Loading...
Floodplain Management Committee Minutes 01/10/2011 R R, E CE\VED Fiala --1) c/. . .. Hlller~ APR 2 1 201~; \ "." ~~~I~n9 -!~ -;;;e __ Boo'" aI c,"'~ co"""""",",. CoIQIIo-;;:" Floodplain Management Plamlilig~COiiil'ltittee ~ 16J.1 B2 Ray Smith, Chairman 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 Jack McKenna Jerry Kurtz Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Herb Luntz Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Meeting Minutes for l-lO-llRegular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m, End: 10:22 am, Location: 2800 N, Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smi~ Carolina Valera, Rick Zyvoloski (alternate for Dan Summers), Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, Mac Hatcher, Jack McKenna, Travis Gossard, Brooke Hollander, AnantaNath (alternate for Clarence Tears), Duke Vasey, Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham, Pierre Bruno, Lew Schmidt, and Robert Wiley, Absent: John Torre (Excused), Christine Sutherland (Excused), Bob Devlin, Christa Carrera, and Chuck Mohlke (Excused). There were no members of the public or additional staff in attendance. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. Ray Smith introduced Jack McKenna who is now the County Engineer following the retirement of Stan Chrzanowski, Jack gave a brief statement of his background. OLD BUSINESS: 1, Approval of minutes for the 7-12-10 Regular Meeting and 7-16-10 Continued Meeting-Ray Smith asked if there were any needed changes to the 7-12-10 minutes. Lew Schmidt stated he was present at the 7-12-11 meeting and asked for that to be corrected. Phil Brougham asked about Committee membership numbers under Item 2 of Old Business, and whether there was any discussion with the County Manager. Robert Wiley stated this was an item for discussion on today's agenda. Phil then asked about the discussion on page 4 of 11 regarding application for grant funding by August 2 in conjunction with Emergency Management, and was there any action, Robert Wiley responded that nothing transpired on that item, Ray Smith then asked if there were any needed changes to the 7-16-10 minutes, Carolina Valera stated she had just spoken to Robert Wiley about noting she had an excused absence. Phil Brougham then motioned for approval of both sets of minutes as amended, and the motion passed nmmimously. 2. FMPC membership vacancy/replacement (Bill Lorenz) - Bill Lorenz said he had a discussion with the Growth Management Division (GMD) Deputy Administrator, Nick C~~: At the end oflast year, the County Manager merged and reorganized the Transportation Date: Page 1 of9 Item': C:,1(C...:~,,,,, ""'~ U'''-'l.'-'..:_>:::J VJ~ 161 1 B 2 Division and the Community Development and Environmental Services (CDES) Division into a single division known as the Growth Management Division- (GMD), Norman Feder is the division administrator, The GMD is divided into two parts, and the former CDES is known as the Planning and Regulation (P&R) portion with Nick Casalanguida in charge. Internally within the GMD-P&R there was a reorganization of departments, The current Floodplain Management Planning Committee (FMPC) staffing has representatives from the · Building Review and Permitting Department, · Department of Zoning, · Comprehensive Planning, · Environmental Services, . Engineering Services . Stormwater Management . Transportation Division All of these staff members are now from the one division. The desire is to have one representative from the total division, There are two reasons for the proposed change in staffing: . efficiency of the staff resource and · especially within the Land Development Services department, which contains Zoning, Comprehensive Planning, Environmental Services, Engineering Services, and Stormwater Management, staff and managers cannot be in the same meeting to discuss where the County is heading on issues of floodplain management because of possible Sunshine Law violation. Bill Lorenz and Nick Casalanguida propose for Jerry Kurtz to be the one individual representing the division, That would also probably include the representative from Transportation, so Bill Lorenz thought that probably Travis Gossard would be removed as a member. If other staff from the various sections and departments is needed to address issues before the FMPC, they can be available as support staff instead of being a member of the FMPC, With the selection of one member (Jerry Kurtz) to represent the Growth Management Division, there would be one member (Dan Summers/Rick Zyvoloski) from the Emergency Management/Public Safety Division, one member (Ray Smith) from the Public Utilities Division, and one member from Public Information. Those four positions would be the voting staff members on the Committee, Whenever there is a need to get technical resources or technical expertise to the Committee, those staff can be directed to report or Jerry Kurtz can get the information and report it to the Committee, Bill was not sure if Nick had already briefed the County Manager on this re-staffing proposal, Phil Brougham stated this proposal raised concerns