMEK: What is it? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pick it, permit it, pile it on. MR. SUMEK: Do you have it sited? That's probably a good point then; right? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before did we say we wanted to have it sited in that first year? MR. OLLIFF: That's, in essence, what you're going to arrive at this year. MR. SUMEK: This year being '95 or '96? So that ought to go up here, Tom, then? MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. The decision will be Hay of '96. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is a part of the siting process determining its permitability? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. MR. SUHEK: So we need to put that down? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have it up there, pursue permits. That should be second to siting. MR. SUHEK: Is that better? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's about the only thing realistic this year. MR. SUHEK: Okay. How are we doing? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MR. SUMEK: Next one, affordable housing plan. We talked about it a few minutes this morning; right? Review current plans and efforts, determine policy direction, review your current policy, and decide if there's any need for an action plan here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All I really want to do about affordable housing -- and maybe because I already have decided what my vote on an action plan would be -- is to investigate low and very low -- requirements for low and very-low affordable housing. MR. SUMEK: Tim, you have a little task. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, how lucky. MR. SUMEK: We have already voted, but we're going to let you vote anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It doesn't count or anything, Tim. MR. SUMEK: There were nine things there. Give me the five or four most important from your point of view. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fair enough. MR. SUMEK: Fair enough, and we'll get back to this. So let's scratch this stuff; right? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For my vote -- MR. SUMEK: What do you want to do? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All I want to know is -- I would like for staff to make recommendations on how to encourage low and very-low affordable housing, quality low and very low. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While balancing the need for quality sustainability. MR. SUMEK: Report -- help me, Pam. MR. MAC KIE: On how to encourage low and very-low affordable housing with emphasis on management for sustainability. How's that for political? MR. SUMEK: Low and very-low affordable housing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is low, lower, and lowest? MR. SUMEK: I've got low and lower. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SUMEK: Do you want a lowest, too, in there? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, just low and very low. MR. SUMEK: Low and very low. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And with emphasis on management and sustainability. MR. SUMEK: Okay. Which is consistent with what we talked about this morning. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. MR. SUHEK: On management and sustainability, other comments on that one? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You know, perhaps in the affordable housing something that we may want to do in that report or review or whatever it is, the last report that we had on it was in Collier County some 5,000 dwelling units short of its needs for affordable housing, and we may need to have some idea of how we intend to provide those 5,000 units in a reasonable time frame. MR. SUMEK: So really focusing what those needs are today and in the future, Bettye, and then that links back to the how do we respond to that need. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which links back to the economic development. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's all linked. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: People have to live somewhere. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want me to do number five? MR. SUMEK: You don't need to do number five. All you need to do is four. We never used the other one really anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One stroke penalty. MR. SUMEK: So he's got number nine. Yours is totally anonymous. This one now becomes a top priority. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which? MR. SUMEK: Diverse economic. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, good one. Glad you're back. Your vote counts. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She's absolutely right if you want to know where the third one came from. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Guess where the other two didn't? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me guess. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I like that, too. MR. SUMEK: You've got five goals here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam got hers; I got mine. MR. SUMEK: Thank you, Tim. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, thank you. MR. SUMEK: You helped. How are you doing? Do you need a quick break? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. MR. SUMEK: I may need to go for one minute in a little bit, but we'll see. When you get older you've got to -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the whole nature thing. MR. SUMEK: The whole damn thing. Thirteen -- we've got to have some fun while we do this; right? Transportation, streets and roads direction, this goes into some of the discussion we had this morning of deciding, you know, where are we and where can we realistically go on this. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it would be accurate to say review proposed plan, because right now we're at a 20/20 study. MR. SUMEK: That's a 20/20? MR. OLLIFF: We're shifting from the 20/10 to the 20/20. MR. SUMEK: So, this is the 20/20; right? Tom, is that the best way of capturing it, 20/20? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this where that whole discussion of neighborhood commercial and not having to get on a major road -- MR. SUMEK: Uh-huh, so it would be incorporating the goal that we talked about this morning. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Community improvements to reduce off-site trips. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we were talking about the village of commercial in this to keep people from having to get in Neil's description of the pipeline in order to do minor shopping. MR. SUMEK: So incorporate that community village concept; right? MR. OLLIFF: I don't want to complicate transportation, because some of these are land use and the other type of issues more so than they are specifically streets and roads. MR. SUMEK: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess with the streets and roads, we talked about looking at acquisition of right of way for future roads as a priority -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's a good one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- at least equal to expansion of existing facilities. MR. CONRECODE: You also talked about interconnectivity. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, two good ones. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the perimeter requirement -- MR. SUMEK: Those are incorporated into what you're -- see, the vehicle becomes this, and when you look at that plan, you go back over here, and it says is it achieving what we want here. This is the outcome we want. Is that plan getting us to the goals for achieving? If not, then you ought to modify that 20/20 plan or suggest it gets modified. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that where -- not having adopted the 20/10 plan, is the 20/20 plan where we're going to talk about things like neighborhood commercial and interconnection of subdivisions and -- MR. DORRILL: No. I think that's back to number three and part of your EAR. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's one of those things that's intertwined and shouldn't be exclusively under transportation but has an impact on it. MR. SUMEK: Because if you're not approaching it with that model in mind, you could make a very different decision. And that's part of the number that you were commenting about. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm going to hush because I know we're -- but part of -- MR. SUMEK: We're putting it in two places. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big promises. I lie; okay? One of the things that is wrong as far as I can see is that the road planners -- they're going to show us that 20/20 plan without any idea that what we want to talk about is interconnecting neighborhoods and neighborhood village commercial, and I'm going to listen to them, because they're the road planners, and they're going to come in and say this is how the roads have to look. And I'm going to say, gosh, I wish that they didn't have to. MR. SUMEK: Well, this is saying you're going to incorporate your goals into that process. MR. OLLIFF: There has to be some relationship with future land development and your road master plan. The two originally at least were linked because the road people were telling us this is the way we will be able to do this. MR. SUMEK: And this one is trying to link those two. Okay? Sewers on Marco Island -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who could have said that? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where did that come from? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was that you, John? MR. DORRILL: That one is in part mine because Lyle also asked me what are the things -- MR. SUMEK: I asked him. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I recommend we have nothing to do with it. MR. SUMEK: And that is deciding what your role is going to be in this; right? MR. DORRILL: That's why I explained to you it's not our utility. It's a for-profit PFC regulated utility, and I'm very reluctant about us getting drug into this. MR. SUMEK: You could be the not so popular, right, in that one? MR. DORRILL: At $10,000 per lot. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I felt that -- MR. SUMEK: You felt that one? MR. OLLIFF: Assess the district. MR. SUMEK: All right. That's up there. Next one. Public golf course, what needs to be done there? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're bringing a report back to us on the viability without using the county's creditworthiness. MR. SUMEK: So there's going to be a report? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's a private group trying to build a public golf course on county land. They asked to use the county's bonding ability, and we declined to do that. So they're going to have to get the bond on their own or something, and they have a report due to us soon. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The public in the sense that it will be open to all public but not -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Privately owned. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Non municipal. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not municipal. MR. SUMEK: So we ought to put quotes around the public because the public can play it, but it's not public. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not a municipal course. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand how that even comes to be a county commissioners' discussion item. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Because we own the land. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I know, but we can sell it to them, or we can give it to them, but why are we talking about -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or we can lease it to them if it allows them to go ahead and not lose -- you know, there are a lot of options there. But that's the only reason we're involved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Mr. Constantine, is the point -- is part of the point that we have to use this land for something else so the state will let us build a landfill somewhere else, because when we go in for permits on that, I mean, is that tied to the landfill permitting? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not necessarily, no. