Loading...
Floodplain Management Committee Minutes 07/02/2012 R Floodplain Management Planning Committee Jerry Kurtz, Chairman Craig Pajer, Vice-chairman Phillip Brougham Joseph Gagnier Brooke Hollander Christine Sutherland Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Mike Sheffield Dan Summers Christa Carrera(Naples) Bob Mahar(Marco I.) Terry Smallwood(Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 7-2-12 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 10:23 a.m. Location: 2800 N Horseshoe Dr, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Christine Sutherland, Ananta Nath(Alternate for Clarence Tears), Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham, Craig Pajer, Jerry Kurtz, Mike Sheffield, Rick Zyvoloski (alternate for Dan Summers), Raquel Pines (Alternate for Terry Smallwood), and Robert Wiley, Absent: Brooke Hollander, Duke Vasey(Excused), Christa Carrera(Excused), and Bob Mahar There were three (3) additional staff members in attendance. Meeting called to order by Jerry Kurtz, Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Approval of minutes for the 6-4-12 Regular Meeting—Jerry Kurtz asked if there were any needed changes to the minutes. None—motion made for approval by Joe Gagnier and seconded by Christine Sutherland. Robert Wiley brought up that Duke Vasey (absent)had some comments on the minutes. Page 4, 5th paragraph, 5th line-It says that Longshore Lakes had created a video for their homeowners on the importance of water quality. Duke does not think that it is Longshore Lakes. Also, Page 4, last paragraph first line—says"...when he approached the DEP about water quality studies,there..., studies should be standards., Robert said he will double check and listen to the tape regarding the Longshore Lakes video. Motion was changed to approve amended minutes. Passed unanimously. 2. Committee membership discussion—Jerry Kurtz was appointed new Chairman of the committee. Robert introduced Craig Pajer as the new Vice Chairman of the committee. Craig introduced himself-He is a Principal Project Manager with Public Utilities Division in the Planning and Project Management Department. He is a 25 year resident of the area and a 2 year county employee. He was a private consultant doing civil engineering design work for many years. Craig went to Valparaiso University in Indiana for his Bachelors and he has a MS in Civil Engineering from Cleveland State University. Page 1 of 8 Robert explained that it is a 12 member committee—4 staff positions and 8 public members (6 of which are filled). Pierre Bruno and Lew Schmidt have both resigned. The two public positions are being advertised right now. The four staff positions are filled. Jerry asked "what is a quorum"? The answer is 50% + 1. NEW BUSINESS: 1. 2010 Florida Building Code Compliant Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance—(Robert Wiley) We have recently modified our flood damage prevention ordinance per FEMA during our last meeting. In so doing, we have the new model ordinance in front of us from the state of Florida, in order for us to become compliant with the 2010 Florida Building Code which became effective on March 13, 2012. It incorporates quite a bit of new information regarding flooding and building within the new floodplain. It's a totally different organized structure that addresses a lot of flood issues through reference to the FL Building Code instead of stating the actual requirements. Our ordinance presents a little bit of a conflict with that, so we have already told FEMA that we will be coming back to them this fall with the new ordinance that will follow the 2010 FL Building Code Compliant Ordinance document. We will start working with the county attorney's office to bring into it the different requirements that we have that are above and beyond the blank document. The FL floodplain management office has developed a series of attachments/addendum for adding in local requirements. Our ordinance is now going to be regulated as if it were a part of the FL Building Code. In the past, if we wanted to change something, we would just amend our flood ordinance. Now we do that,but we have to send the amendment to the state so they can get it to the FL Building Code officials and they will review it. It becomes an amendment to the Florida Building Code applicable to Collier County. It is essentially the same—it will give us the same regulatory compliance that we have always had, but we need to reword it and reorganize it to get it to be compliant with the Florida Building Code, otherwise we may "lose" any challenge to it. Phil Brougham wanted to know if our current flood damage ordinance had few, if any, higher regulatory standards? Robert agreed this was almost correct. He said what we were trying to do was add higher regulatory standards that were coming out of the CRS coordinators manual. That's what got removed—but we still have some local criteria that are more restrictive than the state—so if we want to keep it, which we do—because it's how we've been building for years, we have to rephrase the language. One of the changes in the new model ordinance— every development within the floodplain must be reviewed for floodplain impacts—even someone in an Ag. Zone. Phil wants to know the time line? Robert said we have told FEMA that we will be coming back to them this fall, hopefully not later than September to the planning commission. Phil asked if the attorneys have reviewed the implications of adopting Collier specific ordinance features into the building code. Robert does not think it has been reviewed yet, but the state has, and has come up with all the local criteria. Phil wants to know if it's on the county attorneys to do list and