Floodplain Management Committee Minutes 10/16/2012 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 L) Raquel Pines (Everglades City)
Meeting Minutes for 10-1642 Regular Meeting
Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 11:00 a.m. Location: 2800 N Horseshoe Dr, Room 610
Meeting Attendance: Duke Vasey,Jerry Kurtz, Robert Wiley, Kenneth Bills,Joseph Gagnier,Christa
Carrera, Craig Pajer, Rick Zyvoloski (alternate for Dan Summers), Raquel Pines, Phil Brougham,
Mike Sheffield
Absent: Christine Sutherland(Excused),Bob Mahar,Clarence Tears(Excused)
There were three (3) additional staff members and two (2) members of the public in attendance.
Meeting called to order by Jerry Kurtz, Chairman.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Approval of minutes for the 104-12 Regular Meeting-Jerry Kurtz asked if there were any
needed changes to the minutes. Duke said he had some scrivener comments but nothing
significant. He made a motion to accept the minutes,motion was seconded and vote was
unanimous.Duke gave a copy of his comments to the note taker.
2. 2010 Florida Building Code Compliant Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance-Robert Wiley
Robert commented that we are still waiting to hear from the county attorney on the assignment
of an assistant county attorney. There is still no word from them.They have been contacted and
know the situation. Robert said he has contacted them every week and still has no response
back. Phil wanted to know if we had copied these contacts to his boss-the chairman of the BCC.
Robert has not done that yet. Phil thinks there has to be a way to break this logjam and get some
sort of response-the CAO has had this information for at least two months. Bill Lorenz said that
he will contact Jeff Klatzkow and try to get a timeline from the attorney's office.
3. Revisions and Review to Update the Floodplain Management Plan-Robert Wiley
Duke said that he sent some written comments to Robert on page 45 that he would like to have
written in rather than speak the comments. Phil also commented that he had emailed some
questions to Robert to deal with during the meeting. Robert said that he hopes to deal with all
these comments during the meeting,as well as go through and show the changes he has made.
He sent the document via email to all members. It's a work in progress-taking stuff that is old
and updating. He has updated all the mapping and included the cities in it. Robert feels that an
important thing he would like to get done as part of the action plan is to get a"Floodplain Impact
Analysis for Vulnerability". Robert has talked to our GIS people and they suggest that we contract
1
it out, as it would be more than they could handle in house in a short time frame. Basically it
comes up with cost estimates for the different levels of flooding.Robert would like the
committee to consider getting this done sometime within the next year.Phil wants to know what
the benefit would be to Collier County in spending money to do this. Robert replied that
basically,the benefit is identifying the risk out there,which is part of what you are supposed to
be doing in your Floodplain Management Plan. Since we have the new floodplain,the risk
analysis would be able to identify houses that are vulnerable. We would also be able to identify,
out of the thousands in a floodplain,the houses that are from the ground elevation, (from the
LIDAR that we have) -we can show that technically they are higher than they appear. They are
not as at great a risk,so it begins to reduce our vulnerability. As an example,let's say we have
30,000 homes in the AH flood zone-this may show that of all these homes, only 2,000 may have
a floor elevation or ground elevation lower than the flood elevation.We've reduced our
vulnerability drastically from what we would have been assuming if we didn't do this kind of
analysis. That's the benefit of it-you've identified where the risk really is and then you can go
about addressing the impact of the floodplain and how it affects the vulnerability that you've
identified.
Phil still would like to know what the county would do with all the information acquired. Robert
said this is the point where we have to decide what to do with our floodplain. Once you've
identified what properties are really vulnerable,then you come up with your mitigation
strategies. You know what areas to concentrate on first-you take your mitigation strategies
and identify which houses you need to be addressing so you don't create a worsening situation.If
they're already below BFE, do we want to develop a program to encourage them to join
programs of the type Rick Zyvoloski offers-to get on listings showing how to apply for grants to
elevate houses, or to provide flood protection specifically for sites. We have a working tool to go
forward with. Phil understands how it affects new construction,where you can establish certain
legislation to control or restrict new homes-but if homes are already built and there's nothing
that can be done,he's wondering about the cost-benefit of this analysis. If we're going to spend
out of pocket dollars,he'd rather see Robert getting additional help.
Duke commented that what we are charged with doing in the county is to insure we satisfy the
NFIP. While we talk about FEMA,what we (or Robert) are attempting to do is manage the
floodplain. In managing the floodplain,there are some things he has to be able to provide to
show FEMA that we are in compliance,in case of any kind of challenge or appeal.
