Floodplain Management Committee Minutes 10/01/2012 R Floodplain Management Planning Committee
Chairman-Jerry Kurtz Vice Chair-Craig Pajer
Kenneth Bills Phillip Brougham Joseph Gagnier Mike Sheffield
Dan Summers Christine Sutherland Clarence Tears Duke Vasey
Christa Carrera(Naples) Bob Mahar(Marco I.) Raquel Pines (Everglades City)
Meeting Minutes for 10-1-12 Regular Meeting
Start: 9:05 a.m. End: 10:45 a.m. Location: 2800 N Horseshoe Dr, Room 610
Meeting Attendance: Jerry Kurtz,Craig Pajer, Kenneth Bills, Phil Brougham,Joseph Gagnier, Rick
Zyvoloski (for Dan Summers), Christine Sutherland, Clarence Tears, Duke Vasey,Christa Carrera,
Robert Wiley
Absent: Mike Sheffield(Excused) Raquel Pines (Excused),and Bob Mahar
There were three (3) additional staff members in attendance and three (3)members of the public.
Meeting called to order by Jerry Kurtz, Chairman.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Approval of minutes for the 7-2-12 Regular Meeting-Jerry Kurtz asked if there were any needed
changes to the minutes. Nobody had any changes. A motion was made to approve the minutes
by Duke Vasey,and passed unanimously with two abstentions by Phil Brougham and Craig Pajer,
who were absent from the last meeting.
2. Committee membership discussion- Robert Wiley
Robert reported that as of the last meeting,we had Mr. Bills appointed to the committee,but Ms.
Hollander also resigned so that still leaves us with two vacant positions. The advertisement will
be going out this morning for the filling of the two vacant positions.
3. 2010 Florida Building Code Compliant Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance-Robert Wiley
Robert reports that the ordinance request for the county attorney's office to provide legal services
and address the issue of the 2010 Building Code Compliance is in their office right now and we
are waiting for the county attorney to assign somebody to this task. Jennifer White,who worked
on these matters for many years,has been reassigned to another area. We have not heard back
from them yet. Robert hopes that we hear from them this week. He has explained to them about
the states suggestions of not amending,but repeal and replace with the new model ordinance.
Essentially,work it through the process with the state so the state can determine that you're in
compliance. Then after that,they are willing to let you renumber/reorganize after they have
granted their approval.
Phil had a question: Is there a deadline on the plan? It shows October 2012 but it's doubtful that
will happen. Robert replied that technically,there is no deadline. What we told FEMA and the
1
state was that we would be bringing it forward to re-adopt the new 2010 Florida Building Code
Compliance Ordinance in the fall of 2012. That's where the October date came into play. Robert
sent all this information to the County Attorney's Office (CAO) over the summer,but when he
contacted them in September,they said they did not have the information and we needed to start
over from scratch with them.
Phil wants to know that if it's ready next June (for example),no harm no foul? Robert replied that it
is stretching it a bit. There is no actual deadline,and we have been found compliant by FEMA
with our actual ordinance,but FEMA knows that we are looking to become compliant within the
framework of the 2010 Building Code. However,there is concern with the state. They are
fearful that because of discrepancies between what is in our ordinance and what is in the 2010
Building Code,that we could be at the losing end of an argument by a developer that wants to do
something when he finds conflicting statements.
Phil thinks maybe we could get things processed a little faster if there was an actual due date from
the state.But he's okay with it as long as we're not suffering penalties because of it. Robert says
that we're not suffering yet,but the state is fearful we are subject to challenge and we could lose.
Phil wants to know if we have raised that issue with the attorney's office.Robert replied"yes,they
have received the emails".
