Loading...
Floodplain Management Committee Minutes 01/07/2013 R Floodplain Management Planning Committee Chairman-Jerry Kurtz Vice Chair-Craig Pajer Kenneth Bills Phillip Brougham Joseph Gagnier Mike Sheffield Dan Summers Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Christa Carrera(Naples) Bob Mahar(Marco I.) Raquel Pines (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 1-7-13 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 10:45 a.m. Location:2800 N Horseshoe Dr, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Jerry Kurtz, Craig Pajer, Kenneth Bills, Phil Brougham,Joseph Gagnier, Rick Zyvoloski (for Dan Summers),Clarence Tears, Duke Vasey,Christa Carrera and Robert Wiley Absent: Raquel Pines, Bob Mahar There were four(4) additional staff members in attendance and two (2) members of the public. Meeting called to order by Jerry Kurtz,Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Approval of minutes for the 11-5-12 Regular Meeting-Jerry Kurtz asked if there were any needed changes to the minutes. Nobody had any comments or changes. Joe Gagnier motioned to approve the minutes,and it passed unanimously. Phil had some follow up questions regarding the last meeting. He had endorsed following up on Mike Ramsey's request to contact other counties regarding their FMP (Floodplain Management Plan) and LMS (Local Mitigation Strategy) and whether or not they were combined. He inquired about whether Robert went back to Sherry Harper and Joy Duperault for this information? Robert said it will happen but has not happened yet. 2. 2010 Florida Building Code Compliant Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Robert Wiley) Robert said there has been no progress at this point. There was a meeting scheduled with Nick Casalanguida in December,and it was cancelled by Nick. Phil asked for a refresher- Robert said that this is about our ordinance that we submitted to FEMA-it said that we would jump right in and update our ordinance to bring it into compliance with the State's new Florida Building Code. There's some discussion going on between Nick and the CAO (County Attorney's Office),and Robert is not sure how this is going to turn out. One issue that needs to be discussed with Nick is that we have 17 Letter of Map Amendments (LOMR-F's)we need to adopt into our ordinance in order to make it compliant. We need to talk about how we are going to do that(e.g.,whether we will combine them with the new code compliant ordinance or make them separate paths.) There's supposed to be a meeting next week to talk about some of these issues,but Robert is still waiting for some direction on where to go with this. 1 Phil expressed his great frustration that we don't seem to be able to find the time or priority to overcome this inertia that surrounds this whole effort. He feels it has affected all issues (Ordinance, CRS,and FMP) that we are dealing with. He feels that if there's no priority,no resources or no interest,we should just pack it in. Phil thinks it's time we find out where we stand from Nick or Bill Lorenz,or the County Commissioners or the County Manager. We need the priority and resources to get this work done. If we don't get this support,perhaps we need to disband this committee. Phil asked as to whether the letter the committee drafted back in October to Mr.Ochs was ever sent. Jerry was not sure if it was sent. Phil said the letter was making the same points that we're talking about now. Phil wants to know what Jerry thinks. Jerry said he heard what Phil is saying but thinks we're making progress as a committee. It may be painfully slow,but we're making progress. Duke wanted to comment. He feels that the committee gets too wrapped up in the insurance aspect of the FMP. He feels this document is much more than that. Duke thinks once we work through the model of the FMP that Robert is preparing and determine how much participation Emergency Services will have in it,it will be better. He feels that there is too much information in the FMP document that does not need to be there and what is there is not thorough enough. He does feel that we need to keep separate documents (FMP and LMS) and that we need to finish this (FMP) document,get it done,approved and funded. Phil agreed but said his problem is that he feels there's a lack of progress and resources-it's taking too long to move forward. Duke also thought the committee needs to offer more comments regarding the FMP-take the time and write up thoughts and comments regarding the FMP. Duke made a motion requesting that Jerry ask Mr. Casalanguida to find the funds to edit this document and work in the comments offered by the committee and get it out within the next 30 days. Phil seconded the motion. Jerry stated that he thinks the committee should review the comments first and decide what should and should not be added. Duke would like to see a cleaned up copy to review again within 30 days-he feels cleaning up the acronyms alone would save several pages. He also thinks the document should address three additional things:social, economic and ecological aspects. He doesn't think they are all addressed in the current document.At this point,he would like to see a cleaned up,double spaced document that he can review again and mark up. Voting on the motion,there were two ayes, Phil and Duke. Ken Bills said he would like to abstain at this point because he was not sure that we should be parsing and editing this document. Both Duke and Phil feel that this is part of the committee's job. Ken said he understands their frustration,but can appreciate where