Miscellaneous Correspondence:Michael Put.o
t-Livor, Monroe County
_11aplin Building
M,3rathon, Florida 33050
""Ibject: Relationship with the firm of BRW, Inc.
<, r Mayor Puto :
To once again clarify the record I submit for your considera-
tion the following statement.
I have no contractual relationship,either written or oral
with the firm of BRW, Inc. or any of its affiliates.Further, I
;io not own any shares of stock in the company nor do I have any
()F)t ions for shares of stock or ally form of ownership in the com-
nanY.Upon my departure from BRW in August of 1987 I terminated
any business relationship with the firm and sold my shares of
stock to the company as was required by the terms of stock pur-
c-hase. Finally. I have no business relationship of any kind with
,,ny subcontractor, agent or person who has any relationship to
,,')Y stockholder in the firm.
I trust that this statement will provide for those who are
interested a final end to the constant questions as to my affili-
.itions with BRW. I am confident that I retain your trust and
�nfidence. My primary goal as an employee of the county and
Your board is to serve the public trust and to accomplish the
:policy direction of the board in the most cost effective manner
Possible displaying the highest ethical and professional stan-
Pards.Should you have any questions about my statement please
:all at your convenience.
Very truY yours,
Donald L. Craig
Assistant County Administrator forGrowth Management
October 14,1989
MONROE COUNTY PLANNINGIBUILDING DEPT.
5825 Junior College Road West
Public Service Bldg.
Key West, Florida 330404399
Date: 06ipj 16 1
To: A ,J,. k&ktw
Cf�� - Conn o
Frc
Re: (3RLj C0-1+At-+.
Item(s): No. Description
-1 / =AAO
Purpose:
TRANSMITTAL
— -,L & 4 - zP -Pc
as you requested review and return
for your information reply to sender
for your approval other (see remarks)
Remarks: �---�
A 1,5 -4L Ir AAc", A 0 A A.4 (!V 94.%_
J y (t- WWAR V C"'
J '�
•
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Randall Ludacer
County Attorney
From: Donald Leland Craig
Assistant County Administrator
Growth Management Division
Date: September 28, 1989
Re: Proposed Contract Extension with BRW, Inc. for
Completion of Comprehensive Plan
At your request I have examined the sections of State Law
pertaining to competitive bidding for professional services,
(F.S. 287.055), the proposed contract extension for BRW, Inc.
and the scope of work attached to the cost (Exhibit A and
introductory language to the contract extension) for the purpose
of determining whether the services to be provided by BRW are
beyond the scope of a contract extension.
Based upon my investigation and my layman's reading of the Law
and regarding the above cited materials I observe the following:
1. The services to be provided by BRW are not those
professional services defined by section 287.055 of
State Law. Comprehensive planning services of the type
to be provided by BRW are those defined by the American
Planning Association (the national professional planning
society) and others (see attached definition and quotes
of others as to the functions of planning) .
2. The disciplines defined by section 287.055 Florida
Statutes are architecture, engineering, landscape
architecture and land surveying. These disciplines are
discrete from one another, have their own definitions of
services, and their own national professional
societies. Planning as a discipline is not listed in
Section 287.055.
3. The services to be provided by BRW, Inc. are described
in the addendum to the existing contract with the County
to complete the Lower Matecumbe Key Community plan. The
specific descriptions occur in the preamble to the
addendum which recites the specific Department of
Community Affairs administrative rules which set forth
in great detail both the methods for plan preparations
and the contents for each plan element. Each County and
A
City in Florida must follow these specific guidelines as
it prepares its plan. These guidelines are in essence
the "work program" for each consultant completing a
comprehensive plan in the State of Florida. These
services are planning oriented and not generally within
the scope of those listed in 287.055.
4. Separate from this proposed contract addendum, the
Growth Management Division intends to request permission
to request proposals for specific engineering services
to conduct traffic engineering, traffic counting and
preliminary highway engineering also necessary to revise
the County's comprehensive plan.
5. The "work program" outlined by reference to State
statute and administrative rules was further specified
by exhibit "A" to the addendum. Exhibit. "A" serves as a
phasing schedule and specifies the limitations as to
data sources, number of days the consultant will be in
the County, and specific meetings which the consultant
will attend.
6. The attached Lower Matecumbe contract contains a
specific paragraph which lists the hourly rates against
which the total addendum amount will be charged. The
rate of compensation is on an hourly basis, not to
exceed $305,000.00.