when? Robert said it is on the list,he doesn't know when. They have had it for probably 3-4 months. Phil asked if we can request an Page 2 of 8 opinion from them. He thinks that the first thing the committee has to understand, before starting the process, are the legal implications and what we are and are not required to do. Robert said he will run the changes of the new FL Building Code Flood Damage Compliance Ordinance past the county attorney's office and get some direction and bring it to the August meeting for the committee to review. He will bring it to the meeting with the changes filled out. Robert wants the approval of the attorneys that he's filling it out correctly per the requirements of the state. Then he will bring it to the meeting for review and input—such as are there any other items needed? Phil wants to know if there were be a comparative between current and revised, so we know where the changes are. Robert will attempt to do this. Phil offered his and the committee's help and Robert accepted and said he will let them know. Jerry Kurtz wanted to know that when we get a draft out of committee, does it go to DSAC first? Robert says yes, then planning commission,then the board. It may not even go to the planning commission because it is an ordinance; it's not really a land development regulation. We may just go from DSAC right to the board. This is a total replacement, not an amendment. Jerry wanted to know if you need a copy of the building code in order to read through this properly. Robert said the building code is a very, very big document. He has sections of it that pertain to this area. He is hoping to get a copy of section ASCE-24 (American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 24), as this draft ordinance directly references contents within that document. Robert has not seen this yet, which concerns him, as the ordinance says you'll flood proof in accordance with ASCE-24. He is trying to come up with a current copy of this. We think it's called Manual of Practice. We will look the document up. Jerry asked what we should specifically do with the draft ordinance document Robert passed out. Does he have any direction for the committee—should they just start reading it? Robert said he passed it out so the committee can review, try to figure out what it is saying and the order they're saying it. Then look at our current ordinance so you can get familiar with what we're requiring so you can understand the concepts. The one big difference is the floodplain development permit that would require some kind of tracking system going through our review system—so we can say we have reviewed it for flood plain compliance. Jerry wanted to know what date our current floodplain amendment was adopted? June 24th? Yes. Jerry—any other questions or comments on this item? No—let's move to item number 2 under new business. 2. Revisions and Review to Update the Floodplain Management Plan—(Robert Wiley)He has passed out a copy of the Floodplain Management Plan and another document titled Draft Goal Revision Document—these are the current goals, objectives and policies of this plan. Robert has tried to go through and make some initial revisions to the Management Plan that is what the Revision Document is At the start of the draft, he added in a listing for agency acronyms, to try and be helpful. What it basically shows you(from a division level), is how departments and sections break down and those areas where it affects our floodplain management plan. Page 3 of 8 There were a couple of changes made during this past month. Conservation Collier was changed from Admin to the Public Services Division. The Growth Management Division also had a reorganization approved in June. We have created a new department called Natural Resources Department. Bill Lorenz is still the director of this area—and has added Coastal Zone Management, Pollution Control and Surface Water and Environmental Planning under this area Planning and Zoning has become its own new department as well as Engineering Review. Public Utilities Engineering Department(under Public Utilities Division)has changed its name to Planning & Project Management Department(PPMD). Robert found that as he went through the goals, he thought some items were misplaced. If you look at Page 4, objective 1.13, he thinks this is more applicable under goal 1 than goal 2. So he moved what was objective 2.7 and called it objective 1.13,to get it under a more appropriate goal. If people don't agree, he has no problem moving things back or around. Also,please note under Objective 1.13 —there is a highlighted bit of text—this was included in here because we still have within our GMP, under conservation, a requirement that every so many years all stormwater management systems have to be inspected and certified as operating by a professional engineer. That created a huge firestorm when we tried to implement that. So— we need to figure out what we're going to do with the text in our Floodplain Management Plan. As we go through this, I hope we revise this so it will be compatible with revisions to our GMP. The problem is the revisions of the GMP are still in flux too-so we may just have to "recommend", but we don't really have any enforcement teeth in it. If we have no enforcement teeth, then the reality is we should take it out of the plan. Our choices are to strike the language, revise it or leave it alone. Robert doesn't think we should leave it alone because we're backing away from it in the GMP. So Robert is looking for input—what does the committee want? Staff? The citizens? Phil wants to know if he thinks the GMP needs to be decided first before we make that decision. When will the GMP be through its