Phil paraphrased by saying that this data could provide us with adequate or better ammunition for
the future,to contend certain verdicts by FEMA on flood maps or whatever.
Duke thinks this would show FEMA we're making our best effort to manage the floodplain to make
sure there's not more of an insurance exposure.
Christa commented that under the new CRS manuals,there's going to be more focus on public
outreach to the vulnerable areas that we have to deal with. The main part of the new CRS
manual is getting areas identified,letting people know what's out there,and the options out
there available. Christa said they used to do an annual community newsletter,which is now
going to go by the wayside. Now they will be focusing on specific areas,specific sections of the
2
community,to let them know what their risks are and informing them about the importance of
flood insurance.The analysis will help us focus on specific target areas. It may also help target
certain areas that would benefit from the CIP budget and stormwater provisions,new drainage
etc. There is long term feasibility in doing something like this.
Phil wondered if we would gain CRS points by doing something like this. Robert said that the more
you do with mitigation,the more you are implementing the purpose of the CRS. Basically, it's
something we are supposed to do. Once you identify your floodplain,you are supposed to
identify your vulnerabilities. Robert wants Ricks to address this as a part of the Local Mitigation
Strategy(LMS).
Rick said that the standard hazard analysis we are currently doing is essential to demonstrating the
need-it's justification for any projects going in.
Duke summarized-the Floodplain Risk Analysis points out stormwater drainage problems,it
orients the watershed management program,and it identifies the greatest problems,the highest
risks and floodplain compensation.He thinks this would be a prudent course of action and he
supports it.
Kenneth Bills also said he supports it. He said he read through the plan (as a newcomer) and feels
like he has a good understanding of it. He thinks that some of the goals and objectives were not
very specific or concrete,but that the proposal addresses that concern. This will be a summary
of the risks and if we follow through and address those risks,he thinks it will be a good thing for
the community as a whole.
Phil wants to clarify-is this a new item that should go in the action plan to document the
vulnerability of certain areas? Robert agrees-he says that there are some open areas of the
FMP that does not provide the data that we should have in there,so this basically is to
strengthen the Floodplain Management Plan. This would be supportive of our current goals,
objectives and policies and then it would be an action item to fulfill it.
Bill Lorenz wanted to clarify that our task is to update the FMP by the end of the year with data
analysis. Our number one priority is to get it to the County Commissioners by the December 11th
meeting. Then this item we've just discussed can be part of the action plan.
Rick wanted to point out that the Hazard Analysis in the Local Mitigation Strategy(LMS) is that you
apply the hazard and determine the impact-the dollar value and such.We do it for all the
various hazards.
Robert said that the Vulnerability Analysis he is talking about fulfills a requirement in the LMS for
the new DFIRM,because the floodplain expanded so greatly. He wants to emphasize that one of
the items we need to do is come up with a new action plan.
Robert asked Jerry to talk about the draft memo to the County Manager. Jerry distributed a copy of
a draft memo to Leo Ochs to the committee members. Basically it addresses prioritizing and
getting the update to the floodplain management plan done. The first paragraph says that we
want to direct staff to provide sufficient resources to get the plan done by the meeting date of
December 11th. Second paragraph are bullet points on how we would complete that effort. A lot
of things have gotten done between the last meeting and now and Robert will go over them
3
shortly. The scope of the revision is to keep it simple it's a big task and we want to make sure
we get it done-so it will basically be update to the data. Another point states that Robert has
been working with other staff and that it is a priority for Robert to get this done. The fourth
point is that an Executive Summary has been placed on the Board's October 23rd meeting
outlining the scope of the revision and stating that it will be placed on the December 11th Board
meeting. It further states the future opportunities we have to finish up the revision and the
target goal of an end date. So with the Committee's approval,we would like to send this on.
Robert said that has submitted a couple of revisions received from Duke,they will make the
changes.
Duke moved that we accept the memo as amended and it was seconded.
Phil said his real concern behind the motion at the last meeting was whether there would be
adequate staff available to help Robert complete the work that needs to be done. It appears from
this memo that there is. Bill agreed that there is and has staff available to help Robert complete
these tasks.
Phil thinks we should emphasize in the Executive Summary,the importance of this plan. Bill will
make sure the Committee gets a copy of the Summary that goes to the Board.
