Loading...
Floodplain Management Committee Minutes 07/12/2010 R Beard C! Gfl~!ll'Y GQfNftiS.<;ion~r~ _ ' -.-__. _ ~'_ L___~."""" - . f!1~tt!.--. 3/ Millar V ~etlflli1~ -r tP ./ Coyle v Colef\t1 v ~ - Floodplain Management Planning Committee \R.E(~E!VED. APR 2 12011 ~ 161 :B~,;. T Ray Smith, C.hairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Lew Schmidt . Dan Summers Jim Turner Carolina Valera Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) John Torre, Vice-Chairman Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Herb Luntz Clarence Tears Duke Vasey. Christine Sutherland Meeting Minutes for 7-12-10 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a,m, End: 10:25 a,m. Location: 2800 N, Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Mike Bosi (alternate for Carolina Valera), Rick Zyvoloski (alternate for Dan Summers); Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, Mac Hatcher, Travis Gossard, Brooke Hollander, Ananta Nath (alternate for Clarence Tears), Duke Vasey, Lew Schmidt, Phillip Brougham, Chuck Mohlke (alternate for Terry Smallwood) and Robert.Wiley, Absent: John Torre (Excused), Stan Chrzanowski (Excused), Christine Sutherland, Herl? Luntz, Joseph Gagnier (Excused), Pierre Bl'llD:o (Excused), Bob Devlin, and Christa 9arrera, There was one member of the public and two additional staff in attendance, Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: 1, Approval of minutes for the 4-5-10 Regular Meeting - Motion to approve by D~e Vasey. Chuck Mohlke requested changing the term "substitute" to "alternate" and that was agreeable to the Committee, He also identified a few misspellings. Phil Brougham requested .clarification of the wording under Old Bus~ess Item 2 to read "continue to advertise' monthly for the", Ray Smith requested editing Old Business Item 3, page 2 of 8, second paragraph line 9 to read "Phil Brougham stated he had no issues", Lew Schmidt requested a corrected spelling of his name in Old Business Item 3, page 2 of 8, second paragraph line 2, Vote to approve the corrected minutes passed unanimously, 2. FMPC membership vacancy/replacement - Robert Wiley informed the Committee that we continue to advertise monthly for the one citizen volunteer position vacancy, Phil Brougham asked how long we will continue to advertise before we consider downsizing the Committee, Robert Wiley stated that decision would be made by the County Manager, There is also the need to address the County's reorganization of the Transportation and CDES divisions into a . single Growth Management Division. The issue has been put forth to go up to the County Manager's office. Phil Brougham questioned why continue to incur the advertising cost until the issue of Committee membership number is settled, Ray Smith asked if there were any specific requirements on Committee membership size. Robert Wiley explained the CRS recommendations for local government department representation and the desire to have at least an equal number of citizen participants, Ten dep~ents were selected fMic. Corrts: Date: Page 1 of 11 Item#: CC~:38 L.fl: 16. j 1 'p2 ~ representation, so ten citizen members were chosen, alonRwith one representative from each of the three municipalities. Mi', MoWke is here today as the representative for Everglades City. Duke Vasey discussed how the County's advertising is done via e-mail and it is on the web site, so technically there is no cost. Duke Vasey felt the number of committee members was not as important as the community involvement and level of competent staffing represented, Phil Brougham concurred that the County's reorganization and consolidation of departnlents shouldn't create any penalization of the Countyby having one department responsible for more than one function as long as all of the functional requirements are represented per what FEMA asks. Robert Wiley clarified the desire to keep the Committee's citizen membership at least equal to staff membership, 3. FMPC Membership Attendance Policy - Ray Smith discussed the attendance policy approved by the Committee was based 'upon the Committee meeting once a month. Now that the Committee meetings have been changed to once a quarter, it is very confusing in Section B, I through 3, Ray Smith offered an amendment to the previously approved attendance policy as follows: . B(l) remains the same - the member has two unexcused absences in a row B(2) - the member has three excused absences within a 12-month period B(3) -:- is deleted from the policy Duke Vasey asked Chuck MoWke if these proposed changes remove the confusion. Chuck Mohlke responded that the proposed changes appeared to be in order and offered to' make the proposed changes as a motion for approval. The motion was seconded and Duke Vasey asked if the attendance policy was to be brought into the Committee's By-Laws, as previously recommended by Phil Brougham. Chairman Smith had no problem to including . the attendance policy into the Committee's By-Laws, Duke Vasey asked Phil Brougham to motion for inclusion into the By-Laws, and Mr, Brougham so moved, Lew Schmidt then questioned whether the Committee should vote on the first motion that was on the floor for discussion. The motion for approval passed unanimously. Phil Brougham then made a motion to adopt the approved attendance policy into the Committee's By-Laws. The motion was seconded, no one expressed any discussion of the motion, and it passed unanimously. 