Robert is at with the process. Jerry interjected that next on the agenda is the discussion of comments and the plan and go over what changes need to be made to the plan. He appreciated how frustrated members are with the pace of the project,but thinks the meetings would be better served by following the reviews listed in the agenda. Clarence asked Duke if he would be willing to table the question until after they go through and review the comments and plan and Robert's presentation. Duke mentioned that the committee 2 has had all of this information for 35-40 days...Clarence agreed but replied that the idea is: does the committee agree with all of these comments? Duke thinks we have taken long enough already. Phil read from the draft of the memo to Leo Ochs written in October,requesting support and additional help so that the FMP would be finished by the end of the calendar year. Phil said all he and Duke are trying to do is force the issue of getting more help to help focus on this FMP. Duke offered his or Phil's assistance in going up to deliver this letter to Mr.Ochs and see if they can get a response. Phil thinks we need to pursue getting more help in order to progress. Duke reiterated that he would like a clean copy in 30 days. Phil would like Jerry to call for the vote. Ken wanted to know what we are voting on-a double spaced document? Duke said he would like someone from the staff to take all the comments Mr.Wiley has received and enter them into a clean document and have that document out in 30 days. Robert thought the motion was for Jerry Kurtz to go to Nick Casalanguida and get him to hire staff if necessary to complete the document in 30 days. Ken said he was confused and hears two different things-one would be getting the support needed to get the document out in 30 days-and two-would be producing a document that they could all review and mark up in order to review again. He wonders what will be done after you have all the individual copies with comments-sit and vote on whose comments get input? Ken said if the motion is to produce a document in 30 days that they can collectively opinionate on,that would be fine. Duke said all had already been given a document to mark up- Ken said that he wasn't sure what an ideal document looks like. Duke replied that it's in the CRS manual and that it's each person's responsibility to obtain the needed information. Phil added that he views Robert as the referee-Robert is there to respond to each comment,letting them know what makes sense and would add to the document or what does not work or make sense and why. Some comments are just scrivener comments,some aid in readability and simplification. Jerry felt that the committee would benefit from following the agenda. Robert said that we do need to resolve the motion before proceeding. Duke said he would withdraw the motion for lack of interest from the committee. Phil withdrew the second. 3. Updating the Floodplain Management Plan(Robert Wiley) a)Vulnerability Analysis Methodology b) Phil Brougham comments on earlier FMP Draft c) Duke Vasey comments on FMP Draft Robert said that back in October they were directed by Nick to make minimum corrections or revisions to the FMP and get it ready for approval by the end of the year to submit. However,the problem we've run into is that all of the analyses in it are incorrect. This is due to the adoption of the new flood maps. Therefore,everything has to be redone again. He also looked at the documents in the Local Mitigation Strategy(LMS). This analysis was done using the SLOSH (Sea &Lake Overland Surge from Hurricanes) modeling and is also out of date. So we need to work on bringing them up to date and consistent with each other. To that end, Robert came up with a 3 process he calls the Vulnerability Analysis Methodology. This is to better identify the flooding risk to structures that are located within Collier County. He has run this by his supervisor and he thinks it will work. Robert has never tried this before and wanted to run this by everyone and see if it makes sense to all. He wants everybody's input before beginning to use it. He has handed out a sheet explaining the process. He has talked to some of the GIS people and gotten their input. The concept is,basically,to use the new building outlines in the Property Appraisers site. They are divided into categories: residential,commercial,garages and other(sheds). This will give us a footprint of where the buildings are. Coupling that with the newest LiDAR(2010), we can come up with a mean or average elevation for the LiDAR within the footprint of the commercial and residential buildings. He does not really want to do garages or sheds,because that's not really where our vulnerability exists. After coming up with the mean,he wants to compare that with the currently mapped flood elevation,so we can see the approximate depth of flooding that will occur in the building. With this information,we can go to FEMA's Floodsmart website and get potential flood damage costs. Phil wanted to know if he would be doing this for each building in Collier County and wondered how many buildings there are. Robert guessed that there are approximately 250,000 buildings. Phil wondered if you did this analysis building by building. Robert said you do it in the GIS by "layer types". Once it is set up in the system,you would do all of your commercial buildings at one time,then all the residential buildings at one time. For example,you would do all of the City of Naples at one time-you may have to wait a couple hours for the process,but it's