Floodplain Management Committee Minutes 12/09/2013 RFloodplain Management Planning Committee
Chairman - Jerry Kurtz Vice Chair - Craig Pajer
Kenneth Bills Phillip Brougham Joseph Gagnier Mike Sheffield
Dan Summers Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Lisa Koehler
Christa Carrera (Naples) Chris Sparacino (Marco I.) Raquel Pines (Everglades City)
Meeting Minutes for 12 -9 -13 Regular Meeting
Start: 9:10 a.m. End: 10:02 a.m. Location: 2800 N Horseshoe Dr, Room 609 -610
Meeting Attendance: Jerry Kurtz, Craig Pajer, Rick Zyvoloski (for Dan Summers), Joseph Gagnier,
Lisa Koehler, Chris Sparacino, Christa Carrera, Kenneth Bills, Phil Brougham, Duke Vasey and
Robert Wiley
Absent: Clarence Tears (Excused), Mike Sheffield (Excused), Raquel Pines
There were five (5) additional staff members in attendance and zero (0) members of the public.
The meeting was called to order by the committee's Chairman, Jerry Kurtz at 9:10am. There was a
quorum with 10 members in attendance.
1 ' 1
Approval of minutes for the 10 -7 -13 Regular Meeting- (Jerry Kurtz) -- Phil had corrections on
page 2, in the 3rd paragraph, the 5th word "Committee" and 4th paragraph second word
"Committee ", he thought they should have been FDPO (Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance).
Jerry Kurtz acknowledged the suggested corrections and asked if there were any more
comments or changes for the 10 -7 -13 meeting minutes. There being none, Phil motioned for
approval as amended, the motion was seconded and approved unanimously.
Review 2010 FBC Compliant "Model" FDPO document (Caroline Cilekl - Caroline introduced
herself to the Committee. She briefed the Committee on her role in the Floodplain Ordinance
and that it had recently been passed from Robert Wiley to her. She said that there had been
some materials pulled together to accompany the ordinance as it proceeds through the Boards
and that this has delayed the ordinance somewhat. In other words, the ordinance would be well
supported with documents as it goes through the approval processes.
Phil asked her what the additional research would be as the ordinance had been in the mill for 1
to 2 years already.
Caroline explained there are several ways to comply with NFIP (National Flood Insurance
Program). She stated that it needs to be very evident that compliance is met when the
ordinance is presented to the Board. She will be doing additional research by looking at what
other Florida communities and counties around the state are doing or have done, and what the
options are for compliance so the Board can make their decision.
Phil asked for confirmation that this was the same ordinance that is "right in line" with the
Florida model ordinance. Caroline explained that the ordinance was the surest path of
compliance and our ultimate goal is to comply with NFIP so the better the backup documents
are the clearer the compliance will be. Also, there may be other options that need to be
explored as backups to the ordinance.
Lisa Koehler asked if there was a rough time frame for this to which Caroline responded that
she doesn't know of one and that she's just trying to make progress by moving forward on this.
Duke asked if the ordinance would come back to this Committee once materials have been
added or deleted. Caroline stated that it would if there were any changes to the model.
Lisa asked if it would go to DSAC (Development Services Advisory Committee) before it goes to
the Planning Commission. Caroline said it had already been to DSAC and that if there were any
changes it would come back to both committees.
Phil stated that he had a problem with that, stating this thing has been bounced back and forth
between the two committees many times. It was this Committee's consensus that DSAC would
make any necessary changes or objections that they have and we would bring it to the Board
with the side notes from DSAC, thus eliminating all the back and forth. He said we needed to get
this thing to the BCC.
Caroline said that direction will continue, clarifying that if there were changes made by staff or
the State, not DSAC, then it would be brought back to this Committee. At that time she didn't
foresee the current model going back with changes.
Phil asked if there was a time frame for this since this Committee only meets quarterly.