cycle? Robert will check with Mike Bosi. Phil is not sure deleting it entirely is the right decision. It may be counterproductive. Robert said it is part of the EAR(Evaluation&Appraisal Report). Phil is of the opinion that we wait for that. Robert said we have some time but it needs to be addressed. Underneath Objective 1.13, Robert took a swing at addressing one of the issues within the different statements of CRS, with Policy 1.13.1. We have the current CRS manual and a draft of the new 2012 CRS manual that is going to be effective in early 2013. One of the issues talked about is breaking up your drainage system into identifiable segments (which the county did years ago) and then show how you're able to inspect it at least once a year make necessary maintenance on it to keep it up to capacity. Robert tried to put this into a policy to state this. He wants the committee to discuss whether they want it in there. During the last meeting, Duke asked how we handle these emergencies and how we budget for them. This is what prompted Robert to add this in —to show that we will plan for this kind of stuff. Phil thinks it may be a good thing to have in there but there are some problems with the wording-"...provide sufficient funding to inspect and perform needed maintenance for the entire system at least once each year..." He thinks Page 4 of 8 the wording should leave a little leeway as it doesn't take into consideration any funding problems the county may(or may not)have in any given year. Perhaps we should add"when economically feasible". Robert agrees that it's just a beginning statement and wants input. What do the citizens want? Phil Brougham says that the citizens want a lot of things—for free —they want everything to work and they don't want their tax dollars to increase. So that becomes something to delegate to our elected officials and management- Leo Ochs and so forth. They decide where to delegate the spending. Phil thinks before we do anything with this, we need some guidance from Leo and Jerry Kurtz on the necessities and practicalities of this subject. We need some low key guidance from management and budget before we put something in. Robert is happy with the input. Phil thinks it goes hand in glove with an earlier issue—privately maintained systems. One doesn't work efficiently without the other. If you have clogged up private systems,you will have problems with public systems. Also, if a private is plugged up, they come to the public (county)and ask them to clean it out for them. Rick with Emergency management had a couple questions/statements. First—for disaster purposes—you have to have some sort of system written down for inspections. Especially if there's any damages that would result in the system being blocked up and FEMA comes back and says it's a pre-existing condition. Then it would be an ineligible piece of work. You have to have some sort of system that shows you routinely clean it up, so that if something happens during an event and it breaks, this would show that it's an eligible expense. Secondly, when an engineer designs something, don't they give it a lifespan? Instead of yearly inspections written into the project,perhaps make it sound less financially onerous by stating system inspections to watch for signs of weakening or failures in the system. Bottom line is you have to have a schedule in place and follow it. Christine Sutherland asked if life expectancy is not dependent upon maintaining it properly? How do we check now on private facilities? Robert answered that we basically do not inspect private facilities. If there is a problem and someone calls the county, we do send someone out in response, but usually once we find out where it is, we have to notify the association that they have to clean it themselves. In the publicly maintained system, there is a document being developed right now between road maintenance and others to come up with some estimated lives, estimated frequencies, for maintenance of canals and culverts. This document is still being revised and worked on today and hopefully will be ready within the next week or so. Road maintenance has a very detailed system in use but primarily they try to keep ahead of most of it-they become reactionary to complaints coming in during wet season. One question is do we want to be more preparatory than reactionary? One of the issues is that CRS wants you to be more preparatory—not relying on reactionary. Christine wondered about the history of failure in public systems?Phil thinks a lot of the developments systems are too new to know. Robert agreed. He said that the newer systems haven't had time to be tested by the rain events. The older systems (20-30 years)tend to have problems. Systems 30 years or older almost always have problems or total failure. He thinks developments are open Page 5 of 8 to improvements and that it would be good to emphasize the need for maintenance and preparation versus reaction to flooding. We need to push this into the private side. Phil commented to Rick's suggestion as to the lifespan of systems—with all the new developments that have come in--the key factor is that as they begin, and the silt builds up in pipes, etc, but you don't know it until you have the failure. Perhaps there's some middle ground-light enforcement—where we can encourage inspections every 5 years or 10 years. It's sometimes difficult to get an association to spend for that purpose. But he doesn't think there's any way to know unless you go look. Robert agreed—said there was a development some years ago that was discovered that there was never any drainage with their system. The contractor left the pipes bricked up—most of the time the water absorbed into the ground