4. Amendments to the Floodplain Management Plan - Robert Wiley provided comments that with the Division's reorganization, there are places where the current text of the Floodplain Management Plan (FMP) will need to be revised, Since no other comments were received from the Committee, with those few revisions, staff now proposes to go to the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) for their review and comment if the approval of the Floodplain Management Planning Committee is received today, Duke Vasey observed that in the minutes is says there were some comments made that the FMP is too difficult to read because there doesn't appear to be an outline form, the style changes from paragraph to paragraph, there appear to be' a lot of redundancies in it, and he was not able to read through the document effectively, although each sentence could be read . effectively, The entire FMP, which is too long, needs to be re-thought, and maybe in the reorganization perhaps an outline can be developed on what needs to be covered to satisfy this important area and once outlined, perhaps someone responsible could integrate all those parts that appear everywhere in the FMP into one area, Page 2 of 11 16' 1 B2 .., Chuck Mohlke offered a caution on editing to remove redundancies without having more than one person involved to make sure minor details are still kept that may be different in various areas of the document. He advised on preparing a consolidated summary of some of the extensive documentation currently within the FMP, Phil Brougham asked how tightwe are tied to a specific format in content by FEMA. Robert Wiley advised there are certain topics that must be addressed, but the format is not specifically set and FEMA's preference is for concise documents using the order of topics . presented in the review crosswalk, Phil Brougham stated he felt we should consider making the FMP smaller and more readable in the future as staff time becomes available. Robert Wiley advised the Committee that if they want to have the FMP revised into a more concise document, now is the time to be giving that direction~ Phil Brougham then said he would like to see the entire document revisited, consolidated and condensed, and not lose meaning on more of the tangibles, but was concerned about the reasonable expectation of the availability of staff to do the. work. Ray Smith agreed With previously stated concerns about the size ofthe FMP and the repetition of some information, but recommended we move forward with the FMP with the understanding it will be revisited in the future to reduce its length and making it more user friendly, Duke Vasey commented that it is the redundancy that creates a problem because the same issue is addressed differently in a number of places which means the FMP looses effectiveness, He asked who the editor is for the County, meaning, is it each individual that proposes a plan or is editing the responsibility of some group, The document needs someone, the expert with the outline of what has to be covered, and then someone has to go into the document and scavenge all the information and shrink it dqwn into paragraphs to make it declarative or definitive. There is a lot of information with relevance, but not in the way it is presented, To be effective, the document needs to be read, used and understood, Rick Zyvoloski mentioned that the Residential Construction and Mitigation Progr~ is currently open and one of the opportunities to apply for a grant is funding for planning. There is planning money available if we wanted to go .for it, and that might. take care of staff time if you can get someone else to do the work. Chuck Mohlke mentioned a concern that hazard mitigation strategie's have been amended for the three municipalities, and that's an .independent action by a separate unit of government. .What he doesn't want to have happen is for Naples, Marco Island, and Everglades City to have to go back and revisit their recently adopted hazard mitigation strategies because the FMP is referenced in those documents, and incorporated by reference into what amounts to an official action by the respective municipalities. We don't want to raise that issue prematurely and then have something happen in terms of a natural or man-made disaster of some kind and then have regulatory agencies question whether the revised FMP applies to the adopted plans of the municipalities. Things like that can happen, Ray Smith advised Mr, Mohlke that the FMP currently before the Committee has been drafted and approved by the Board historically and has now had changes made to items 7 and 8, and the majority of the FMP is not necessarily new, Robert Wiley explained that the draft FMP is mostly the same text that has been reorganized to put it within the order of the crosswalk, Sections 7 and 8 were rewritten by Mike DeRuntz to address issues that were deficient on the crosswalk, Page 3 of 11 1.611B4 II Chuck Mohlke said his comments were only a cautionary note to address items incorporated by reference into other municipal documents and then if the reference4 document is amended in some fashion, you want to be sure that amendment comes to the attention of the other jurisdictions. Ray Smith stated that the other municipalities were members of the FMPC, Chuck Mohlke acknowledged the FMPC connection'but their Councils have made