Caroline said she doesn't have a specific time line. Phil stated that he'd be interested to know
what work there was remaining to be done. Caroline said she was trying to provide research
with it as it goes to the Boards and as the County Attorney directed. Phil expressed his
annoyance of all the undefined work, ill- defined time frames, manpower resources not
specifically assigned and being left with big unknowns. He would like to see the time table
tightened up with more specifics.
Caroline stated that she would try to define a time table and at this time she doesn't have one.
She assured the Committee that she will be working to progress this forward as timely and
efficiently as possible.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Discussion on CRS 5 -Year Cycle Visit on Nov 191h and 20th (Bill Lorenz /Jim Von Rinteln)
Robert explained to the Committee that we went into the 5 year cycle visit hoping we could at
the very least hold our Class 6 however we were looking to jump to Class 4. During the visit we
were given guidance as to how to do that. Open Space is one of the big issues that we've been
dealing with and this is the area that would either make or break us for jumping classes.
Phil asked Robert to explain what Open Space is. Robert defined the Open Space category as
basically lands remaining in or restored to their natural condition and able to hold floodwaters.
Staff is using the County's GIS resources to locate the acreage and calculate it to make sure it
will qualify as such. He continued telling the Committee there are several different categories
to consider. Staff is looking at floodplain management planning under criteria for a Natural
Floodplain Functions Plan. Staff understood this as wetlands or watershed, but Lori Lehr (our
CRS representative) advised us adopting a plan to promote protection of protected species,
(e.g. the County's adopted Manatee Protection Plan) could qualify as a natural functions plan.
That's going to be 100 points for us that we didn't anticipate. If the County can carefully
document our ongoing efforts and hold all of our points together we could be well into a Class 5
rating. He also told the Committee that we cannot jump more than one class at a time. In order
to go to Class 4 it's a pre- requisite to have certain development requirements, including a
requirement for freeboard for minimum floor elevations. Robert goes on to explain what
happened in the past regarding freeboard and some ways we can obtain additional points and
credits to move toward a Class 4 rating. He said that Jim Von Rinteln had been working on the
research necessary to gain some of the additional credit points. He continued to brief the
Committee on the 5 -year cycle visit with Lori Lehr and that it was a very good visit.
Chris asked Robert if Lori had any concerns about any writing on the elevation certificates like
permit numbers, etc. Robert said that she did but she would accept what we have now but as
for next year it wouldn't be acceptable. Robert mentioned using a cover sheet for notes and
Chris liked that idea. Chris and Robert discussed the subject further. Chris also asked about the
strictness of documentation for Open Space in regards to deed restrictions. They also touched
on severe repetitive loss properties as to the requirement for specific language to get credit for
these.
Robert told the Committee that we're really pushing to have everything ready for Lori in mid -
January and if we're not going to be ready she'll work with us and give us more time. We just
have to request an extension.
Phil asked about a time frame for Lori to render her decision. Robert said it would take her
somewhere from 45 to 90 days and by the time it gets through FEMA to get the official
documentation back it would be about 6 months. That was her rough estimation. She also said
that if we got to a Class 5 we can ask FEMA to come down and present it to our Board.
Duke questioned some of Robert's statements that interested him greatly. He highlighted some
points i.e. Open Space, GIS and LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) work. Duke and Robert
discussed these issues. Duke then asked about providing the documents we have now. Will
there be any requirements in the future for submitting certified documents. Robert stated that
they are not up to that level of certification.
Chris asked about the BCEGS (Building Code Effectiveness Grading System) rating as they apply
to the new Class 4. Robert said BCEGS have almost a simultaneous review. He briefly explained
that the person who was supposed to do the review became ill and wasn't able to meet with us.
It should have been the week before our CRS visit. We're still 4/4 until we go through the
review. Chris asked if a 4/4 qualified for a Class 4. Robert said he didn't know and that there
were pre- requisites that he needed to review. Duke asked for a clarification of the acronym
BCEGS and Robert and Chris explained the term and its purpose.