Jerry wants to know if the CAO is going to advise us whether or not to go ahead with the replace
and repeal? Robert does not know how the CAO is going to respond-he thought that everything
was lined up with Jennifer White to keep going along the lines we were going,which was
revision,but apparently that is not the case. We just have to wait and see how they respond to
our request to start this up again.The state really does not seem to want revision-they want the
new format followed-and they say that it will move much faster if you do that. Otherwise, if
you do not follow the format,you go to the bottom of the stack and they will eventually get to
you,but it will be filed.
Jerry wonders if we as a committee should send a recommendation that we move forward with the
process of drafting a new replacement ordinance?Robert thinks it may be a good thing to do
since this is where it starts.
Duke made a motion to that effect. Jerry restated that a motion has been made to contact the CAO
stating that this committee is in favor of repealing the old Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
and replacing it with a new 2010 Florida Building Code Compliant Ordinance. Discussion? Do
we know enough about the process to make this recommendation?
Duke would like to go over a few things.He has several generic comments and then has three
questions-First of all-Collier County does have a floodplain and the floodplain has special
flood hazard areas. Next-the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA)have VE,AH,AB,A,and X
zones with flooding potential. Next-to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP),flood zones have to be classified and elevations have to be determined in NAVD and a
Floodplain Management Plan has to be created and a flood damage prevention ordinance has to
be created. The fifth point is that according to the 2012 Flood Insurance Study Report,wetland
slough areas are considered waterways in the wet season (this comes from the FIS). Collier does
2
not have any regulated flood ways. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance has special restrictions
on development and waterways-as a part of that, Collier would have to draw boundaries for
waterways to fit the ordinance. The ordinance does not directly address placing fill in the special
flood hazard areas of AH or AE areas. It appears that most AE areas would be classified as
Wetland Sloughs or Waterways and this would require additional work to delineate them. The
three questions he is trying to get the answers to are the following:
1. What is the total list of penalties if Collier County does not meet NFIP requirements for
inland and coastal?
2. What is the classification of the Collier County watershed?
3. Where is it written no impact?
Duke would prefer a written response to his questions.
Jerry wants to know what he means by question#2-what is the classification of the Collier County
watershed. Duke asked him to please tell him. Jerry didn't understand. Duke said that in the
Floodplain Prevention Ordinance,it basically says that we don't have a classified watershed,yet
the flood insurance program says we have to have one. What he finds problematic about the
whole process is that we have NFIP requirements,CRS coordinator requirements, FEMA
requirements. We're trying to create a document all of which have to meet the Code of Federal
Regulations 44 requirements. It's an awful lot of shuffling and he doesn't think we have a clear
definition.
Robert feels like Duke is confusing terms a bit. He said he agrees that the one thing we don't have in
Collier County is identified flood ways. That's entirely different than watershed. A flood way is
bounded around a stream which you can't encroach anymore without raising the BFE (base
flood elevation) a foot. We don't have streams and rivers in Collier County.We have canals,so
FEMA did not and will not be mapping flood ways for Collier County. So what that does,under
44 CFR 60.3 (C)(10),when you do not have flood ways identified and you are going to have
impacts in the AE flood zone,then you have to evaluate that development and all future
developments for the impact to see that you do not raise the BFE a foot or more. Staff has been
widely discussing this for a time and talking about doing an analysis using different scenarios
with build out,primarily with Golden Gate Estates,as it would be most applicable to this area,
since there are no water management systems there designed to contain storms as a new
development would have. This doesn't prohibit new building;you just have to evaluate it,and
that's what the county is in the process of doing. One of the primary features of floodplain
management planning is to show how you are addressing issues,such as what we are discussing.
As we go through this discussion,we have to grasp that we have a very,very large identified
floodplain now-about 95%of the county is zoned with either A or V. The plan must show how
you are going to develop within it. The NFIP does not prohibit you from developing in a
floodplain,but it does put limitations on how you can develop safely to prevent damage from
flooding.