7. It appears to me that perhaps according to state law
(F.S. 287.055) this contract may, at the Board's
discretion be considered as an element of a "continuing
contract".
I conclude from the above that the proposed contract addendum
specifies services to be provided which are those properly
within a planning discipline. If I am incorrect in my layman's
reading of the law, please inform me. Thank you.
DC/mb
ludacer.mem/txtburri
cc: File
PLANNING
LE,
�� ilitW
TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING
URBAN DESIGN
--A�I
BRW, INC. 200 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 206. JANNUS LANDING ST PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 33701 PHONE: 813/895-1692
February 9, 1990
Mr. Donald Craig
Assistant County Administrator
Monroe County Administrator
5825 Junior College Road
Key West, Florida 33040
Attn: Mayor John C. Stormont
Captain Thomas Brown, County Administrator
Dear Mr. Craig,
It is apparent that BRW, Inc., St. Petersburg, your Comprehensive Plan Consultant
for the Monroe County plan, does not have the confidence level of the Board of County
Commissioners that we believe is necessary to prepare the Monroe County Plan pursuant
to state statutes and rules. In considering this situation we would like to offer some key
observations classified under the headings of Work Program Accomplishments and Work
Program Constraints.
WORK PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Since the beginning of this process and immediately after the County Commission
approved our contract extension to prepare the Comprehensive Plan, BRW began the task
of working with the Monroe County staff to assemble all the data reports, studies, plans and
other information necessary to carry out a full and in-depth analysis. From that time
through this date, BRW has accomplished the following:
Comprehensive Plan Progress to Date: BRW, Inc.
Data Collection: 90% complete for all elements of the Plan
• Data Analysis: 30% complete
• Existing Land Use Baseline data updated to January, 1990: 90% complete
• Existing and draft proposed levels of service: 100% complete
• Definitions: continue to evolve until plan is completed
AN AFFILIATE OF THE BENNETT. RINGROSE. WOLSFEL.D. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. GROUP
DAVID J BENNETT DONALD W. RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS LAWRENCE J. GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN DONALD E HUNT
MARK G SWENSON JOHN 8. McNAMARA RICHARD D PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF JEFFREY L. BENSON RALPH C BLUM DAVID L GRAHAM
ST. PETERSBURG PHOENIX TUCSON DENVER MINNEAPOLIS
Mr. Donald Craig
Assistant County Administrator
Monroe County Administrator
Page 2
• Population Projections 1990 - 2010: 100% complete
- resident and seasonal (a DCA staff member indicated that our seasonal
population methodology was the best he had seen.)
- incorporated and unincorporated areas
- spatial distribution of projections
• First Draft Existing Land Use Map: 100% complete
• Recreation and Open Space Element: data, analysis, projections, goals,
objectives and policies, and maps: 90% complete
• Solid Waste Element: data, analysis, projections, goals, objectives and
policies, and maps: 90% complete
* • Soils Survey Map: 90% complete
*. Marine Resources Map: 90% complete
* • Future Land Use scenarios defining land use densities and intensities: 30%
complete
* • Housing Element: 70% complete - data, analysis, projections, goals,
objectives, policies and graphics
*• Drainage Element: 50% complete - data, analysis, projections, goals,
objectives, policies and maps
* • Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element: 50% complete - data,
analysis, goals, objectives, policies and maps
*• Potable Water Element: 50% complete - data, analysis, projections, goals,
objectives, policies, maps and graphics
• Intergovernmental Coordination established with DCA, DER, FDOT,
SFWMD, SFRPC, FKAA and numerous other involved agencies. SFWMD
indicated they were pleased with our coordination efforts.
* submittals scheduled 3/1/90
Mr. Donald Craig
Assistant County Administrator
Monroe County Administrator
Page 3
WORK PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS
As you know, the Comprehensive Plan process through no fault of BRW allowed
insufficient time to accomplish the study in the standar and deliberative schedule common
to a sound comprehensive planning process.
Within the context of Chapter 163.F.S. and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., an eighteen (18)
month process is considered typical for completion of a Comprehensive Plan process. Due
to the inflexible June 1, 1990 deadline as imposed by the DCA, and the lack of commitment
by Monroe County until late September 1989, considerably less time was allocated for
completion of this plan. Nonetheless, BRW, Inc. committed to completion of the project
within the parameters and time constraints provided.
With this in mind, a strong and focused staff management plan for use in organizing
the work effort needed to be articulated early on in the process to ensure the successful
preparation of effective growth management programs for Monroe County. This
management plan and detailed work program, are made up of the following four key
components:
1) Organization of the in-house staff work effort;
2) Concise focused citizen involvement;
3) Good interdepartmental coordination; and
4) Effective utilization of personnel.