to him regarding the staff effectiveness and efficiency regarding Committee business. He understands the organizational issues created by staff members being on the Committee and difficulties this creates as to being able to be briefed on things, However, the Committee meets once a quarter, so if the Committee is reduced to one representative for the Division, and if the meeting discussions get into technical matters, then Jerry will have to go back to the pockets of expertise after the meeting concludes, which means 3 months go by before the next meeting, and interim, the Committee is not moving forward fast enough. Phil's concern has been that even currently meeting once a quarter has hampered efficiency, and this could potentially also hamper it. Even meeting once a quarter, this Committee is grinding down to a slow crawl or halt. While not Page 2 of9 161 1 .Bi advocating the concept, perhaps the Committee has done all the work it needs to do with respect to the new Floodplain Management plan, and perhaps it should be disbanded. Duke Vasey expressed no concern about reducing staff to four members, and thought it would also result in changing the number of civilian members, He wondered that in thinking about reorganizing the Committee if there could also be thought given to the way tasks are processed from the Chairman intemally to the staff, In times past there have been periods of time when department heads didn't agree with the Committee tasks and nothing was done, In this reorganization it is essential to have a very smooth system for processing either Committee requests or for information. Ray Smith commented that the County Manager is going to have to approve this plan, and requested Robert Wiley to launch out communication out to the Committee bye-mail informing them of when it is to be implemented. Ray also asked if after the reorganization, would it be appropriate to move to monthly meetings so if there are issues that arise that Jerry Kurtz cannot answer, it would not result in a 3-month wait to get an answer. Phil Brougham proposed that this discussion and proposal be taken back to the County Manager who chartered this Committee to ask about 1, County staff membership 2. FEMA requirements for equal number of citizens, so does the citizen membership be reconstituted as well, and 3, The issue needs to be fleshed out as to frequency of meetings as well as the process of when the Committee asks a question of a technical nature, how is that process going to move through the County with respect for someone to authorize the appropriate amount of time on the appropriate staff member, a deadline for feedback, etc. so we have a smooth and efficient process to raise questions and get answers to we can move on. Bill Lorenz agreed to follow up on these issues in further discussions, Phil Brougham then made his 3-point statement into a motion. After the motion was seconded, Ananta Nath asked a question regarding the ability for key members of staff (e.g. Mac Hatcher and Travis Gossard) to be non-voting members but still be available and avert the situation of having to wait for 3 months to get an answer, Bill Lorenz could only speak for his staff, but felt that if issues of concern were identified ahead of time for discussion, the appropriate staff could provide the information in a timely manner or perhaps be on a stand-by situation to arrange their schedules to be available for the meeting, Bill felt there would be a way to accomplish the needs of the Committee without all of the current staff being voting members. Phil Brougham then asked if as soon as the concept is endorsed by the County Manager, then could Robert Wiley report back to the Committee via e-mail, Bill Lorenz agreed to have the e-mail sent as soon as we get a full deliberation response from the County Manager, Ray Smith agreed that sending out an e-mail along with the notification of the next scheduled Committee meeting would be sufficient. Phil then asked if the County Manager's determination also then speak to the citizen member makeup, and would he be nominating who stays and who goes, Bill Lorenz did not have a specific answer to that question, but agreed to look into it. The Committee was formed by a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, so Bill thought that this would have to go back to the Commissioners with a new resolution to establish the number of Committee members, Robert Wiley informed the Committee that CRS scoring was based upon having at least an equal number of citizen and Page 3 of9 161 1 B2 , J {. 1 staff members on the Committee, but there could be more citizen members. Upon call for the question, the motion was approved unanimously. 3, Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Status Update - Robert Wiley informed the Committee that since they voted to forward the Ordinance, it has been seen by DSAC and by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) three times, The CCPC sent the Ordinance back to DSAC to obtain a financial impact for requiring floodproofing to 1 foot above the base flood elevation (BFE) compared to just floodproofing to the BFE, DSAC did provide a number for a typical situation, but this was not something they really wanted to do. Staff took that cost information to the CCPC along with the cost implications for flood insurance. Basically the ordinance still looks like what the Committee approved, but there have been some recommended changes, and these are identified in the side margin comments for the CCPC to review and consider, One issue that the CCPC did change was to reverse the Committee's direction to say "all" utilities instead of "public" utilities, and go back to the ''Model Ordinance" statement of "public" utilities. There will be a table of acronyms added, which was also the desire of the Committee, The ordinance is not headed back to the CCPC on January 20th. There is an added statement that deftnitions within the ordinance are only for the ordinance. The Penalties section has been revised to simply state enforcement will be in compliance with the Code Enforcement ordinance. There have been changes in the section on Variances, and many of the variance process details have been removed as directed by the County Attorney, Pierre Bruno Pierre Bruno asked if there could be a guidance document available for the public on how to obtain a variance, Robert Wiley responded that this may already be getting done because staff is in the process of developing an Administrative Code to address processes and procedures, whereas the Land Development Code and Code of Laws and Ordinances address technical issues and regulations, Carolina Valera confirmed that the Administrative Code will address processes and procedures, She felt that variances will be spelled out in the Administrative Code, Duke Vasey asked whatever happened to an ordinance having to stand alone. Robert Wiley could not provide that answer, but is simply following the direction provided by the County Attorney, He did favor using an Administrative Code to provide process information to avoid getting different answers from different staff. Robert Wiley also informed the Committee that the Committee's desire to have the Variances section include a statement that a variance could not be given for unpermitted work was removed by the CCPC. The CCPC didn't feel this statement was necessary, since the work would already be unpermitted and subject to Code Enforcement. Bill Lorenz informed the Committee that the ordinance is scheduled to be taken back to the CCPC with the recommendations they have made and placed on their consent agenda, meaning it is not planned to have another extensive discussion. Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is scheduled for February 8th, Robert Wiley will be putting together some bulleted points on issues the BCC will want to consider, One of the issues will be the substantial damage/substantial improvement and the timeframe considerations, Robert explained that while staff thought there was a "default" 12-month time frame for substantial damage/improvement calculations, as it turns out, there is no "default" period. Unless the ordinance specifies a timeframe for calculation, the substantial damage/improvement calculation is for each permit for an applicable structure, The discussions with the Committee had always relied upon the "default" period. Staff then recommended the inclusion of a stated 12-month cumulative time period to the CCPC, but they did not agree to Page 4 of9 16' 1 Ie include it The CCPC preferred the permit to permit evaluation and not having any cumulative time period. lIDs is a step backward from how the building permitting program is currently being operated, Ray Smith asked about reviewing the proposed definitions to make sure the terms still exist within the body of the ordinance. With changes to the body of the ordinance, it may be that some terms have been eliminated, Robert Wiley asked Ray to send him an e-mail with the specific terms he thinks may no longer be used. Duke Vasey asked if there was going to be a discussion of the $75,000 spent on the remodeling effort for making proposed changes to the Preliminary DFIRM, Robert identified that as part of the discussion under New Business Item 1, Phil Brougham asked if there was any change to the CRS rating. Robert informed him we were still a Class 6 community, which is an improvement from where we were a year ago. Once the new FEMA floodplain mapping effort is finalized, staffhopes to submit the effort to FEMA to see if that will be sufficient to give us another class improvement. NEW BUSINESS 1. Status Report on New Floodplain Mapping (prel1minary DFIRM) - Robert Wiley said this topic would address the previous question from Duke Vasey. The Preliminary DFIRM is currently out for public comment, and that comment period will end February 2nd. Upon receipt of all received comments/appeals, staff must evaluate the submittals and forward a recommendation to FEMA along with the submitted documentation, There are a couple of firms who have said the County can anticipate receiving at least two appeals/protests to address the development of newer communities that did not exist when the 2003 LiDAR topography was