independent determinations about the hazard mitigation strategy that operates under Rick Zyvoloski's jurisdiction, and he may wish to comment. Rick Zyvoloski responded that each of the jurisdictions within the multi-jurisdiction mitigation strategy incorporated their aspect there. The City of Naples isn't required to have a FMP, Marco Island has their own FMP. The only thing that might cause a concern is with Everglades City which has adopted the County's plan, but Mr, Mohlke is the Everglades City representative and can look out for their interest if they need to go back and readopt. Rick Zyvoloski didn't see a problem if the editing only made the document more readable and didn~t really change the spirit and intent of the content of the FMP, ChuckMohlke agreed with Rick Zyvoloski's comments, but just wanted to be sure the matter was covered as a matter of record, Phil Brougham asked for someone to pursue the option for grant funding mentioned by Rick Zyvoloski, Rick responded that someone wo~d have to move quickly since the deadline is . August 2,2010 and the State didn't give a lot of D,otice time, That initia~ive would also have to be a part of the mitigation strategy which has a meeting this Friday, and the item would have to be prepared by then, Phil Brougham stated that getting an application in gets our foot in the door and if it then doesn't prove to be viable for what we need, we can decline any funding award. Ray Smith requested for Rick Zyvoloski to. work with Robert Wiley to fill out the application so it can be submitted, Ray asked Rick to send the information to Robert, Ananta Nath asked if the County was on a certain timeframe for having to complete the editing of the FMP, Robert Wiley responded that there is a deadline, but it is a long way in the future for what the County has to do, We can. use the current rating in the Community Rating System (CRS) program, which is what the FMP is a part of, for about 5 more years, Ananta Nath then recommended we pursue all avenues to make the document a more concise and readable document. . Ray Smith asked about Mike DeRuntz being hired to address review comments that the County received from FEMA, Mike was going to address those comments so we would have a plan that met all of the requirements that FEMA or the CRS manual placed on Collier County, That was done in this document package in draft form, Mike DeRuntz was hired as a consultant to work for the County for a short. period of time because we didn't have the staffing to move on, and we were getting very frustrated as a committee to accomplish this goal, and we did, Ray Smith recommended the Committee approve this draft to move forward with the understanding that in later editions and amendments we will work towards reducing the size and making it more user-friendly, which it needs to be, Ifwe start taking a step back again and looking for grant monies then we're just going to end up taking a lot longer to achieve this ifwe don't move forward with this, Then with the grant monies we make amendments in the future, Phil Brougham stated he is not in favor of pending the current plan and starting revisions, Let's move forward and get this in place, but use grant money to get new help in to simplify, consolidate and re-draft the FMP, and we have 5 years to do it, Ray Smith stated he was on Page 4 of 11 16' 1 1 8.2 J:<A i, .f . board with that concept. Phil Brougham made a motion to that effect. The motion was seconded, there was no additional discussion, and the motion passed unanimously. 5, Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance - Ray Smith voiced a concern with the ordinance draft presented today, He had recommended that specific comments be inserted into the copy being reviewed, and they are not in the copy to help benefit the Committee's opinion and vote on whether they should remain or be removed. Ray recommended, as Chairman of the FMPC, that this be tabled or not reviewed today and be reviewed at a later meeting just because of that, Duke Vasey commented that the ordinance re-write is much more readable, but he would still like to see some information added, and he provided that to Robert in writing, He would expect to see it for consideration in any republication or effort to bring it back to the Committee for approval. Ray Smith asked if Robert incorporated all of Duke's comments, Duke Vasey responded no, but there was a great job on a lot of them, His concern was on accessory ~tructures, which is a FEMA definition, but he felt it would be appropriate to add two paragraphs to Section 5 w~ch he has recommended, Also, the consolidation of an earlier portion of Section 5, that is now a series of statements, can be simplified so it is more readable, Duke offered those as contributions, Phil Brougham stated he was not aware of the recommendation made by Ray Smith, so he doesn't know w4at they are and can't comment on whether he agrees with them or not. He had a question regarding an e-mail sent out by Robert Wiley on 5-3-10 saying there was a scheduled presentation of the ordinance to DSAC on 5-5-10, Phil asked if that happened, Robert Wiley responded in the affirmative, and described that the presentation was simply to distribute copies of the ordinance draft and request DSAC members to review it and submit their comments within 30 days, Some people provided comments, and most did not. DSAC was