Those are the issues that we need to really seriously address in our Floodplain Management Plan as
we go through and update and revise it.This committee is going to be providing a lot of input
into how we want the county to go. Part of the plan is being part of the CRS (Community Rating
3
System) program,which is a voluntary program to which we belong. A community is required to
have a Floodplain Management Plan if they are in the CRS,if they are at least a class 7
community and if they have 10 or more repetitive loss properties on their rolls. Collier County is
a class 6 community and has 32 rep loss properties. If we don't want to have a FMP,we could
voluntarily downgrade to a class 8 community or eliminate some of the rep loss properties.
There are,however,repercussions to downgrading. You lose percentage points discounts. As a
class 6,we get a 20% discount for insurance,if you go down to class 8 you are down to 10%. It's
not a step we really want to take so we must get serious about a FMP.
Jerry asked how the discount level works and Robert explained that everybody starts at class 10
with a zero percent discount,and each 500 points of credit points you earn moves you up a level
and gives you a 5%discount. We are a class 6 community,along with City of Naples,and Marco
Island,which is a 20%discount of flood insurance premiums if you are within a SFHA(Special
Flood Hazard Area (A or V zones)). It also gives you a 10%discount if you are within one of the
zone X's.So everybody who purchases flood insurance in these three areas qualifies for this
discount. Everglades City is not part of the CRS,so they do not receive discounts.There is a new
CRS manual coming effective early in 2013 which has a different points scoring system and we
hope to submit new mapping after incomes into effect and go down to a class 5 (per advice from
the ISO).This is all predicated on getting a new FMP. Jerry and Robert did explain that this will
create more work,as there are more things to do to meet the new classification.
Jerry asked if we would like to add to the motion that the committee recommends advancement of
the model ordinance only with no other restrictions?Discussion? Robert said that we really
cannot say go forward with the model ordinance-the criteria we have in our current ordinance
has some Collier County specific statements that we want to keep.So we need to work with the
state and our county attorney to get that kind of language in.
Duke wanted clarification: if a county doesn't have flood ways,then the county has to recognize no
impact. Is that true?Robert said that is not true. Robert said you have to identify what is your
impact and plan and building accordingly.
Duke wants to know where no impact comes from. Robert said it comes from the concept that we
have in our interim watershed management regulations. It identified the requirements for
compensatory storage.
Duke said that FEMA allows for local conditions. Would this be considered a local condition?
Robert said that FEMA looks to the local government to regulate your flood damage prevention
ordinance in accordance with the requirements of 44 CFR. One of the issues in 44 CFR says that
if you're going to impact the conditions of an AE flood zone,you have to show that existing
development and all new development that you are not raising that water/flood elevation a foot
or more. That would meet the minimum requirements of 44 CFR. Now the flipside of that is that
if in your analysis,you indicate that you're raising it,for example,6/10, (or something less than a
foot) -at that point you have to address modifying your review, issuing your building permits
and BFE. You can no longer have them build at BFE because you know that's a false number.
The issue is that you have to come up with the impact that construction will have and then build
4
accordingly. There followed some discussion about importer or exporter,compensatory storage
and water displacement in regards to raising the BFE and how to plan accordingly.
Duke wanted to know if it was correct that we do not have regulatory floodways and Robert agreed
that that is true.
Duke asked about compensatory storage requirements in the AE and AH zones re:the NFIP. Robert
said the NFIP itself does not require compensatory storage; however our community has the
requirement to identify the impact of development on our floodplain-the sloughs,the canals,
the deep cypress heads. We have to look at the impact of the AE zone when you start filling in
the overbank AH area. It will have impact and we have to identify it. Compensatory storage
comes out of our own ordinance.
Clarence wanted to know if some of our flow ways (i.e.Henderson Creek flow way) could be
classified as flood ways once they're developed. Robert said it could hurt you to be creative like
that. If you identify something as a flood way,you are establishing a boundary for that and at
that point you've identified it as your riverine flow. FEMA says we can't do that in Collier County
because we don't have rivers.