Ken asked Robert about the potential effect of the County going to a lower class rating, as a
property owner in Collier what kind of decrease would he see in his flood insurance. Robert
stated the different zones and percentage decreases and said that if you're a standard policy in
Zone A or V you'd get another 5% discount. If you're in a regular, full price X paying you're
already getting a 10% discount or have a preferred risk policy for zone X you don't qualify for a
CRS discount. Zones VE, AE, AH, and A would be getting an additional 5% discount. The
County's savings would be approximately $1.5 million with a class jump.
Ken then asked if golf courses fell into the Open Space definition to which Robert gave an
explanation as to why they would, further stating that we will pick up additional acreage just by
including golf courses.
Lisa asked Robert that, to go to a class 4 we'd have to go back to the Board of County
Commissioners to have them discuss the freeboard issue again. Robert said there were several
issues and he doesn't anticipate approaching the Board until there's enough points to justify it.
Robert hoped to put this issue into the white paper to let everyone know this was an area that
needed to be addressed if they want to go forward with another class. He also stated that he
anticipates us coming out of this as a Class 5 and then we would have enough points to be a
comfortable Class 5 not a marginal Class S. This would be a great savings for our citizens.
Lisa then asked Robert for a time frame for going back to the Board. Robert said he didn't
know, but that the white paper preparation for the Board might occur around summer. He'd
like to wait until we know we have some good information from Lori Lehr that would support
what the white paper is telling us.
Phil asked for the status of the white paper draft. Robert said they stopped at the Natural
Functions and Open Space categories and once that becomes documented then we could go
forward with it. Robert mentioned that we haven't focused on the white paper because we've
been preparing for the cycle visit. Phil commented that it puts staff in a very awkward position
because the ultimate purpose for the white paper was to outline for the Board of County
Commissioners the potential savings that would accrue to people with flood insurance in the
County if certain actions were taken at a certain cost in terms of manpower and time to improve
our class. He inquired about what we had been doing in regards to this.
Robert said the CRS cycle visit is where we document what we're already doing. That was the
front half of the white paper. The other part of the white paper is to determine whether we
want to go forward and do more work, hold where we are or back off. Phil replied that he
understood that. Robert said that's the point where all the time and manpower will come in.
We've been working very seriously to document what we have been doing and we have to get
past that hurdle.
Phil directed the discussion to Bill Lorenz that one of the issues about manpower is that so
much time has been spent over the last 6 months dealing with the public, assisting them with
the new flood insurance maps, etc. that we don't have enough staff to work on the floodplain
management plan and various other activities associated with the flood damage prevention
ordinance so, as he understood it, the white paper was the document we'd take to the Board to
seek their approval for acquiring more resources to move efforts to get more points. He then
asked Bill to correct him if he was wrong about his understanding of this.
Bill said that in general Phil was correct. As a result of the changes and requirements there
were so many things to look at and analyze that we had to pull in more staff. We now have a
new base line condition for a CRS rating, and if that follows through we expect to get that
documentation to Lori Lear by mid to late Jan. Once that's confirmed then we have a new base
line. At the very least we will have a better idea going into next year's budget preparation. It's a
matter of timing; it seems senseless to set up an options paper before we have a new baseline.
4
Bill expressed that it would behoove the staff to make some general estimates prior that.
Budget planning starts in February and the Board's budget workshops are in June. For a move
to a Class 5, there would be increased documentation to keep that class jump. Once we're
confident that we are far enough into a Class 5 that's where we would go forward with the
options paper to the Board to go for a class 4. It's simply a timing issue due to the cycle visit,
getting the finalized information back from that and the budget planning.
Phil stated that the Committee always seems to be in a timing issue. He expressed that it would
be appropriate for the County to share with the Committee the project /manpower plan for
going into that budget cycle as to floodplain management activities, and then the County can go
forward from there. We continue to strive for some clarity in the activities that the staff are
engaged in, reference this Committee and the assignments. It's compounded by the fact that
this committee only meets quarterly. There are big time gaps that don't speak well for
communication. Phil further states that he doesn't feel the Committee is getting updates on
work activities and projects.