informed that the ordinance would be scheduled on their August meeting agend~ for discussion, Ibis is the same procedure as was conducted with the FMPC where the document was distributed and comments requested within 30 days, Phil Brougham asked if individual DSAC member comments had. been Incorporated, Robert Wiley replied that some (he thought two) DSAC comments had been placed into the ordinance draft, Ray Smith stated that, just for the record, he submitted his comments 4-28-10 within that month period, and none of his comments were incorporated into the draft. Chuck Mohlke requested that for those who have concerns about "definitional issues" that are not related to some of the important policy statements that are incorporated into the ordinance, would the Chairman permit them to ask a few questions before tabling the issue to see whether or not there is any interest on the part of other members, In relation to the definitions of the terms repetitive loss and substantial damage, there are some questions that need to be asked before subsequent review. Ray Smith asked Chuck Mohlke if this was something that he could discuss offline with Robert, or would the benefit of Robert's answer benefit the Committee, Chuck Mohlke responded that he would at least like to receive a response on the record, so Ray Smith allowed him to proceed with the questions. Chuck Mohlke asked the FMPC members to turn to pages 10 and 11 of the draft ordinance document where he began to discuss the "repetitive loss" and "substantial damage" definitions. The "repetitive loss" statement has significant language edited from it, and it caused him to. go to the definition for "substantial damage", . Having read the edited changes, and the comment for the requirement for a tracking mechanism, he thought it was an Page 5 of 11 1.6 j 1 B, 6-\~ excellent one and he wondered how that matter is going to be resolved. If it is resolved elsewhere in the ordinance, in his one reading of the document, he did not see that. He thought the logic of a tracking mechanism was important and he asked Robert Wiley to comment on it. Robert explained the differences in the "repetitive loss" definition from what was in the State's model ordinance to what is the changed definition. FEMA's concern is to get rid of houses that they keep paying damage claims from flooding, That led to the development of a program to .correct this, and is what is reflected in the model ordinance where there is the description of the 25% value for two paid claims within a 1 O-year period, Within the "substantial damage" definition, FEMA added the statement to include a "repetitive loss" structure. This brings about a situation where a property owner can have a house that has never had damage that amounts to 50% of the value of the structure, but by having two paid flood claims with an average value of25% of the structure over a 10-year period, the building would now be declared as substantially damaged. When the owner comes to the County to get a permit to repair damage from the second flooding event, the County would have to require the building to be corre~ted from non-compliance with the base flood elevation, Joy Duperault, with the Florida Department of Emergency Management, recommended to not use the "repetitive loss" definition from the model ordinance, but to use the traditional definition of two $1,000 or greater paid flood insurance claims within a 10- year period, and not making a "repetitive loss" structure automatically become a "sqbstantially damage" structure, The State's recommendation, along with direction from Bill Lorenz, Director of the County's Land Development Services Dept., was used to make the recommended changes to the two definitions within the draft ordinance. The tracking mechanism that Mr, Mohlke is referencing would become a part of the building permit application review process, An additional question asking if the application was to correct damage from flooding would need to be added to the application form, That would allow the County to start tracking within the electronic permit application software used by the County. Once the County starts the tracking, it must continue, It is not an onerous requirement, but would bring up the question if this is a flooding issue, and the permit reviewer would have to look at the flood claim history for the structure to determine if the structure would become a "repetitive loss" structure, Additionally, the value of the structure would have to be provided and entered into the permit application so the percentage value number could be calculated for tracking purposes, FEMA did confirm that their methodology for calculating the 25% value number is to simply take the two claim percentages and average them. Chuck Mohlke felt Robert's explanation was very responsive for the record, and expressed his concern for a community that has routinely significant issues related to this because of it . vulnerability to major storm events, Whatever is done, for the purposes of the record, he asked for some assUrance that what Robert has outlined so carefully will be incorporated after passage of this ordinance as a routine protocol in regard to permit applications, Mr. Mohlke expressed knowing only too well what happens, as regards to repetitive loss and substantial damage and trying to merge the two in some'sensible way so people receive the assistance they believe they are entitled to, absent from their knowledge of this now . simplified and more straightforward definition of these issues. He requested some assurance the permit protocol mentioned by Robert would be incorporated somehow in an easily and understandable way. Ray Smith asked Jim Turner to respond to Chuck Mohlke's concerns, Page 6 of 11 .