Phil wonders if this discussion is pertinent to the motion on the floor. Jerry agreed that it's not but
thought it was a good discussion for educational purposes and will be useful in the near future.
Jerry ended the discussion and restated the motion-recommending that we direct county staff
through the attorney's office to proceed with the process of addressing a new ordinance. Phil
would like it also stressed in the correspondence that we need to highlight the importance of
getting this thing moving forward. The CAO is in the way of all progress and we need approval to
start moving.
Christa also noted that the City of Naples has already adopted their new ordinance with the 2010 FL
Building Code amendments.
Jerry called for a vote-motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Revision and Review to Update the Floodplain Management Plan- Robert Wiley
What needs to be done is to go through and rewrite the FMP.Mike DeRuntz rewrote and submitted
the document in 2007/2008 and it failed to pass at that time because it lacked information on
our capital improvement program to address flooding problems. It was revised again and would
have been okay but it sat on a shelf for various reasons for about a year and a half. In the
meantime,the floodplain maps changed drastically and everything we said in there is bogus
because everything in there is based on old mapping,not the very different new maps.As we
revise our FMP,we have to go through and update this-our plan is a part of our Local Mitigation
Strategy(LMS),which is good for another 3 years (it was adopted in 2010 and is good for 5
years). However, our FMP within our LMS expires at the end of the calendar year.
5
Robert had wanted to get it to the BCC by their December meeting but with the workload being
what it is right now with FEMA issues,it doesn't look likely. Robert has started the process,but
one problem is the sheer size of the plan. The document itself is only about 120 pages,but there
are 700 pages of attachments. As Robert goes through the document,he's trying to take out
whatever is not mandatory.
Phil wonders if there's a possibility of Mike coming back or someone else with experience stepping
up and helping out. Mike DeRuntz is no longer in the area and Robert is not sure if additional
help will be available.
Phil wonders if we can ask and Robert said we will.Robert also pointed out that he is an engineer,
and we really need a planner for this.
Phil really thinks we need help on this issue. Is it possible there is a CFM (Certified Floodplain
Manager) can help with this? Robert said there are 6 CFMs-including himself,Jim von Rinteln,
Rick Zyvoloski. As Robert is going through the old document,he is asking/emailing other staff
members for advice/help. He thinks the basic plan we have is laid out pretty well,it's just a
matter of bringing it current. He says we really do need to have a planner on this and it will be
brought to the attention of his supervisor, Bill Lorenz,and Nick Casalanguida to see how they
wish to staff it and go forward.
Phil would like to make a motion that we draft,by the next meeting,a work plan associated with the
update and completion of our FMP.
Duke would like to modify it a bit and noted that it is the county manager who is responsible for
this. He thinks we need to emphasize to the county manager the importance of floodplain
management and that we don't think enough emphasis or attention is being focused on the
importance of floodplain management.
Phil accepts this and amends his motion to see a memorandum from the chairman to the county
manager pointing out the sense of urgency in establishing a solid manpower project plan to
updating and presenting all these different elements of FMP. Motion seconded by Duke. Some
discussion followed regarding how soon it can be drafted and who it represents. A vote was
taken and passed unanimously.
Robert will go briefly through what he is doing in making changes to the old document. Robert
passed out new drafts of FEMA flood zone maps with information on them-details on each flood
zone area. This is what he wants to focus on. The first shows the FEMA flood zone acreage and
shows the floodplain and gives you total acreage.95%of the county is in a flood zone,which is a
bit unique. A second map shows the amount of parcels in the VE zone with land values. This info
comes out of our GIS.
Christa wanted to clarify that this included City of Naples and Marco Island. Robert said it shouldn't
include them but at this point it does. He is going to get them redone.
6
Christa disagreed and said that City of Naples should be under the Collier County FMP. She said
that Marco Island is supposed to have their own FMP,but City of Naples is under Collier. Naples
has their own CRS points,their own recertification packet,their own audit-but they only have 9
repetitive losses,so they do not need to have their own FMP. They have always been based
under Collier County's FMP. The only thing they are required to do is an annual progress report,
which they do.