one action. Phil wanted to know what the benefit would be to the County and taxpayers. Robert said that as a part of the analysis of the FMP,you have to come up with these figures for the plan. Duke questioned how this information will benefit the new document. Robert again said that this information is required in the new FMP document. Rick brought up the subject of a program called HAZUS (Hazards-United States),which is offered by FEMA. HAZUS is a standardized methodology that contains models for estimating potential losses from various hazards. HAZUS uses GIS technology to estimate physical, economic,and social impacts of disasters. Rick said that the program is beyond his capability,as he is not experienced in GIS. Rick said it takes data and"spits out a report". He said there is training involved and it is absolutely free,paid for by FEMA. They will pay your travel and boarding expenses for the week long class. The only thing you're responsible for is meals. The training takes place in Emmitsburg, Maryland. Rick thinks it could solve a whole lot of problems and be helpful in Comp Planning for proposed building scenarios. Rick thinks it would be beneficial to send one of the GIS technicians for training. Robert thought this was a good idea.He said he had been up there for training several years ago but thought their database was a bit behind. Rick thinks that the new DFIRM is available in HAZUS. Phil thinks it would be worth looking into before investing time in a new methodology. Robert agreed. He will look into the newest program. Christa mentioned that she thought there would be training at the National Hurricane Conference in Fort Lauderdale this year. She said there is usually HAZUS training available. She said she knows that they have had the classes pertaining to floods in prior years. Robert will check into this. 4 Jerry proceeded to item 3b on the agenda-a review of comments on earlier FMP Draft by Phil Brougham. Phil said they were non-substantive-they were just all scriveners. He said they were no big deal. There was just one thing in the introduction that he would emphasize-that this plan needs to be updated every five years. Robert wanted to look at item#8 from the comment list. These projects that are in now,still need to be updated with Jerry's business plan. Robert had not gotten to that point yet where he updated that part with the current plan. Jerry said that what you see now will be removed and updated with the current list that they have. Phil was still not clear on#9 and wanted to know why we were still using data from 2007. Robert said that in the draft Phil received at that point,he had not even gotten up to the point of making changes in that area yet. Robert was only up to the early pages at that point. If Phil would look at a later draft he received,he will find more updated data. Jerry asked if there was any more discussion on Phil's comments. Robert said no-he appreciates the scrivener comments that an extra set of eyes provides and he will use them to make changes. Jerry moved to item 3c-Duke Vasey comments on FMP Draft. Duke said he made two sets of comments. The first were related to his view of the overall document and the second he attempted to go back in and show Robert where there were duplications. He still has the same specific concerns that were listed in the 10/15/12 document. He feels that his comments about compensatory volume compensation are serious enough to reject the document. He also believes the LiDAR and the description of the floodplain as an area where you can't do anything is incorrect,but that once you agree to the FEMA maps,you are kind of stuck. Duke is also concerned about the orientation of insurance. Duke believes that this is not an insurance document-he thinks it's an ecological document with some insurance implications. He doesn't think you can consider floodplain management and watershed management the same thing. He thinks you need to pay attention to the specifics,using the CRS manual,listing tasks you want to complete. Clarence had a question regarding his statement that watershed management cannot address the issue of volume compensation. Duke said it isn't addressed correctly in this document. Ken asked him what his concern with that issue was. Duke said that his concern is that it was not well thought out. Ken asked for specifics but Duke said it was complicated-and was a hydrologic error and Robert was aware of it. Duke said there is nothing simple about this document. Ken wanted to make the point that while environmental issues are important,he didn't think they were the focus of the FMP document. Duke said he only talks about ecological items, as opposed to environmental issues. Ecological refers to all of the aspects and function of habitat. He thinks that the economy needs to be balanced with ecology and the social needs of the people in this county. Phil thinks we should incorporate Duke's comments into the new draft. Jerry said we have one public comment regarding this item. Mike Ramsey,president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association came up to speak. He wanted to make a comment-to help you understand volume compensation. He said the DFIRM maps consider Collier County a bowl with one side open draining to the Gulf. It sets a certain level for a 100 year flood elevation. Most surface water and water management programs don't deal with 100 year levels. They deal with 25 year levels,which are lower. Most programs are set to deal with a lower level,but we are dealing with DFIRMS,which is higher.So there's