flown, The consultants are providing documentation of elevated ground as a part of the developments that is higher than the proposed BFE, The County is submitting an appeal of the Preliminary DFIRM based upon new LiDAR topography that was flown in 2008. This LiDAR was flown for the Watershed Management Plan development. lIDs information has been previously discussed with the Committee, When staff presented FEMA with the option to bring the new LiDAR into the floodplain mapping study, FEMA rejected the idea saying it was too late in the process to being in new topography since that is one of the basic items provided at the start of the study. When the floodplain mapping project was started in 2004, the 2003 LiDAR was considered as very current, However, when staff received the new LiDAR in 2010, we began making comparisons between the two LiDAR products and noticed that in areas that had not been developed, there was a difference in ground elevations, The 2010 LiDAR is generally about 1 foot higher than the 2003 LiDAR, Staff then discussed what we thought would happen to the BFE by having a base ground elevation roughly 1 foot higher, knowing that in about 5 years we would be using the 2010 LiDAR to update the DFIRMs. Different ideas were developed by various staff engineers, Raising the ground by 1 foot would tend to raise the BFE by 1 foot, but we also know that the modeling is calibrated based upon measured water elevations in the canal, which are not based upon the LiDAR. So we hired Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc, (TCE) to make the necessary evaluation to show the results. That re~study is the roughly $75,000 number that Duke asked about. (The cost is really $74,500,) The re-study was conducted for only two basins, the Golden Gate Main West and the Golden Gate, but these two are directly connected by the Main Golden Gate Canal at CR-951 and Page 5 of9 161 1 B 2 ~ provide an analysis for development impacts in coastal, older urban, urban along the eastern side ofCR-951 which has seen a lot of development, and rural estates settings while addressing changing ground elevations from both development activities and the change in LiDAR TCE is currently finalizing this work product with a scheduled delivery date of January 21st, When staff submits the TCE results to FEMA as an appeal, we don't know how they will react. They may be supportive by accepting the appeal and place the Preliminary DFIRM finalization on hold while we update all of the basins with the new LiDAR, Staff doesn't think this delay will happen, but it is possible. FEMA may accept the appeal, changing the Preliminary DIRM, and work with the County to develop a schedule to update the remaining basins through the physical map revision process, This is the more likely reaction, Generally speaking, when staff has met with various homeowner groups, the Preliminary DFIRM has been met with silence as the reality begins to sink in, Most people seem to understand that including rainfall- induced flooding along with the coastal surge flooding (note the current FEMA FIRM only considers coastal surge flooding) will cause such a large change in the flood zone locations. The coastal surge flooding as proposed on the Preliminary DFIRM tends to show somewhat of a decrease in impact from the central area of the coastline to the northern half of the coastline. However, in the southern half of the coastline, there are some increased impacts due to having to include the recent year storm events (e.g, Hurricane Wilma), Everglades City did see some increased effects. Several communities indicated they were going to wait to see the results of the County's appeal before then using the LOMA process to remove structures that meet the requirements from the Special Flood Hazard Area. Once FEMA has reviewed all of the appeals/protests, and has resolved them to their standards, if there are any changes made to the Preliminary DFIRM, FEMA will issue a Revised Preliminary DFIRM. The County will have 30 days to review this Revised Preliminary DFIRM and submit comments, Ultimately we think this effort will delay finalization of the Preliminary DFIRM by about 4 months to roughly August. That is just an estimate based upon the assumption that FEMA will accept the information submitted in the protests/appeal, Rick Zyvoloski asked ifthis analysis would give the answer on why there was a I-foot variance in the two LiDARs. Robert Wiley responded that the reason for the LiDAR difference is not what is at issue with the appeal, The 2003 LiDAR went through a certification process for a 2' contour interval, which means 95% accuracy for a +/- l' elevation, or half of the contour interval, The LiDAR flown in 2008 and received in 2010 was flown at a more intense level of ground verification points, But it also is certified to a 2' contour interval, meaning 95% accuracy for half of the contour interval (+/- 1 '), Between the two certifications, each of them meets the requirements, However, when comparing the 2010 LiDAR to the ground truthing locations there is better matching, The newer LiDAR is much better at meeting