The responsibilities of this work program has not yet been established resulting in a
breakdown of the Monroe County planning process.
1) Organization of the in-house staff work effort
Within the context of the contract, schedule of deliverables and submission of work
products, requested by Monroe County, initial working draft documents of BRW, Inc.
(Goals, Objectives and Policies, Existing Land Use Inventory, Natural Resources Inventory,
Proposed Levels of Service and Definitions) focused in on fundamental components of the
plan and issue statements which were intended for discussion and policy direction only
(see Contract § 2.4.2 re: Goals and Objectives). These initial submittals were never
intended to reflect final chapters of the plan based upon complete data collection and
analysis. As mutually agreed upon and as reflected in the schedule of deliverables, first
drafts of completed plan chapters, which would be based upon complete data collection and
Mr. Donald Craig
Assistant County Administrator
Monroe County Administrator
Page 4
analysis were intended to commence on February 15, 1990 with the submittal by BRW, Inc.
of the Solid Waste and Recreation and Open Space elements. Quite clearly, initial
submittals of fundamental components of the plan were taken out,of context not only by
staff but by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
There is so much work involved in preparing a plan to meet the Chapter 9J-5 F.A.C.
regulations that a good strong management plan to organize the actual work effort is an
absolute prerequisite for success. Completion of the state -mandated Evaluation and
Appraisal Report (EAR), which summarizes the remaining validity and effectiveness of the
County's current Comprehensive Plan, coupled with a checklist of the Chapter 9J-5
requirements, can form a solid basis for organizing and communicating to advisory groups
the plan update process. Unfortunately, because of the schedule constraints, an Evaluation
and Appraisal Report (EAR) was not conducted by Monroe County staff, which resulted
in a lack of understanding of the plan update process by staff, advisory boards, and elected
officials and the public. A simple reformatting of the existing Monroe County Plan drafted
for compliance with Chapter 380 F.S., as continuously suggested by Monroe County officials
and some local DCA officials, would, in our opinion, clearly not comply with the
requirements of Chapter 163 F.S. and Rule 9J-5 F.A.C. and this would have become evident
if an EAR had been accomplished. Examples of lack of 163.F.S. compliance in the present
plan include: no stormwater management plan, incomplete capital improvements program,
no intergovernmental element, up-to-date population projections and no economic feasibility
analysis.
2) Concise Citizen Involvement
The right blend of citizen participation and advisory board involvement can often
improve the plan and ensure broad -based community support. When the citizen
participation occurs, is often as important as how it occurs. Ideally, the first contact point
should take place when a draft of the existing plan's evaluation and appraisal (EAR) has
been completed. The EAR can then serve as both a background briefing book on the
community and a point of reference for the plan's update. All participants should also be
informed of the new requirements of Chapter 9J-5 (F.A.C.) and the timelines for the work
completion. This will ground the participants in the reality of their community and make
them cognizant of state and local deadlines for completion of the plan update.
In addition, and at the outset, the scope of each citizen participation effort needs
to be clearly defined, whether broad or limited in nature. All citizens' groups should be
told up -front what their charge is, both as an aid to their internal organization, and to
assist them in effectively meeting their responsibilities. A clearly defined citizens'
participation scope will also keep everyone on track throughout the process.
Mr. Donald Craig
Assistant County Administrator
Monroe County Administrator
Page 5
As evidenced, to date, the role and scope of citizens' efforts were never clearly
defined or articulated by staff. As such, the planning process commenced and continued
despite a lack of understanding and cognizance of minimum state criteria and the scope of
the work effort. The citizens participation effort was wholly the responsibility of Monroe
County.
3) Good Interdepartmental Coordination
The shift away from the old comprehensive plan under Chapter 380 F.S., to a
"Growth Management" plan under Chapter 163 F.S. and Rule 9J-5 F.A.C. is not an easy
transition. Without the cooperation of the department heads it will not take place at all.
Therefore, a practical approach to involve the department heads in all phases of the plans
preparation needed to be established by Monroe County. The departments are a wealth
of information and their assistance proves invaluable, especially in setting service standard
levels, areas of service, providing details on existing and planned public facilities.
Involvement in the planning process will afford the departments the opportunity to clearly
establish their role in the governmental growth management. Active departmental
participation will also improve the overall document, especially in insuring the compatibility
of the various elements and in the preparation of the Capital Improvements Element.