a big gap in how to deal with all that 5 volume. So your day to day surface water management doesn't deal with that-that's an exceptional event that we're not built to deal with yet. Mike thinks that the FMP is the most important document that the committee is going to come up with. It is a guideline to other departments of what needs to be done to the land area to manage the 100 year flood elevation issues,specifically the volume compensation part. The volume compensation part says that in the AE and AH zone,that if you build something in there and it displaces a certain amount of water,then you have to offset it somewhere else. He doesn't think we can do that yet. The current DFIRM map points us to the areas where there may be problems -AE,AH,V. The recurring property losses information received from insurance already tell us where the problem is. The FMP details land management recommendations for the long term, on how to prevent property damage. He feels this is where the document is most lacking-land management components. He would recommend going to other counties and see how they have dealt with volume compensation-see what they have written in their documents. Clarence had a couple comments/questions. He asked Jerry if we were doing a study on the northern Golden Gate flow way as part of a volume compensation package. Jerry said we're doing a study on the possibility of restoring the flow way in northern Golden Gate Estates. One of the benefits could be attenuation of some flooding.The results should be out this month. Clarence also commented about the cost/benefit analysis you have to do regarding flooding and flood prevention systems. Sometimes the costs are just too prohibitive (i.e.increasing the Immokalee Road project to deal with a 100 year storm event quadrupled the cost).When this happens,we have to look at other things,like land use.We need to try to mitigate in the areas it impacts (compensated storage). Duke offered background information and opinions on water management in the county. Clarence made a motion on the report-he would like to see a cleaned up copy of the final draft for next month's meeting. Phil seconded the motion. Ken asked if Robert would have a little leeway with incorporating remarks made by Duke into the FMP. Phil said that he thinks Robert is the arbiter as to whether or not something is substantive and to be included into the FMP. It is up to him. Ken was happy with the clarification. He said he was concerned that the document may be going in another direction. He thinks (as a homeowner)that the insurance purpose is an important aspect of the document,as it affords county residents the opportunity to purchase flood insurance at a twenty percent discount. Clarence said he thinks it's important to keep progressing and that we need to submit something. He would like to submit and let the federal agencies comment on it.We could adjust and change it as needed. Phil agreed-he said that we had actually submitted one once. Robert agreed that it was the 2007 plan that was submitted and failed. It scored zeros-one reason was the overall layout of a CIP (Capital Improvement Plan). That started the updating effort of this document by Mike DeRuntz. Then,however, Robert was told to shelve the document for a time. During this time,the new flood maps happened,which made all the analyses incorrect and obsolete and leaves us where we are now. Craig had a question for Robert. He said that in the email in October,he was working on the updates. Craig wondered if Robert was done with all of his updates yet and would he be able to 6 get them something done in 30 days. Robert said no, he was not done yet and he was not sure if he would be able to have it finished in 30 days. Ken asked if perhaps he could have half done- around 60 pages done.Would it be manageable? Robert thought he was probably beyond that already so it would be doable. Joe asked if it would be double spaced,room for comments. Robert said he would have to submit the underlined strike thru version to them,as it's the only way for them to see what has changed. Jerry called the vote and the motion passed unanimously. Clarence has one more comment before adjourning. He thinks someone on this committee should set up a meeting with Leo Ochs. He knows that some on the committee and staff are frustrated and should bring up their problems and concerns. He recommends that someone from the committee take the draft letter prepared back in October and get Leo's input and find out the level of support behind this committee. Phil said he is willing to go out there but said he will speak directly with Nick Casalanguida and let him know what the plan is and ask him if he wants to join him in meeting with Leo. Clarence made a motion for Phil to meet with Leo Ochs at his earliest convenience and invite Nick to be there at the meeting too,in order to discuss the committee. The motion passed unanimously. Phil said he will advise Jerry and Robert of the outcome. NEW BUSINESS: 1. No new business, no public comment. Phil Brougham motioned to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously at 10:45 a.m. Next Regular Meeting: Monday, February 4th, 2013 starting at 9:00 a.m.in Room 610 of the GMD- P&R building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. ) 4 - Jerry Kurtz,Chairman Robert Wiley,SIzaf Coordinator NOTE: A recording of the meeting is available for anyone desiring to hear it. Please contact Mr. Evy Ybaceta at the Growth Management Division—Planning and Regulation building(239-252-2400) for access to the recording. 7