specifications. It appears that the roughly l' difference comes from the older LiDAR tending to be identifying lower elevations, but within specification range, whereas the new LiDAR comes in very close to measured elevations, but not tending to be low, With the +/- l' specification, we see the l' difference. Rick asked ifperhaps the explanation was the result of using different reference points between the old and new LiDARs, Robert explained that it basically is a result of the amount of reference points for ground truthing and where those points are located. Rick commented that it may have come out better for the citizens within the appeal basins, but we lost a lot when using the new Page 6 of9 16' 1 8~ LiDAR for the storm surge modeling (He was referring to the SLOSH modeling by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council.) Duke Vasey asked if the known appeals will be affected by the restudy of the sub-basins, Robert Wiley replied that one of the appeals supposed to be submitted by a consultant is within the area of the County's appeal, That development is submitting their information anyway, because they understand that the County's appeal may not be successful and their Master Association wanted to go ahead and hire a surveyor to get the elevation information and submit it to FEMA, Duke asked if that association was following the Letter of Map Amendment process separately from the TCE effort, Robert responded they are following the appeals process, not the Letter of Map Amendment process. The other anticipated submittal is located outside of the two basins being restudied by TCE, and that information will be evaluated against the Preliminary DFIRM projected BFE. So far, everyone appears to be appealing the ground elevations and not the water surface elevations, Pierre Bruno asked if the proposed canal closings in the Picayune Strand Restoration project were included in the modeling for the Preliminary DFIRM, Robert Wiley explained that for FEMA floodplain mapping, we use curreilt conditions, not projected changes, In the future this may become an issue, but not now. Future modeling would include the location of pump stations, but the basic design of the Picayune Strand Restoration project is to provide for equivalent capacity (June 2000) of the current canals for the 100-year, 5-day design storm event. There are capacity problems with the canals now, and there were in 2000, but the current operation is to maintain them as weed free as we can. The Picayune Strand Restoration Project was never designed to be a flood control project. It is a restoration project for the southern blocks of Golden Gate Estates, Whatever conditions existed in June 2000 were the conditions imitated by the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling to design the pump stations, The design was for a 100-year, 5-day storm analysis, and the pumping capacity was designed to match with the modeled hydrologic curve, Different sizes of pumps are included to match the hydrologic model capacity curve. During the public comment period, the issue was resolved to also provide for an extra pump to provide redundancy and reliability, The largest capacity pump at each pump station was duplicated as the redundant pump to ensure pump station capacity, but it is not designed to be used as increased pump station capacity, As we go forward, the pumping curves which duplicate existing canal capacity will be included in future modeling. The model capacities won't change, but it will be identified as a pump station and not a free-flowing canal, Ananta Nath added to this information to clarify the actual date is December 7, 2000. The flood protection element of the project is addressed under the Federal Savings Clause laws, This requires the project to not make conditions worse for areas upstream of the south blocks. The existing level of flood protection must remain the same. The total capacity of the 3 proposed pump stations is 4650 cfs, The Faka Union pump station has a 2650 cfs capacity, Miller Canal has 1200 cfs, and Merritt Canal is 800 cfs, This is a much larger capacity than the existing canals. Robert thought the largest Faka Union pump station pumps were 8' in diameter, to which Ananta agreed, Duke Vasey interjected that the pump stations are only designed to mimic gravity flow in the existing canals. Duke also mentioned the existing water reservation requirements so we cannot take away water that would affect the Picayune Strand Restoration project. 