Rick pointed out that they don't really need their own because they've adopted the LMS (Local
Mitigation Strategy),and this is a sub-unit of the LMS. Rick wondered about Everglades City-
Raquel is not here today-and Robert was not sure.
Christa heard that they were applying to the CRS program and would be starting out as a class 10.
Raquel was working on it this summer. Robert thought they should then probably be included
too.
Back to the maps-the VE zone has pretty much remained the same in area. The AE zone from
coastal surge has been combined with inland area AE zone,which needs to be revised and
differentiated. AH zones-the structures on them may indeed be up on a mounded area and the
structure in a zone X,so numbers may not gel. A zone-very little development out there,
biggest bulk is Big Cypress Preserve-very few people and very few structures. The future land
use map is just a standard map that comes out of our Growth Management Plan. The next series
deals with conservation maps and preserves-we have picked up some preservation lands,but
the biggest difference is the percentage of land that we have in preserves and conservation
easements compared to the total floodplain.The percentage has dropped because they have
included so much more of the county in the floodplain.
Robert has been through about 40 pages so far of the 120. Robert also wanted to stress that when
we set a goal or policy in the FMP,we need to have an action plan item to address that to make
sure it gets done.
Phil is concerned that we never get feedback on recommendations the committee has made. If the
committee takes time to research and discuss a recommendation and it gets passed on,but then
changed or rejected,we never seem to get the feedback on this. He thinks the feedback loops
with/to all the committees needs to be improved.
Duke thinks there are some problems-one,there is no real connection with the land development
cycle.Perhaps the county has reached a point where they need liaisons between various
committees-DSAC, CCPC,etc-going back and forth trying to set these issues into place. He
thinks that a major problem is we don't have enough emphasis on the floodplain-our
watershed doesn't seem to mean much to people. He thinks it may be smart to start appointing
liaisons to the different committees and sharing information back and forth. Maybe even
appoint liaisons to the cities. We need to start highlighting what the lack of action is going to
start costing the county.
Jerry asked for public comments.
7
Mike Ramsey with the Golden Gates Estates Area Civic Association-he is also an ecological
consultant working in this area for 30 years. He would like to comment on the Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance (FDPO). He feels that the flood damage prevention ordinance is very weak
in the physical- on the ground-implementation of itself. He thinks it's lacking in clarity in the
areas of the classification of the areas on the ground and the classification of the floodplain in
FEMA, CRS and NFIP. He thinks more focus needs to be put on physical,on the ground
management because of compensation offset. Mike thinks the Floodplain Management Plan is
the most important document this committee needs to work on,because in this document,it
delineates the inventory of the floodplain and makes recommendations both physically and
administratively or insurance wise-where to go in those other documents-like the FDPO. The
problem he has is the way it's written currently. It's not a good plan to offer assistance in other
planning issues,such as the Immokalee Master Plan or the Golden Gate Master Plan. It doesn't
offer him much assistance in the future planning of these two plans. Mikes recommendation is
that the FMP needs more participation, especially from the Big Cypress Basin. He thinks physical
management,and how we may have to do compensation,is very important in the planning
strategies of these other areas. He thinks the FMP needs to be more detailed.
2. Scheduling of Special Meeting-Robert Wiley
Robert would like to meet within the next two weeks. Looking to see which day would be better-
October 12th or October 16th. Most members feel that Octoberl6th works better for them. Robert
will notify all members.
3. Public Comment--Jerry asked for public comments. There were no comments.
Joe Gagnier motioned to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously at 10:45 a.m.
Next Special Meeting: Tuesday,October 16th, 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.
Next Regular Meeting: Monday, November 5th,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.
ryq4,-4,5i
Jerry Kurtz, Chairman
Robert Wiley, St ' 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.
8