Bill responded, beginning with a reference to New Business Item 3, that changes in staffing
assignments are being looked at more due to the increased volume of documentation and rigor
to maintain the CRS class. Bill continued by explaining the complexity of maintaining all the
different elements involved, the staffing and the departments that are coming together to make
this a successful achievement.
Phil said that there's been significant progress over the last couple of years and thinks all this
should be part of the staffs job assignments to make this all happen. He also feels that it would
be helpful to the Committee members if periodically there could be some kind of interim status
without the lengthy documents, just something short and to the point with respect to active
tasks. Bill agreed saying that's a good idea and that some of his other staff are doing similar
things as performance objectives. They both agreed.
Phil then questioned Robert on the white paper's extensiveness and if it would be condensed
for a presentation. Robert said it would be summarized at that point but to get all the
information on it, it will be extensive.
2. Discussion on CRS White Paper Status (Bill Lorenz)
Item 2 was covered fairly well during the discussion of Item 1 therefore Jerry moved on to Item
3.
3. Discussion on floodplain and CRS program staffing changes Caroline Cilek�
Caroline told the Committee she was pleased with the conversation at this meeting. She said
staff would prepare a document on proposed staffing to show the Committee at the next
meeting. The information is a work in progress for the responsibilities, needs, resources and
tasks that comprise the whole floodplain management program. That information will be
presented to the floodplain administrator in the next couple of weeks, and adjustments would
be anticipated after that presentation. She requested some time to complete this process and
then come back to the Committee. She felt that the three months until the next Committee
quarterly meeting would be sufficient.
5
4. Public Comments
There were no public speakers present at this meeting however Phil spoke up saying he was
acting as a public speaker. He asked for the status of a discussion during the last FMPC
(Floodplain Management Planning Committee) meeting regarding the draft scope of services for
updating the Floodplain Management Plan (FMP). He wanted confirmation of the deadline for
the update to the current FMP, asking if it would be October of 2014.
Robert responded that October of 2014 would be when we do the combined update of Rick's
Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) which would include the FMP. That's a little bit broader than
just the FMP. December 2014 is the timeframe for Board approval before we roll it into January
so we don't go lapse on time. October will be the deadline for merging the content of the LMS
and FMP. The FMP should be slightly ahead of schedule because it feeds directly into the LMS.
Phil read part of the minutes from the last FMPC meeting regarding updating the FMP. He
questioned the deadline for updating the FMP at the same time asked for confirmation that it
needs to be updated every 5 years. Discussion followed on clarification of the currently
effective and adopted FMP in the currently effective LMS.
Phil then asked Robert where he stood with the draft scope of services from last October to get
some additional help for that. Robert said that it's supposed to be going out for additional
assistance starting the first of the year (2014). Robert stated that the draft had not been
touched yet, that it's still in the same status as last time. Bill Lorenz assured Phil that Nick has
been told that this is a priority and it has to get out on the street in January in order for it to be
back in time to get it into a final draft to take to the Board. He then stated that is the time frame
we are looking at.
Phil thanked Bill for his response and again asked Bill to confirm that he had confidence in the
time frame to get it on the street and have it back in time to do this. Bill stated that this is a
priority and we have to get it out no later than the end of January 2014 and that would put us
on board for March 2014. Phil then said it would be helpful to send a quick email to the
Committee letting them know when all this, happens.
Duke asked Robert to clarify the ISO coordinator visit, if it gave him enough information to do
the 5 year cycle review. Robert told Duke that the visit was the 5 year cycle review. Duke asked
if this gave us a pass on the November due. Robert said it's an entirely separate issue. The ISO
over sees the whole Community Rating System program and the FMP was just one requirement
within the CRS program. Duke said he wanted to get what Robert was saying in context.
Jerry asked if there were any more comments, there were none.
Duke motioned to adjourn; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The meeting
was adjourned at 10:02 a.m.
0
Next Regular Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2014 starting at 9 :00 a.m. in Room 610 of the GMD -P &R
building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104.
Z�;4y"' //. &��
Jerry Kurtz, Chairman
Robert Wiley, StdFf 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