2, Preparation of the Annual Floodplain Management Plan Progress Report - Robert Wiley explained that each year we put together a progress report. This will be brought to the Page 7 of9 161 1 B a Committee at the next meeting, We will be reporting on progress made on the Action Plan Items which are listed on a colored spreadsheet. Many of the items are already completed or on schedule for completion, After review by the Committee, the report will go to the BCC, and then in September it is submitted to the Insurance Services Office as a part of the annual CRS recertification requirement. lbis is something done several times before, so you will receive a copy of the document ahead of the meeting for your review, We want to make the Committee aware of this issue so you are prepared, Staff hopes to also put together a listing for the next year's Action Plan Items by the next Committee meeting, Ray Smith asked how many sub-committees are currently working on Action Plan items. Robert said there was only one active sub-committee, the 6( e) sub-committee, Ray asked if there were any sub- committees that should be working on action plan items. Robert responded he was not aware of any, and the 6( e) sub-committee had the most need for active participation as it deals with developing a single point of contact and also providing for technical assistance offered to the community as a result of making contact. Phil Brougham asked for the current status of the actual Floodplain Management Plan (FMP), The Committee was moving along with modifications to the FMP, Mike DeRuntz was brought back in temporary employment to address areas where the FMP was deemed insufficient, so where are we now? The Committee reviewed the product developed by Mike DeRuntz, and there were a lot of comments about it still being very large in size, but the direction was to go forward anyway. Staffhas not moved the FMP forward due to the simultaneous workload of the Preliminary DFIRM and the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, To avoid confusing the issues, the FMP has been put aside until we work through the Flood Ordinance adoption and the work on the Preliminary DFIRM settles down, Then staffwill reactivate efforts to complete the FMP and take the Committee recommendations forward. We have a 5-year window of time to make the revisions, so we are not hurting ourselves by waiting to separate the issues and avoid confusion. Phil Brougham asked when the 5-year window will expire, Robert said 2013. Duke Vasey addressed a comment to Bill Lorenz that the FMP had a lot of tasks directed out to specific staff, so would the proposed staff Committee membership realignment affect this? Bill Lorenz responded that staff would still be available to work on it, but just would not be Committee members, Phil Brougham asked Bill if the work tasks would be appropriated down to the staff level, and be signed offby their supervisors. He was trusting those are still the guidelines under which we all are operating. At one point, task responsibilities would be assigned at the Committee level, but other responsibilities kept staff from ever getting to the work. Bill Lorenz responded that last year he signed off on all tasks under his control, and he assumes this will be done again this year, Robert Wiley then discussed when the next Committee meeting would be held in July. However, the first Monday in July is the 4th, which is a holiday. When the first Monday occurs on a holiday, we have been simply meeting on the 2nd Monday of the month. However, Christine Sutherland cannot meet on the 2nd Monday morning, so she requests that the meeting be moved to later in the first week. Phil Brougham suggested to simply set a date and see who can attend. Lew Schmidt asked if the next meeting would be in April, not July, Robert responded that the next meeting would be in April, so previous discussion about the July meeting for the Progress Report should have been referring to April. Christine Sutherland was wanting to know about the July meeting now if possible. Page 8 of9 .4 . . 16 1 1 B 2 Ray Smith then asked the Committee if they had any topics they wanted to have for discussion at the ne:x.1; meeting. If so say them now or e-mail Robert. Phil Brougham asked for a follow-up on the Committee membership restructuring between Bill Lorenz and the County Manager. Phil then asked where the Committee currently stands on membership vacancies and advertising, Robert responded that 1 staff position is not filled, and 2 citizen positions are not filled. That application was received in August 2010, and staffhas still not been given direction on whether or not to proceed to fill the position, There is one application on hold for review to fill the position vacated by Mr. Kokkinos, The second vacancy was created by the passing of Mr. Luntz, There is currently no advertising to fill the vacant positions. Lew Schmidt stated he would like to report back to the people in his community, He asked if the classification has been improved, Robert responded that there was a class improvement last year from 7 to 6, Lew then asked if that means there should be a decrease in flood insurance policy costs. Robert responded that it depends upon the particular flood zone, but while there was a 5% increase in discount, the fact that the base premium rates were increased for some flood zones means that there was simply less of an increase than would have occurred if the class improvement had not occurred, 3. Public Comments - None. Next Meeting: Monday, April 4, 2011, starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 610 of the GMD-P&R building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. sed unanimously at 10:22 a.m, Y'-/ :-/y Page 9 of9