but once heavy rains came, they discovered there was no discharge whatsoever. Phil thinks we should get some sort of date on the GMP amendment and work this language. He thinks it's a worthwhile thing to do and we need to kick it around a lot. Phil supports it. Robert would like assistance with language on this policy. Ananta Nath (public) wanted to make a comment. He thinks there should be more specifics on the description, adding "structures". Phil thinks"stormwater conveyance systems"is comprehensive enough. That the system includes the entire structures the weirs,the piping, anything mechanical, the drainage ditches, etc. Robert agreed that that was the thought behind it. Robert will talk separately with Ananta and Jerry to get specifics. Rick had a question—there are a lot of private systems out there, correct? Yes. They have to demonstrate that they work, and won't affect the base flood elevations, correct? Robert said that the private systems are designed to handle the flood events up to the 25 year flood event. So if they have internal flooding, it will stay in their development. Rick points out that if they don't maintain their systems, it could affect the public system and we don't compel them to get regular inspections. Phil agreed and said it's what we were talking about earlier. We need to start nudging people back in that flood damage prevention direction. Robert would like to proceed to Objective 2.10. When he was reading it, he thought it looked like there were a series of typos that didn't get caught. So he was trying to figure out what we were trying to say and is looking for help. Robert struck"Surface, stormwater and watershed projects"and replaced with"Development activities within the floodplain will incorporate, where feasible:" He reworded a few things in points 1, 2 and 3 and under number 3 he pretty much left"a"thru"d" alone. He is looking for some help with the language. Phil thinks we're stepping in the LDC here. Robert agrees and doesn't know if we want to leave it in. Phil thinks we should take it out and avoid redundancy. He thinks the LDC is all over mitigation. Robert agrees. He wants everyone to see where we're going with these things. He says he is trying to shrink down this massive document and make it more concise. Jerry is working towards getting the capital issues lined up. Robert says he is on the phone all day long with flood zone phone calls so it is slowing his other work down. He has not been able to devote as much time to the Floodplain Plan. Phil asked if there were going to be more panel Page 6 of 8 amendments. Robert said he had talked to FEMA and explained that we were getting many calls from surveyors and that they should prepare themselves for LOMA applications. He told them probably 10-11,000 and they were stunned. Typically for 'A of the country, they will receive about 1,000 LOMAs, so it was amazing to have this many from one county. Robert explained that it is the way that we build—we're flat so we build up. So when he told them that, they took the initiative to use our updated LIDAR photography and identify which properties were at that elevation or higher. Then they issued the mass LOMA of 10,000, which helped them avoid all the individual applications coming in. It was the first time FEMA had done this in the nation—we were a pilot project. However, right now we are revising the map again and have 10 basins we will be submitting soon. Out of 140 flood map panels, it will change 100-120 panels. We are physically changing the map,over the next year and a half. Also, in 2013, FEMA is scheduled to start a total reevaluation of the Collier County coastline using bathometric information(underwater topography). They figure it will take about 4 years to go through the process. By 2017,they anticipate coming in again with new coastal impact information. When they do that,they will bring in a coastal "A"zone line. It will serve as information only initially. Basically, now you have the VE zone where wave is 3 feet or higher, then at less than 3 foot point you go into AE zone. With coastal "A" line, you will have VE at 3 foot or higher, and then go to A zone at 1 V2 to 3 feet. It can have huge impacts on areas about 3 blocks in because it can put VE building standards to that area. As stated,initially it will be information only. There will probably be impacts in the future. We will be doing map changes every 2-3 years out through 2017. Robert said that that is all that he really wants to go over on the revisions. We have to go over the goals and objectives in the action plan. We may want to look at even removing some of them if we're not going to address them in our action plan. Phil Brougham wanted to reiterate that the committee is going to need some staff guidance on some of these points—how many man hours it will take to achieve the goal and whether or not they are affordable man hours. There's no use having an action item that's not going to be staffed. Jerry Kurtz asked for questions, comments.None. Let's move to item#3. 3. Public Comments-None. Raquel Pines of Everglades City wanted to comment to give Robert hope. She said the Everglades City ordinance was approved by FEMA. They had to change only one word. Joe Gagnier motioned to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously at 10:23 a.m. Page 7 of 8 Next Meeting: Monday, August 6,2012 starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 610 of the GMD-P&R building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Naples, FL 34104. The meeting in September will be the second Monday, September 10th as the first Monday is a holiday. 40 Jerry Kurtz, Chairman Robert Wiley, ff 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