Loading...
Floodplain Management Committee Minutes 02/06/2012 RFloodplain Management Planning Committee Ray Smith, Chairman John Torre, Vice - Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Joseph Gagnier Brooke Hollander Lew Schmidt Christine Sutherland Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Jerry Kurtz Dan Summers Christa Carrera (Naples) Bob Mahar (Marco I.) Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 2 -6 -12 Regular Meeting Start: 9:05 a.m. End: 10:48 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Jerry Kurtz, Connie Deane (alternate for John Torre), Clarence Tears, Duke Vasey, Phillip Brougham, Lew Schmidt, Raquel Pines (alternate for Terry Smallwood) and Robert Wiley. Absent: Dan Summers (Excused), Brooke Hollander, Christine Sutherland, Joe Gagnier (Excused), Pierre Bruno, Christa Carrera and Bob Mahar. There were four (4) additional staff members and two (2) citizens in attendance. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: Approval of minutes for the 1 -9 -12 Regular Meeting — Ray Smith asked if there were any needed changes to the minutes. Phillip Brougham brought up a typo on page 12, second paragraph up from bottom, Mr. Torre's name was misspelled. Duke Vasey motioned for approval and the vote passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion on Storm Water Business Plan (Jerry Kurtz) — Jerry Kurtz discussed the relationship on the three tasks he's directed to work on. He asked Robert if the resolution on the Floodplain Management Planning Committee (FMPC) expanded duties was passed. Robert stated that it was passed. He wanted to re -visit items from last meeting about the relationship of the watershed management plan completions and the recommendations from the Watershed Management Plan (WMP), how's that related to the Storm Water Business Plan (SWBP) and also how does that relate to the Floodplain Management Plan (FMP). We will have to amend the FMP and bring it up to date and Robert will be the person in charge to make that happen. A lot of pages of the FMP that are out of date and need to be updated are related to future projects and future business planning for Stormwater so the relationship is very obvious and direct. When we move forward this SWBP will also be helping with the future updates to the FMP as well. The WMP was the completion of a lot of science and a lot of great ideas and recommendations and will be the guiding document for a lot of surface water improvements, new policy, new practice, and projects as well. The WMP is a very comprehensive document that Mac Hatcher will discuss following this discussion on the SWBP. Page 1 of 8 Jerry acknowledged some concerns expressed at the last meeting, the need to spend some time getting the information out to the committee members, and at the meetings presenting information, discussing it, and educating each other so we can be effective and move forward. Jerry had additional copies of the Project Management Plan for the SWBP that he distributed at the previous month's meeting. The schedule side of the Project Management Plan (PMP) will need to be revised within this review and education process. The SWBP is a very comprehensive plan with a lot of goals. The SWBP will include information on the dollars available and how we will program projects given the dollars that we think we're going to receive and out into a five (5) year planning period. The direction is to project for 5 years and develop plan as we go. Want consensus and direction with the whole FMPC. We will have action items to vote on when we get ready to recommend items. Jerry's intention is to review everything about the SWBP through the FMPC first. He would also like to utilize the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) for project feedback on concepts and projects. He expressed a need to determine how success will be measured, and he expressed a need to figure out how the FMPC can effectively give feedback to him. He plans on taking a lot of notes as well as reviewing meeting minutes. Jerry distributed and discussed a List of Projects (Project Listing and Categorization). Ray Smith asked if the project list was consistent with the WMP that was recently approved by the Board of County Commissioners (Board). Jerry explained that the WMP has a listing of projects, but the SWBP contains categories of projects, of which one category is the WMP projects. Ray asked how Jerry would be prioritizing the SWBP list. Jerry stated we will prioritize our projects here and that the WMP ranked and prioritized their projects already. He is looking at project needs other than just what was included in the WMP. We need to be aware of money available and consider that in the prioritizations. Jerry discussed how the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project ( LASIP) will consume most of the money available for the next three years. In the fourth and fifth budget years there will be a significant amount of money to program other projects. Funds available for the next 3 years are $4.4 to $4.5 million. LASIP on schedule will consume $3.8 to $3.9 million for those next 3 years. That leaves $500,000 to $600,000 to prioritize to other projects for the first 3 years. In years 4 and 5 we will prioritize $4.6 to $4.7 million worth of projects and efforts. We will look at the whole 5 -year plan and get it laid out within the next few months. Floodplain Management, Water Quality, Rehydration all are tied together with recurring and common elements. Clarence Tears requested whether or not the County has looked at other ways to increase funding. Jerry discussed the dedicated millage was originally approved at 0.15mils, but that was cut last year to 0.1 mils. Clarence suggested that staff may need to go back to the 0.15 millage to implement the SWBP. Jerry distributed and briefly discussed the "Surface Water Management Business Plan — Document 1 Needs Analysis — Project Listing and Categorization ". Clarence Tears recommended identifying projects from the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study