- 16 j 1 ~2 4 Jim Turner said he could agree with this concept, but would like to see some exceptions, Say if a permit application comes in for a repetitive loss structure that only needs a new roof, and they can't replace the roof until they bring the whole place up to the flood elevation, The owners want to repair the leaking roof and the County has to tell them to bring the whole house up, He didn't think that was right. Robert Wiley said he agreed with Jim's concern, but FEMA has made it real clear on the position they take, and it is their program, Jim Turner asked what would happen if we had that exception within our ordinance, Robert Wiley responded that FEMA would reject the ordinanqe. Jim Turner discussed the publications from FEMA that discuss exceptions for bringing structures up to code. Robert responded that issue deals with code safety issues, and you can't use code changes to not count the cost of the corrective work, such as replacing a roof. The exceptions deal mainly with electrical, plumbing, etc, situations where there is a definite safety hazard to dwell in the house one more day. Jim said he knew of two other jurisdictions here that are using that and allowing an architect to say a building is not up to code and they can go ahead and let them . do the work. Robert advised that what someone else chooses to do he didn't want to be led down the path on the. direction he gives to the County that will get us in trouble when we are audited, Jim Turner thought that allowance was in the local jurisdiction's ordinance. Robert Wiley responded that a local jurisdiction once received a 30-day letter from FEMA for what was in their ordinance, and he didn't want the County to go that way, Chuck Mohlke thanked the Chairman for allowing him to raise that point, he felt the discussion was beneficial, and for now, he was done with questions, Ray Smith then stated he was pushing the ordinance off to the next meeting, and the Committee members should be aware of the recommendations that he and the Public Utilities Division put into this ordinance for purposes of agreement or disagreement and being able to vote on them for approval or denial as a committee. Robert Wiley then asked for clarification from Ray Smith that he, as the person responsible for preparation of the ordinance document, should put in comments with Which he could not agree to. Should he put in every comment received, and say he .doesn't agree with it. Or, should he use discretion in knowing where the program needs to go to meet certain minimwn requirements, and simply leave them out so they are open for discussion at the meeting? Ray Smith referred to a statement in the minutes that have been approved from the last meeting where Nick Casalanguida stated that as review comments are provided to staff by administrators, DSAC, etc" these comments would be provided to the FMPC so they would have the benefit of seeing all the comm~nts by the July meeting. We did not meet that. That is why Ray is pushing it off. Robert Wiley then asked when is the next meeting, to which Ray Smith said it would be in 3 months at the next quarterly meeting, Robert asked. if Ray understood the imp~cts of that, and Ray acknowledged he understood the impacts, and granted people may agree or disagree with the comments provided, but they should have the capability of providing their feedback on those comments, Phil Brougham then said that regarding comments, in general, he felt it was very inefficient to gather comments from individual DSAC members and comments from individual Committee members and they go into a filtering system, which he thinks that was what Robert was alluding to. You can have comments that contradict somebody else's comments, and then what are you supposed to do. It just seems to be a very cumbersome way of moving forward rather than having each committee airing their comments, deciding on some direction in terms of some revision or addition, and then going forward. He was at a loss in no~ having the benefit of all these comments in trying to review and approve a document. He Page 7 of 11 16 j .ti "B2 1 " . has no way of knowing who said what, whether he agrees with who said what, or not. Therein again is a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare that prevents us from moving along smartly, He didn't lmow how they were expected to approve something that reflects comments when the comments have been edited, Ray Smith said that was his same con(!ern, that the Committee couldn't do it. Duke Vasey then stated that collaboration docUments are perhaps the most complicated documents you will ever review simply because you are looking at a divergent cross section. He felt the richness of comments is important, but he also values the judgment of staff where items are clearly contradictory to the purpose of either the governing directive or they are counterproductive to the ordinance itself, He thought there should be a side vehicle to take the comments and recognize they were considered and the reason they