An education phase coordinated by county staff needed to stress and concentrate
on the importance of the plan to each department as an effective tool for the efficient
provision of public services. Participation in the plan's preparation should start at the
earliest point possible and continue through data collection, analysis and plan completion.
Coordination between departments in the plans' preparation would also help to build a
county -wide staff consensus on what the plan should entail. This would also insure
concurrence and support in plan adoption and implementation.
To date, both departmental and interdepartmental coordination in the work effort
has been ill defined. Comprehensive Plan team meetings, as periodically scheduled, often
did not occur. Direct communication with individual departments, initiated by BRW staff,
were never prioritized by County staff, nor scheduled to meet pending deadlines. Feedback
on several requests were either received late or not at all.
4) Effective Utilization of Personnel
A well thought-out work program will identify those areas where additional staff or
consulting support services will be required. Improperly organized and undelegated staff
efforts can consume immense amounts of staff and consultant time with little to show for
Mr. Donald Craig
Assistant County Administrator
Monroe County Administrator
Page 6
the effort. Therefore, we can not overemphasize the need to pre -organize the effort and
assign clearly defined roles amongst growth management staff. Quite clearly, and as
evidenced throughout the planning process, to date, roles were never clearly defined or
delegated amongst the 68 staff members within the Monroe County Growth Management
Division. Continuously, in the collection and analysis of data, this resulted in delays and
confusion in the completion of BRW work efforts. As outlined in the BRW contract for
completion of the Comprehensive Plan, a "team" approach and staff assistance was
necessary for its successful completion.
SUMMARY
It was our understanding that the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners had been fully briefed on an abbreviated process and they were aware of
the pitfalls in trying to establish policy direction at the same time as analysis of data was
being accomplished. Based on the opening comments at our only meeting with the BOCC
it is evident that this was not the case.
Since the beginning of the comprehensive plan process this firm and our efforts
have been attacked and maligned, not in the spirit of constructive criticism, but rather for
some "hidden agenda" purpose which BRW did not understand nor publicly counter.
However, we continue to work in good faith because we have a contract approved by the
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners.
We still believe strongly that this planning process can be accomplished in the time
provided. However, we feel that there is a lack of county commitment to the process and
little common objective or purpose devoted by Monroe County to ensuring the success of
the project. There continues to be an almost complete lack of cooperation and/or
understanding of the need to be flexible because of the severe time constraints .and lack of
County preparation. This is evidenced by the continued push to meet product deadlines
for the purpose of having a "product" with little concern for, or emphasis on, a quality
analysis and quality plan. BRW is fully aware that product deliverable milestones are an
effective and efficient management technique for measuring a project's progress. But, in
this instance, under the time constraints provided, slippage and program adjustments were
inevitable and necessary to ensure a quality product. Under a more realistic time frame
slippage, and adjustments in work schedule and delivered products, would have been
absorbed in the process with little concern or effect on the overall process or final objective.
This project had absolutely no room for slippages and adjustments yet the inevitable
occurred, and the County response was to schedule more meetings to receive future
products without being sure that those products could be appropriately and fully delivered
on those dates.
Mr. Donald Craig
Assistant County Administrator
Monroe County Administrator
Page 7
If this project has any hope of successful conclusion within the time allotted, it
requires (in addition to the previously stated objectives) flexibility in processing tasks and
a commitment to cooperation by all parties, boards and staff involved.
CONCLUSION
BRW is very confident that it can accomplish the Monroe County Comprehensive
Plan effort and produce a quality plan. However, despite our efforts, it appears from the
events of the last two weeks there is still not a level of confidence in BRW necessary for
Monroe County to work together in a spirit of cooperation and professional interaction with
BRW.
Therefore, we have concluded that we should offer our resignation to the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners. If the Board accepts our offer to resign, you and
the Board can rest assured that BRW will provide full assistance to another consultant
selected by the Board or to the county staff.This offer to resign is not tendered because we
do not want to complete this project or, feel that it is an impossible task, but because we
are concerned about the working environment and the controversy surrounding you and
BRW, Inc. If the Board elects not to accept this offer to resign we are prepared to
continue to work in a highly professional, good faith, cooperative effort as we have since
the inception of this process.
If you or members of the Board of County Commissioners have any questions or
wish to discuss any matters, I stand ready to work with you.
Sin erel ,
a yn h
Vic President
cc: Tom Pehham, Secretary
Department of Community Affairs
JL/cs