as "Draft" since that study is still in review and not finalized. Ray Smith suggested to Jerry that he pass out future project lists a few days earlier next time so all members can have some time to review the document prior to the meeting. Jerry will be providing the FMPC a recommended priority list of projects to discuss at the next meeting. Page 2 of 8 Duke Vasey brought up the Frangipani issue on 10th St. which was not listed by Jerry. Jerry indicated that he had not listed that project. He described that the Frangipani issue is located south of the platted sections of Golden Gate Estates (GGE) from Wilson Blvd East and all the sections of land below GGE. The Frangipani issue is an area where people have ingress and egress issues to those 6 or 8 sections /square miles of land and there are homes and businesses without any good access. We need to look at how to provide legal access for the people in the design and also coordinate with culvert crossings, canal issues, and flow issues. Jerry Kurtz will add this project to the project list. Phil Brougham wants to see a plan for developing a Business Plan and a work plan to identify projects, identify prioritization, develop a list of recommended projects for input to the Committee, etc. He is looking for a work plan to guide development of the SWBP and to monitor and know what Committee expectations are and what's going to be coming to the Committee next month for review. There is a need to have a set of recommended project priorities and a discussion of these in a Committee meeting and get feedback from the Committee. Ray Smith agreed with Phil about needing more information and detail about the Project List and brought up that it might be a good idea to do a slide presentation with pictures and a cost benefit analysis as to why projects are priority 1 verses priority 2. Duke Vasey would like to see the criteria for establishing the prioritization of projects. The size of the list may indicate a 30 -year planning period to get them accomplished. Phil requested a more detailed business plan that has all of the criteria we have discussed, including how staff time will be spent and how priorities will be established. He suggested providing a full description of the projects that Jerry feels should be of higher priority and not address lesser important projects. He would like to see a more detailed business plan on putting the SWBP together and focus the FMPC on giving input where it can best be used. Clarence Tears offered a copy of the Big Cypress Basin Strategic Plan. Ray Smith suggested considering picking up some of the lesser expensive projects early on with the money available outside of the LASIP so they can quickly be removed from the listing. Clarence Tears suggested that some projects could be funded by the Transportation maintenance side of the County. Jerry brought up the Vanderbilt Drive Swale Rehabilitation project. The Greenway on Vanderbilt Drive is a planned project and there is a section along the proposed Greenway Project where the roadside swale is a mess and is being ripped up to replace a water main. This is an example of a great opportunity to piggy back with the Utilities Department to complete a good water quality improvement project. Duke Vasey would like a graphic on how the projects by priority fit into the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and the WMP. Phil Brougham wanted to know how the projects mesh with other departments work, for example Transportation's work. He suggested they need more detail and we need to understand why Jerry will be recommending the project priorities and how they compliment other plans that are on the deck or even another department's plans. If projects aren't going to be addressed in the next five years, let's not talk about them. The detail would include funding sources, costs, deliverables, etc. Clarence Tears suggested to Jerry Kurtz that the WMP top- recommended projects prioritized by the BCC probably should be his main focus. Jerry will come back with a more detailed plan that includes many more needs that are outside of the WMP projects. Lew Schmidt discussed the Vanderbilt Drive Swale Page 3 of 8 Rehabilitation project which is a combination of three or four projects and should be coordinated with other departments to find out when they are performing the work. Duke Vasey expressed that this appears to be a budget cycle issue. He also wanted to make sure everybody understands a fundamental flaw that the Committee is dealing with, which is that the FMP was designed without any science of Watershed Management. It didn't have any Storm Water Management and basically is a plan to prevent property damage, and it also looks at permitting which has never been put all together before so this is an exciting time to be around. The SWBP has to be prioritized to prevent recurring property damage. Water quality is a secondary priority. We need to go back and look at the purpose of the FMPC which is the insurance business and Community Rating System (CRS) and the IMP. Phil Brougham commented on the budget cycle and timing of funding. He requested a more detailed and stronger case for the cost benefit of the project which could help to get increased funding in the future. Jerry Kurtz then discussed his separate category of nuisance (yard and street) flooding which is where a lot of complaint calls come from. The benefit is huge in eliminating the threat of possible flooding of homes. Robert Wiley brought up that Duke Vasey was correct in that the primary focus of the IMP is to address prevention of structure flooding, but there is a defined multi focus in addressing water quality. Starting this year we are able to address Storm water, Watershed and Floodplain by way of FEMA's new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map ( DFIRM) because they cover the same area. We will see a big advantage now with additional support. The new DFIRM goes in effect for Flood Insurance purposes May 16, 2012, and for Building Permits on March 30, 2012. Jerry Kurtz reminded