were not appended or included in the document. He didn't want to see all the metatags in Microsoft and when you look at this docum~nt and its complexity, he can understand the frustration that Robert would have with something Duke might say that was clearly wrong, However, he did participate and would like to know why he was wrong so he could change his way of thinking, On the other hand, there is no need to waste time stuffmg something into a paragraph just to strike it out. Maybe where we are right now is that in all likelihood, some of the things we have said are fine, some of the things conflict, other things need to be discussed, But the assembler, in this instance Robert, knows enough about the system to know what should be put in and what should not be put in, Where we get into trouble is that we have a Committee that is formed by 10 representatives of the community, 3 representatives of municipal governments, and we don't want to get into a competition with Robert over what the system says, But as he has pointed out, there are differing opinions within his own organization which have to be resolved, Maybe it is the resolution of those opinions which should be set out here, and they should be able to see a document that reads carefully through the law, meets the criteria, is easy to understand, and can be impleI?-ented, Ray Smith agreed that the comments should be recognized, they should be evaluated, either inserted and discussed at the Committee; or have reason that they're not inserted in a separate document, identifying or referencing a rule or regulation that they shouldn't be there, We need to see that as a Committee, He and Robert have talked offline and one of the recommendations, and in Robert's position, and Ray disagrees, all of the recommendations are in violation of the requirements associated with the development of this document. Ray disagreed that all of them are, but he agrees there should be a document as Duke suggests, that identifies why they have not been incorporated into the document. Ray Smith then asked Robert Wiley what are the concerns if the ordinance is pushed out 3 months, Robert Wiley explained there is not sufficient time to get the ordinance passed before the DFIRMsare supposed to become effective, At that poin~ we fail the program, we go to being thrown out of the flood insurance program. Ray Smith asked what the recommendation at this time was, Robert explained that he came to the meeting prepared to talk about the comments received, includingthose.not included in the document so there could be an open discussion about why they are not in, It was not his understanding he was supposed to put together a listing of every comment when it was not going to be put within the document. If that is what the Committee wants, it can be done, and we can come back next month instead of waiting 3 months, If the DFIRMS stay on schedule, and the public vetting process is just getting ready to start, they may be ready for approval about the end of this year, Phil Brougham asked why we can't meet next month. He suggested the Committee ~eet next Page 8 of 11 16 I r1 B~2 1 month, address only this item, and get it off the table. We don't want to jeopardize the program, and unless there is very substantive disagreement, it sounds like there is just a bunch of work to get through the document. Let's do it next month, to which Ray Smith agreed. Mac Hatcher asked why we couldn't start the discussion now, Ray Smith said everybody needed to have an opportunity to sit down and read the comments. Travis Gossard said he would not be able to be in attendance next month since it is an unscheduled meeting, Discussion then ensued on selecting a date for the next meeting based upon member and room availability, It was the consensus of the Committee to continue the meeting to 1 :30 p,m, on Friday, 7-16-10. Robert Wiley asked how much lead time the Committee members needed to review the document with all of the received comments, It was agreed to send out the comments document by 9:00 a.m. Thursday moming, 7-15-10, Ray Smith ~ted we needed a quorum to have the meeting, so he emphasized the need for Committee members to attend, Robert Wiley agreed to send out a meeting request as soon as he receive4 confirmation of the room reservation. NEW BUSINESS 1, Scheduling FMP Outreach Meetirigs - Robert Wiley' explained that every year there is an outreach program where we go out to the community in the evenings to talk about the . Floodplain Management Plan and primarily to get people to give comments about where they have observed flooding over the past year so we can get those locations to Travis in Road Maintenance so they can schedule a time to check if the problem is something that maintenance can correct. Last year we scheduled the meetings in the summer, and this year we have not yet scheduled the evening meetings because we have the conflict coming up with the series of meetings on the new flood zones during the week of August 16-20,2010, Nick Casalanguida has previously said he wanted us to start taking our Floodplain . Management Program out to various Homeowner Assqciation (HOA) meetings to consolidate staff participation time and. improve efficiency of effort. Robert has not heard back from Nick on the details of what he has in mind, Robert asked the Committee if they desired to try to plan for a series of evening meetings