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because the state's going to tell us go away and go build your landfill on the land you've got. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I don't think that's accurate, but we don't need to have that debate now but, no, in answer to your question. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not a debate. It's a question really. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The county was involved because the original proposal was to use the county land and after a certain time period to give the whole entire golf course to the county. That's why that was a county commission decision. MR. SUHEK: So that goes back to what role the county is going to play. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That one is something that's going to go forward without any county commission direction to conclusion here in a couple months, and then there may be a new direction we want to go after that. MR. SUHEK: So we'll leave that. What your ultimate direction is is up here. Okay. Next one is very specific. This I heard from council members saying looking at regional marketing program for southwest Florida, working with Lee County where there's active and viable marketing where you're a key part of that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask what we're marketing? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would even limit -- I wouldn't say necessarily just marketing. I would say regional planning or giving a sense of regional community, because between the university and the airport and some of these economic things and tourism things, some of that is marketed, and some of that is not whether it is the health park or the jail. There are any number of things that we can benefit from acting in a regional capacity. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So are you saying more or less just making sure we get our fair share of what is -- MR. SUHEK: This is a little different than that one. This is focusing more on the marketing part, less on the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Like the movies thing; right? Economic development like the movies. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like the joint effort that we did in the development office? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm thinking that's an example of one thing where we cooperated and both places benefitted. And there's no reason we can't take that to any number of steps. I'm not sure what you're referencing marketing there, whether you're thinking tourism or whether you're thinking -- MR. SUHEK: What I heard from council -- MR. DORRILL: In general, but then while you were out we talked about and we stopped just short of being actively involved in incentive or inducements, and we were comparing to Lee County where they seem to be wanting to do tax abatements and direct cash subsidies for corporate relocations. And we don't seem to think that's our role, is at least what I heard. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: John, in Leadership Lee this year and one of the things we were just talking about this last week and what most of the group saying that you want to create incentives or reasons to be here, but you don't need to take that to the step of tax incentives. I don't know what the commission up there is doing at this point, but that doesn't seem to be the -- MR. SUHEK: Does this need to be up here? Should we lift it off? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't find a specific need in the next year. MR. SUHEK: We do another 22 that reflects yours which is getting at regional issues. Is that fair? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. MR. SUHEK: I like doing this. It gives a sense of -- who wants this one? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have photographic proof that you can do that. MR. SUHEK: So we want to add 22 here, which is regional participational leadership on a variety of fronts. Does that capture what you're talking about? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I want to make a point here before we go any further that in two cases Lyle has destroyed public records. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, they're not destroyed. They're just crumpled. We can still put them back together. MR. SUHEK: Also, note that John now is responsible for public records. What the heck, if I destroy them, I'll give him all the trash in the world, then he's got to deal with it later on. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just like government. MR. SUHEK: He doesn't want it anymore. It's got a bad stink, huh? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: George, would you keep your eye on it? Yes, I think you did capture that. MR. SUHEK: Regional leadership and participation; right? MR. DORRILL: So does that also cancel out 19, the regional jail; that would be one part of it? MR. SUHEK: What other issues would be there for regional leadership? We've got jail, university -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, I think the university is special, though. That would be part of it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- airport, slash, FTZ. MR. SUHEK: The university, you have got some decisions, I understand, that are going to be impacting you which goes beyond. Put university up here. This is how it impacts you, and we'll put it down here for the regional. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Airport. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Airport/foreign trade zone. MR. SUHEK: Which airport? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: International Airport. MR. OLLIFF: Also the Immokalee Airport. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just FTZ, if it matters. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which, by the way, the special land committee passed yesterday. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It did? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it needs to go to the final authority, but I will have a copy for everybody next Tuesday -- before next Tuesday. MR. SUHEK: So we take the jail out of here; right? You want this one, John, so I don't destroy public records? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You can destroy that one. MR. SUHEK: Just selected ones. Who's the jail czar? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is the county attorney's opinion that these are, in fact, just drafts. MR. SUHEK: We'll give them to him; right? MR. OLLIFF: Protected under attorney/client privilege. MR. SUMEK: Good. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Beach restoration, I don't think that needs anything. Finished. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There may be a little bit more there. MR. SUHEK: We are back up here, back to the regional. Are there other areas that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously, we just got together on our old film commission, so economic issues. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Transportation issues. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No water management issues. Keep your own water. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Of a regional impact there are waters issues that we need to address, because as Tom Conrecode was saying, Bonita Springs flooded worse this year. And if they really do anything significant to drain that water, we're going to get it. And the other thing is that the Big Cypress basin, right now its boundaries are geopolitical boundaries. They don't necessarily include the hydrological boundaries of the basin itself, and a significant part of that basin is in Lee and Hendry County. So there are water issues. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are those who would argue this goes under economic develop, but I would disagree. And tourism should be separated out as well. I think we can do some things together. MR. SUHEK: So it's really exploring a series of issues here that's important for us to spend time on during the next year. All right, university. As I talked with several of you and talked with Neil, there are some potential impacts on you, the university. So as it evolves, gets constructed and up and running, there may be some roles. And we will respond to issues and opportunities as they arise, some of which you may be aware of, and some you won't know about until they hit you in the face. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think as part of that we have to look at what the land use needs and an appropriate response is going to be in the north end of the county, because we may get -- when the university begins actually holding classes and so forth, there's going to be a high student population looking for places to live, and there may be a push for construction in the north end of Collier, and we need to be aware of that and prepare for it. MR. SUHEK: Other comments on that one? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question that was one of Neil's items. Is there something -- MR. SUHEK: No, there were others, one council member. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Is there a heads up somewhere? Does somebody see something to respond to issues and opportunities and be sure that everybody knows that this is coming? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is one that I will have for you all shortly that has to do with transportation and a possible link into Collier. Some of the transportation and infrastructure they're putting in now will determine what options we're going to have long term as far as wanting to do that other than 1-75. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How are we involved in what's going on in the university in any way? Do you have some particular involvement? Is there a way officially that this board could be involved in knowing what's going on? I feel like we are in the closet, Tim. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do some, but I'm not in any official capacity there. I have worked with Doug Sancerny (phonetic) quite a bit. He's kind of their lead person, and I would be happy to -- we have all of our little liaisons, and I would be happy to do that. MR. SUMEK: So one of the things you're talking about, Tim, is having regular reports on what's going on so you monitor that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like us to have some official representation in the ongoings of the university. We are the adjacent community and a significant contributing community to the students and faculty of that school site. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a point even within the next month or so to put together a report for the board. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we could find a way to make sure that you or another representative of this board continues to be informed of the issues other than just what Doug tells you. MR. SUMEK: So it's establish a county presence with the university there then? MR. DORRILL: What is the nature of the Arnold Commission? Are they purely environmental, or does that include construction which is the compromise they reached in order to get their -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought it was just because they liked the name. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They are primarily environmental. They do obviously that impact, construction and plans for construction, but really the head of that -- MR. DORRILL: As we pursue a direct link, it would be better to be working through the board of regents or the president of the university or whomever. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You have to be careful cutting the board of regents out of the pie if you remember reading the paper in the last two weeks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They don't like it. MR. SUMEK: What? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Some -- one of the university presidents had bypassed the board of regents, and they took great offense at it. MR. SUMEK: That's why I taught -- as some of you know, I was a college professor for eight years, and part of that was being the assistant dean. City councils and county boards are a dream compared to working with deans at universities. That ended my editorial comment. You're a piece of cake compared to them. When you get into that realm, as you'll get experiences with, trying to find out who makes decisions and trying to get them made in a timely manner is tough. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: MR. SUMEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MR. SUMEK: Yes, Pam. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Worse than government? No way. Absolutely worse than government. Big time. Shoo that off on In the next year put it to bed once and for all. This is get the decision made. MR. SUMEK: So we have to write one word. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Consolidation or not, decide. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Decide so that we can decide again in three years. MR. SUMEK: Whack it off. Is this one of those? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whack it off. MR. SUMEK: So we understand. Is that it, Tim? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's it. MR. SUMEK: That's appropriate underlined? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's sufficient for me. MR. SUMEK: Okay. Beach project, you've got that started but -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just do it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just monitor it. MR. OLLIFF: Starts Monday. MR. SUMEK: Just do it; right? No problems, Tom; right? MR. OLLIFF: Not yet. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did we get final easements? MR. OLLIFF: We don't have all the easements. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think there's something else we need to do, and that's set up -- I hate to say it -- set up a complaint protocol. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: them. MR. SUHEK: Can do. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, let's not invite -- You know you're going to get Who are you pointing at, Tom? Mr. Olliff. We have Kandu down. MR. OLLIFF: We have actually got a protocol set up. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I say this is that -- MR. SUHEK: Be prepared to deal with complaints. Is that what you're saying, Tim? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Because we know we're going to get -- for the first two or three days after the sands are on the beach, it's going to stink. People are going to complain about the smell. They are going to complain about the noise. It's going to happen, and it's going to happen all the way down the beach. Anticipate it. Expect it. Be ready for it. Maybe mount a little bit of a public relations campaign against what we know are going to be the complaints. Try to head them off. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Public information. MR. OLLIFF: And that plan and protocol is already established. We actually laid out how we wanted to communicate. We have talked to Carl about this issue, and we have talked with the newspapers. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like George's idea; tell them to call the city. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're making it very difficult for the court reporter when we have several conversations at one time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. If you have to make a choice between what we're saying, try not to put the jokes on the record. MR. SUHEK: Does anybody read your record? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The 20 percent. MR. SUHEK: Any others on the beach, Tom? Budget process, John, you get the forum there. What would you like during the next year, John? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do it on a postcard. I would like to do this -- MR. SUMEK: And it's consistent with this over here; right? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is totally in response to public request during our discussion with Pelican Bay's additional law enforcement need that we enact a countywide taxing district to put the sheriff's budget in. And I think that's a good idea so that we can have the sheriff's budget be a stand-alone budget, get it out of the county manager's agency's millage, and let the sheriff defend his budget to the public by himself. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All in favor. MR. SUHEK: You are a genius. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're a genius. You're a sly genius, and we love that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Guess who's not going to like you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't care. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have to answer for our actions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In all seriousness I think that's very good, because one of the things -- I think the way it is often presented as the budget comes up is do you want safety or don't you, and it's not that black and white. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's fine, and that's up to the public to decide and the sheriff to present to the public. But the problem from our perspective is that we try our best to hold the millage level or close to level. The sheriff's budget is about half of our millage levy and, therefore, if he increases, it decreases what we're allowed to use or what we're going to use realistically, politically. But you have got to see that that's a double dip because out of 100 percent total, he goes up 5 percent, and we go down 5 total points, but that's 5 of 50 so that is a 10 percent reduction for us. So we get double dipped for his increases. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It makes as much sense to do it the way we do now as it would throwing the school board in with ours. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a separate entity. We don't have any administrative control over it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we should change "explore" to "enact." COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The thing about it is that we would be then totally responsible in the public's eye for the millage that we spend as the county commission, and the same would apply to the sheriff. I don't know who can argue with that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The sheriff. MR. SUHEK: We will put "decide." Is that better? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does decide stand alone to taxpayers? MR. SUHEK: Yes. MR. SUHEK: Does that capture that? How are we doing on that one, John? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. MR. SUHEK: That gets at what you were talking about earlier where four of you said fiscally sound, and stable government is a top priority five-year goal and a need for accountability there, okay? All right. Yes, David. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I don't speak often, and I won't, but in regard to the sheriff's budget, there is a time-frame requirement, and that is if you are going to make a decision to implement for a succeeding budget year, you have to have the taxing unit, taxing district, in place by December 31st of the preceding calendar year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Schedule it on the 14th. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So noted. MR. DORRILL: The other issue in terms of the practical aspect is I don't know what percentage of your current general funding includes state revenue sharing and excess sales tax and those types of offsettings, but the sheriff is going to feel that he's aggrieved by not getting the offsetting revenue contribution that he is currently getting in the general fund if you keep that yourself. But that may be a mechanism that we need to work through at a staff level, but just tuck that away. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, do we have enough time to meet the legal advertising requirements for such prior to December 31st? MR. WEIGEL: Well, an ordinance can be prepared pursuant to board direction -- formal direction at any board meeting. We can meet the requirements if we can get the thing drafted. Advertising can be as part of the last board meeting, December 19, is my understanding. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We can make that. MR. WEIGEL: But there's not much time in the meantime to prepare something and get it advertised. It has to be prepared before it is advertised, because it has to be available for the public to review. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we make it a late add-on for November 7th to give the board direction so that it has been done for the record? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So noted. MR. SUHEK: So you just made that a top priority; right? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I like it. MR. SUHEK: That's what I just heard. Is that a misinterpretation of what I just heard? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think so. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's going to be like when I make all those to-do lists and then the things -- MR. SUHEK: We're not even going to vote on this sucker. We're going to put it on top right now. Is that right, John? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine with me. MR. DORRILL: You also need to add there that the commission has previously authorized a pilot project this year that needs to be reported on quarterly, and hopefully we're anticipating in performance bonuses paid at the end of the year. MR. SUHEK: Good. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just think, Mr. Olliff, you can stop subsidizing the sheriff. MR. SUHEK: Tim, any others that we haven't covered that we talked about? Any others you want to add up here? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. MR. SUHEK: Tim? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pass. MR. SUHEK: John? Bettye, any others that you can think of? Pam? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. I would like to reformat the budget. MR. SUHEK: I'm sorry. We're back on this one. I was adding any period. Do you want to just add a bullet there? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I want to add a bullet that we present it. I mean, we heard Commissioner Hac'Kie asking this morning about a budget in laymen's terms, written in plain English. And, you know, I have got to say in all fairness, and I'm a CPA, and I have trouble with it. So I don't know what that reformat should be but -- MR. SUHEK: That is for staff to figure out. Any others, Bettye, for you? Pam, any others? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess not, no. MR. SUHEK: Neil, can you think of any others? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's vote. MR. SUHEK: Staff? Tim? Tom? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I came in partway, so I apologize. MR. SUHEK: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But earlier in the day we had mentioned trying to set up some things under government to discourage incorporation so we would have other -- MR. SUHEK: That's a goal, one of your top priority goals. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm troubled by this list not implementing enough of our top priority goals. MR. SUHEK: I would suggest there's a fairly close relationship. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like that one. Where is that over here? MR. SUHEK: Oh, I think it's in several places. Start here, go over here (indicating) to some of the financial stuff. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's in stormwater. MR. SUHEK: It's in several of these because, again, it's not going to be one to one. We say this is our goal -- these goals up here should hit more than one. MR. DORRILL: Which was my question of an hour and a half ago. I was concerned that I was not going to be able to reconcile your five-year vision with the 1996. MR. SUHEK: Well, we haven't prioritized them yet either. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me throw out in regards to the one I just brought up, and you said where is that, I'm not actually prepared, because I have only done about half my homework on this. Something that I researched, which I had some intention of bringing to the board, is exploring other forms of government like a metro form of government where -- MR. SUHEK: You want that one up there as 23? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Possibly. -- where you can actually -- Just let me throw it out and see where we go with it. MR. SUHEK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where you theoretically incorporate everything that's not already incorporated, like Jacksonville with the exception of Jacksonville Beach and a couple other little areas. There are some places it works very well and some places it's marginal. Hetro Dade I don't like but, again, they have to deal with 13 other governments. And so I don't know -- there's things to look and see what works here and what doesn't. We may come up with things that we think, boy, this is awful. But it seems like it's worth exploring. MR. SUHEK: There's a good example of where it has worked, Tim, and that is the tidewater area of Virginia. Down in -- like Virginia Beach is a city/county operation. It's a metro, basically, government there, and they've consolidated. And it was done -- Virginia mandated that for urban areas. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tim, I want to talk about that. I want that on the list. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know what we'll find. MR. SUHEK: So we'll put it down as 23. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Seven. To enlarge. MR. DORRILL: I would like the record to show that the county manager did not bring up charter government as part of the issue. MR. SUHEK: He didn't say charter government, did he? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He didn't use the word, no. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I didn't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He used the definition of it, though. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I don't want you to say that, because then the paper is going to write, oh, they're exploring charter government. MR. SUHEK: Are you saying metro? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A metro form perhaps because there are places where it is not charter government, but there is one entity there, and you can still have an elected sheriff and you can still have an elected board. MR. DORRILL: Then that's an important distinction, because what you would propose is something that would be considered as a special act of the legislature that might be subject to some referendum or something like that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I initially envision -- and, again, this is with very little research to begin with, is something comparable or similar to the form county government currently takes, and we would alter that as we thought appropriate. MR. DORRILL: Duval County. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Yeah, something similar to Duval County. Something similar to our -- so you don't lose the ability to elect your sheriff. You don't lose the ability to do all those things, but you have one large entity instead of ending up with 14 little governments. MR. SUHEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I love it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are you calling it? MR. SUMEK: I called it metro form of government with the bullets explore successful models, explore options, and make a decision on where you go with this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I would suggest that you put Duval County up there as an example. MR. SUMEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The mayor of Jacksonville is a friend of mine, and he's one of my research tools. MR. SUMEK: You only have one major liability. Do you know what that is? They have been trying to schedule a session with me for the last year. Trying to get 19 council members into one room and schedule that, that's hell. There's no other way to describe it. That's what they wandered into. And in talking with them, they favor to change one thing. The number of elected folks would be their change. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Make it smaller, more manageable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seven is such a good number. If we could just elect a God, a county God. MR. DORRILL: County executive. MR. SUMEK: Back to your question. These are never -- you're never going to be done with these, and you'll always look and say is that's the same destination each year. The thing you change is what do we do. And the key is you can try to do all of it. If you try to do all of it, nothing gets done. What I'd like to have you do -- we're going to go through a couple of rounds of these real quickly -- is first of all, look up here. You have got maybe around 20 different things. Did I get everybody? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many pieces do we need? MR. SUMEK: Two. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is somebody trying to tell me something? MR. SUMEK: Sorry about that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Only one Tim should vote each time. MR. SUMEK: Look at those and give me the six most -- do not assume that it's going to automatically be done. Repeat, do not assume -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That what is not going to automatically be done? MR. SUMEK: Any of these. Tell me which one of those six are the most important, and all I need are the numbers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of the blue? MR. SUMEK: Of the blue. You have already said, keep in mind the red. You said your five-year goals are beautiful -- ah, let's see, effective drainages for stormwaters, small-town feeling with urban services, diversified economy, citizen-oriented government, fiscally sound. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Five of them. MR. SUMEK: Did I say five or six? Six. Give me six most important. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Twenty-one is already in; right? MR. SUMEK: That's right. Give me five. Twenty-one is in, so give me only five. MR. DORRILL: Do you need our two Vannas to assume their positions at the board? MR. SUMEK: Such a nice color, Vince, for you. It smells like cheap perfume. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need help. Are we talking about -- MR. SUMEK: What do you want to get done in the next year? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Should I consider -- if I think like some of these are just exploration items? MR. SUHEK: Nope. What's most important for you to get done. If you could only do five of these things, what would be the five that you would want to get done? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No changing his numbers, Tim. Hake sure Tim didn't put 22 more than once. MR. SUHEK: He did not. No, that is not true. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like it. You didn't put them next to each other. Very clever. MR. SUHEK: I have had folks -- that's an old trick. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I hadn't mentioned it to you ahead of time, it might have slid through. MR. SUHEK: One community I worked with, they have -- when staff is present, they have the Hoover Awards. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What are those? MR. SUHEK: Those are for the staff members that sucked up the most during the past year. They actually have a bronze upright that they give annually to it. And then they've got a hand vac for the one that subtly sucks up. And then the clerk has perpetually won the lifetime achievement award for continually sucking up. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We wouldn't have that problem here. MR. SUHEK: Five, four, twelve, twenty-two, seventeen, three, five, eight, nine, thirteen, twenty-two, eleven, three, no vote, and eight. Five, three, two, thirteen, twenty-two. And eight, three, eleven, thirteen, and eighteen. So your top priorities for the year -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bettye. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. MR. SUHEK: What? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That wasn't me. MR. SUHEK: -- is growth management -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It might have been me. MR. SUHEK: -- economic development, drainage -- we're going with a majority vote -- transportation, and regional leadership. So those are one, two, three, four, five, six. The reason you have six is because of the way you split your votes. I go with the majority vote rather than rank them, because you can weight them, and then all of a sudden somebody feels real strongly about one and the rest of the board doesn't give a rip, and it becomes a priority. We're going with majority vote. Take the second sheet of paper there. Looking at those remaining, give me the five next highest. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Five of the bottom? MR. SUHEK: No. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's only six. MR. SUHEK: There's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight -- there's 14 left. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. That's what I meant. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you said make the assumption that none of these are going to get done unless we rank them to be done. MR. SUHEK: Right. That is correct. Don't assume it's going to automatically be done. Do you have everybody's, Vince? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I need one more. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Twenty-three, twenty-three. Studio audience, please be quiet. MR. SUHEK: All right, guys, Vannas. Twelve, one, two, nine, ten. Twenty-three, eleven, fourteen, twenty, seventeen. One, four, seven, twelve, twenty-three. Seven, four, two, eleven, nine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're all on top. MR. SUMEK: Two, seven -- are you celebrating, Tim? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am. You said celebrate; it's important. MR. SUMEK: That's right. -- eleven, eighteen, twenty. So your high priorities are -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was me, Bettye. MR. SUMEK: -- youth programs, architectual control and review process, landfill, and then you have got a bunch of ties after that of split votes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Cool. MR. SUMEK: So I am going to let you out of here; right? We said we'd let you out of here sometime this afternoon. Today what I was trying to do was to help you set some goals. You set some five-year goals and said these are a part of where we want to be, and we've backed it off to say what needs to get done. I would urge you to publish these, to get them out, put them up, and then get reports back and say, hey, how are we doing on it during '96. If you look at the word lead, lead has four letters; listen, engage, act, and decide. And I think that is leadership if you think about those four words. And I would suggest to you that you have done a good job focusing where you want to be, great ideas there. And staff ought to look at and incorporate those goals for five years into their reports. How do those projects that come out daily come to the board regularly? How do they help us get to the outcome we really want to achieve? I have really enjoyed being with you. Tim? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neil, do you plan to put together a little something that shows us which ones we picked and all that? MR. SUMEK: I have given it -- you're going to get back a leader's guide, and it's going to have all of this stuff. It's going to throw in a few other things like quotes that can help that will relate back to this, and so you'll get a leader's guide back in two weeks. MR. DORRILL: In turn, what we then want to do is show some performance milestones, and one of the things Lyle said earlier in the day was build in some deliberate opportunities to celebrate as part of that. If we meet our milestone achievements, we ought to have celebrations throughout the course of the year. So I think it's incumbent on us to take our annual work plan and put some performance dates in. MR. SUMEK: Even putting it on the wall and say good. That's a hell of an accomplishment right there. MR. DORRILL: For what it's worth, on behalf of the staff, I want to thank Lyle for being here today. I would have to say in 16 years this has been one of the more concentrated, productive sessions I have ever sat through. For the money that we spent today, it was just absolutely excellent. MR. SUMEK: Okay. Any other final comments? You're ready to go, Pam, right? You look like you're ready to race out of here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Trick or trick. MR. SUMEK: And thanks for your help. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:50 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Debra Peterson