the FMPC that one of the main focus points of the SWBP is to identify the need for improvements, and he supported Clarence's statement that this may identify that we are currently underfunded. Jerry has a lot of information on the projects on the list, so he will start putting that information together. Phil Brougham supported getting the information for the FMPC to review so they could offer support as the SWBP continues through the process. Ray Smith brought up the recently approved Resolution No. 2012 -06 Section One: Creation and Purpose of the Floodplain Management Planning Committee, approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) 1/24/12, with new purposes. He will be looking at this resolution specifically in regards to projects and how they address the issues of flooding, surface water and watershed management along with water quality issues. Bill Lorenz added that the SWBP issues need to be addressed in addition to the Watershed Management Plan implementation that will be discussed by Mac Hatcher. We need a really good way to depict how these are all inter related not only project by project, but also organizationally with other County departments and in regards to budget cycling. Bill's management challenge is to get information to staff, committee's and other decision makers so they can readily grasp it and understand it so they can provide the feedback they are called upon to provide. Phillip Brougham added what a tremendous benefit this would be too many departments and the BCC and offered his help. 2. Discussion on Watershed Management Plan Implementation (Mac Hatcher) — Mac Hatcher stated that a lot of the comments given to Jerry Kurtz would apply to Mac's work product as Page 4of8 well. He then went over his Watershed Management Plan Implementation Strategy handout and recommended providing the Watershed Management Plan (WMP) process document on CD to the Committee members. The WMP identified some overarching concerns. • The canal systems discharge excessive amounts of freshwater to the basin estuaries. • There are pollutant loading concerns such as nitrogen, phosphorus and copper coming from the urban and agricultural areas. • The primary and secondary canal systems are basically inadequate to handle the rainfall that we get. • We have observable aquifer impacts from the potable water use and canal discharges. 1) Proposed Projects — The WMP is intended to try and develop projects that would mitigate for those concerns. The projects that Jerry Kurtz mentioned earlier are one of the ways that mitigation is proposed. The strategy lists some target dates and tasks for the next fiscal year and a few items running into the following fiscal year. Bolded items on the Watershed Management Plan Implementation Strategy memo would be items that would be brought to the FMPC for review and comment. Mac will keep a website up to date with information on the Watershed Management Plan (WMP). The website will include the work product and links to backup material so there is time to review the information for discussion at the meetings. The project initiatives that were approved were not prioritized, so he has set up targeted completion dates to move the primary initiatives forward this fiscal year and get the ball rolling on the important items. Mac will develop an example plan which would enable the projects to be available for partner or grant opportunity funding, to be put on hold until LASIP is completed. 2) Low Impact Development (LID) — To develop new regulations and policies, Mac will gather existing manuals available and post them on the website and then do an evaluation of the Best Management Practices (BMP) that seem to be most effective for Collier County. Then he will identify the incentives that are likely to value those BMPs and, lastly, develop the LID standards that would enable moving the BMPs into regulation and policy. 3) Stormwater BMP Upgrades — These would be upgrades to stormwater treatment and delivery for public facilities. BMPs deemed most likely to work that can be coordinated and facilitated with partners in a timely manner would be identified. The basins identified by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as having water quality problems [the existing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) basins of Gordon River Extension and Lake Trafford] would be targeted. A target project would be designed and constructed, and this process repeated in other priority basins as needed. 4) Evaluation of a stormwater fee -based utility — Mac will gather information on existing stormwater fees that are being collected in other Florida counties and municipalities and this information taken to the BCC for a yes /no vote on whether to proceed. If the BCC gives support for the concept, then staff will try to develop a fee structure to provide fee -based incentives for existing stormwater facilities to be Page 5 of 8 upgraded by the business owners without raising the total amount of dollars the fee brings in. 5) Evaluation of flood protection ordinances — The first effort would be to develop an Ordinance to adopt discharge rates that were identified in the WMP. An ordinance to require floodplain evaluation and total volumetric discharge would be a subsequent effort. 6) Flood protection Level of Service (LOS) standards — This issue is proposed for future development as time becomes available. It will require an analysis of the consultant's new methodology for developing LOS. If this looks promising, then additional work would be done to develop the appropriate Growth Management Plan policies to adopt the LOS. 7) Evaluate the North Golden Gate Estates (NGGE) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program — The NGGE TDR program is proposed to move forward quickly and relate to the NGGE flowway program. This will require the development of an ad -hoc committee by the BCC which will be used to vette alternatives that can identify effective TDR policies and allow for reduced density in the NGGE. 8) Evaluate the NGGE Mitigation Bank — Same comments as for the NGGE TDR program. 