in September 2010, The flood zone meetings are with FEMA and are single-issue meetings, so we can't also be asking for floodplain and flooding input from the public, If the Committee members are going to be . around in September to attend and assist, and if Nick gives the approval to hold the meetings, what is the Committee's desire? The new Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) is supposed to be shipped to the County today for us to use in the August meetings, Ifwe schedule the Floodplain meetings in September, it gives people a chance to come back and ask questions about the flood zones while we discuss the floodplain issues, Ray Smith asked if we receive CRS credit for holding the flood zone meetings for the Preliminary DFIRM, Robert Wiley responded1hat we do not receive separate credit for CRS scoring for the DFIRM meetings like we do for the regular floodplain outreach meetings, The DFIRM meetings are single focus and we don't have the ability to receive public input for observed flooding, which is what is desired in the CRS program, Duke Vasey asked if the County knew what the local municipalities of Everglades City, Naples, and Marco Island plan to do with regard to the new DFIRMs, Robert Wiley responded that they are participating with the County in the evening meetings, Tuesday evening (8-17-10) there is a meeting at Norris Community Center in the City of Naples , Thursday (8-19-10) we meet at Page 9 of11 161'1 8,2 ir4 noon at Everglades City, and we meet at 5 p,m, on Marco Island on that same day, Robert said he didn't know specifically what the municipalities would do with the Preliminary DFIRMs, if they would do anything different than with the current FIRMs, Duke commented we have a need to present information to unincorporated Collier County, Robert then discussed the three Preliminary DFIRM meetings in the County on Monday (8-16-10) at St. John the Evangelist church, on Wednesday (8-18-10) at the IFAS building next to the County Fairgrounds, and on Friday (8-20-10) at the Immokalee Community Park. Lew Schmidt asked the time for the Monday meeting, to which Robertresponcied from 5 p,m, to 8 p.m, Robert also briefly discussed staff's availability to meet with other groups whenever desired and available to get as much information out as possible, Duke Vasey asked about the notices for these meetings, Robert Wiley described the notices that were sent out in the July water and sewer bills from the County, it is on the County's web page, and John Torre's office will be distributing the information through their notices, Robert was not aware of any separate advertisement to be placed in the newspaper, but there has been an outreach to them to try and get a news article on the issue. Ananta Nath asked if the information would be on the Floodplain web page, Robert said there is a separate DFIRM web page being set up with this information, but they will be linked together, Duke Vasey then asked if there will be an effort to present this information to the Naples Area Board of Realtors (NABOR) and the real estate industry, as well as the superintendent of the Public Schools. Robert responded that staff gave a presentation to NABOR last week, before actually receiving the Preliminary DFIRMs, to give them the information available, and they did ask us to come back and meet again as a follo\\:, up, The County has not talked to the School Board separately, yet. Usually, staff from the School Board will come to the County instead of the County approaching them, Chuck Mohlke asked if the Floodplain outreach meetings and locations can be known and scheduled before the DFIRM meetings take place so that information can be posted at the DFIRM public meetings, He thought that may increase the interest in the floodplain meetings, Ray Smith asked what we needed regarding a timeline to accomplish that. Robert responded that he only needed to know if the Committee desired to hqld separate floodplain evening meetings' in September, and if so he would work through Nick to see if Nick . approves or if he still wants to hold off and not have separate meetings, If the Committee wants to hold September meetings, and Nick agrees, it is just a matter of scheduling the meeting times and locations and sending out notices to the Committee members. Lew Schmidt thought meeting in September or October would be good to give opportunity for more residents to be here instead of the August meetings. Duke Vasey then motioned to continue the meeting until Friday (7-16-10) beginning at 1:30 p.m. at this same location, The motion was seconded, but prior to taking the vote, the Chairman moved to the Public Comment period for the one gentleman from the public. Upon completion of the public comment, the chairman returned to the previous motion, it was repeated by Duke Vasey, seconded by the same individual, and the motion passed unanimously: 2, Public Comments - Mike Rosen of 270 Tradewinds Avenue said he agreed with the gentleman from the Committee on needing to hold meetings in the latter part of the year for better representation when more people return, . Page 10 of 11 16 'I lSi2 '.4 Next Meeting: Friday, July 16,2010 starting atl:30 p,m, in Room 610 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104, this meeting will resume from its continued status. etinguntil Friday, July 16,2010 at 1:30 p,m, by Duke Vasey passed ,.. Page 11 of 11