9) Operation and design for structures — This incentive is proposed for implementation as individual stormwater structures come forward for review. It has no timeline. 10) Refinement of water quality monitoring — This incentive will be based upon FDEP decisions on the need to do additional work in the various basins. 11) Miscellaneous projects — One request of the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) was the figure used to identify the resource protected lands. This can be accomplished fairly quickly. The re- evaluation of Rural Fringe neutral preservation standards and the work to move forward the agricultural water storage areas will be delayed. 12) Stormwater treatment certification program — This will be based upon the FDEP Stormwater Applicant's Handbook which is currently in DRAFT mode and not being worked on any more. That Handbook has some criteria for certification and checklists, but this item is not proposed for work this fiscal year. There is also an education program related to this, and if time allows, a web page product will be developed to get information to the public. 13) Florida Friendly Fertilizer ordinance — The Florida Friendly Fertilizer Ordinance was adopted in June 2011, and staff sent out notifications to all the businesses that have Lawn Maintenance Licenses. The Pollution Control Department has implemented a Public Education Program including flyers that were sent out through the utility billing system. The Utility Department has sent out an information letter to all customers that receive reuse water to inform them of the nutrient content in the reuse water. Yet to be accomplished in this task area is the enforcement strategy for the Ordinance. Page 6of8 Phillip Brougham suggested that come back to the next FMPC meeting with some dates and deliverables as to how the FMPC can best interact with him and reviews his work product as he moves forward. Mac explained that the dates shown in the Watershed Management Plan Implementation Strategy memo handout reflect his deadlines so he can bring the information to the FMPC at their next meeting. Duke Vasey asked about TMDL and replaced it with numeric nutrient criteria. Mac explained how the TMDLs will continue and how they will be followed up by development of Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) and most of the TMDLs will probably be based upon specific nutrient criteria. Nitrogen and phosphorus criteria will not be identified in southwest Florida. Duke commented on the value of the new LiDAR (Light Ranging and Detection) topographic information. He urged to not use the word Mitigation Bank simply because that means you're going to pay up front to correct the issue but recommended using In Lieu Fee instead, which means you don't have to do any work until you actually transfer the property and at that point you work against a plan. Duke asked about the re- evaluation of rural fringe neutral preservation and the use of science to get into sending /receiving /neutral. Duke talked about the difference between the County's fertilizer ordinance that was adopted and the actual Florida Friendly Fertilizer ordinance and asked that we reference the County's ordinance. Duke discussed how the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance appears to prioritize the prevention of property damage in recurring areas first, and it does not prioritize LID because more fill is required. He said the NGGE TDR program isn't going to be low impact. He requested for information on how effective the current TDR program is. He stated that adopting discharge rates could lead to more flooding. He also stated that it is not proven that discharge from the agricultural areas of the RLSA actually pollutes the area with nitrogen and phosphorus. Duke's principal focus for this committee will be the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and the Floodplain Management Plan, and the concern that we do not damage properties existing or otherwise in the County to the extent that we can actually improve our Community Rating Standards by doing more. Mac agreed that the flooding of private property will always be the highest priority. Clarence Tears asked Steve Preston about copies of the Urban Storm Water Guide developed between the City, the County and the Basin. Steve responded that copies of the guide should be available this week from the printer. Mac responded that Steve's educational program in the NPDES Program are the primary educational programs for the County. Ray Smith discussed how Pollution Control collects about 60 — 65 surface water samples each month in addition to other work and they collect samples at approximately 72 groundwater stations on a semiannual basis at dry and wet season. 3. Follow -up on Conservation Collier discussion (Bill Lorenz) — Bill Lorenz was not present at the moment so Robert Wiley discussed what the County has done, or is doing, to use county owned lands for mitigation purposes for County projects. Robert provided information on the County's inquiries to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers into using the Pepper Ranch property, but the matter is still under consideration and not final. The BCC did pass a Resolution to have the Facilities Management Director (Skip Camp) sign the permit applications to go forward for Pepper Ranch. Page 7 of 8 4. Public Comments: No Comments. Robert Wiley stated the next meeting will be March 5, 2011, and discussed that Sunshine Law rules don't allow Committee members to communicate with each other outside of noticed meetings. The Committee requested that meeting minutes be less detailed and only address specific details. Duke Vasey motioned to adjourn meeting. Motion passed unanimously at 10:48 a.m. Next Meeting: Monday, March 5, 2012, starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 610 of the GMD -P &R building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. Ra it ai do Robert Wiley, Sta 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. Page 8 of 8