Ken wanted to know if the Board has to approve this or is it informational only. Bill said the Board
has to actually approve the Floodplain Management Plan.
Mike Sheffield pointed out a couple of minor edits in the first line of the memo. Jerry asked for a
vote on the motion and it passed unanimously.
Jerry then asked Robert to start reviewing the revisions. Robert brought the plan up on the
overhead. He took out all section number or annex references.He is keeping it in the same type
of order(follows CRS guidance documents steps 1-10). He said the exhibits are grossly out of
date so he will be revising all of those. Some exhibits he will take out entirely. There is a page of
acronyms that he will update. On the introduction page, Robert has added more information-
showing additional documents we have that work together,to link them and show that we are a
subset of our LMS. He'd like Rick to read through his statements and let him know what is right
and wrong. He also has David Weeks involved now-Dave is an AICP planner.He's been going
through and updating sections that Robert has been sending him. Robert mentioned that a lot of
the stuff from the 2007 plan has been left in-this is because this is an update. With an update,
you simply append information that has taken place as part of the update for 2012.
Phil questioned about this lack of information in the plan from 2008 to 2012.Was this on purpose?
Robert said yes-the original plan was written and adopted in 2007-08,and now will show what
we are doing to update it in 2012. We don't talk about progress in between-we just show what
we're doing for the next five years. This is how the example/sample plans online show how to
do it.
Phil said he sees that there are many changes in the format of the report,but wants to know if there
are any changes in the goals,objectives and policies. Robert said the direction he was given was
to not make any changes to goals,objectives and policies, only to update the data. It's the action
plan itself that will be adjusted (near the end of the document).
4
We're also going to bring the FMP to the LMS workgroup. There will also be on advertised public
meeting one evening in November sometime. We need to decide as a committee when we want
to hold that meeting,where to have it,etc.This is so the general public can come and look at the
plan,and we can get some input from their perspective. We want to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment right before we go to the Board of County Commissioners,so we can
pass these comments on to the Board.
Ken noted that the public won't have the plan to review,so what would the agenda of the public
meeting be? Robert said that the document will be on the website for the public to read,and the
advertisement will let the public know that.
Joe Gagnier wanted to know where we got the most response in previous public meetings. Robert
said that we had one in Golden Gate Estates that was well attended,as well as one on 111th Ave.
However,the input we got from these meetings was mostly drainage complaints,which is not
what we wanted.
Rick wonders if we could put both versions of the plan on the website-one with the edits removed
and one with them? Robert has no problem with that-he can put both on the website.
Phil asked if Robert had made the corrections he had submitted yet. Robert said"Not yet"-he is
trying to get through as much as possible without going back and addressing them. Phil said he
could hold his comments but Robert wants them now so he can start working on them and
discuss them. He also mentioned the notes that Duke had given him.
Duke said he feels like what he submitted is a complicated issue and that the entire plan needs to
take on a whole new element to actually meet the NFIP. His primary comments focus on the
problem of maintaining a one foot standard throughout the county-and that we don't have
floodways (regulated floodway). He said there's a difference between what the NFIP requires,
which is that once a DFIRM is issued,you must identify the floodways-and what we have. He
said it's the county's responsibility to ensure that nothing we do within the county affects the
insurable interests of the NFIP. Duke feels like we're not in compliance with the NFIP. Robert
disagrees,so there needs to be more research and discussion on this point. Duke is concerned
with what the penalties may be if we are not in compliance in regards to the floodplain.
Christa responded that she wasn't sure where Duke was getting his information-but that if a
community doesn't have a designated floodway,they do not have to have a designated floodway.
Duke replied that that is the argument because the NFIP program says that once the DFIRM is
accepted,you must create a floodway.
Phil asked if we could get a verdict from FEMA? Duke said that they're working on it. His concern is
that if we don't do this right, during an emergency,we don't get grant money.
Bill wants to address this-he said that they brought this issue to Nick Casalanguida a couple of
months ago to discuss exactly what FEMA is going to require of us. We've also had some
discussions with some consultants to look at a scope of services, looking at technical analysis
that would be a shot to determine some of this information technically. Right now we are ready
to find out from FEMA who we can discuss this with at FEMA. We've also written a letter for
Chairman Coyle's signature that went to our delegation,so they will be able to discuss with
5
FEMA and when staff begins to discuss this with FEMA we can get very specific guidance,how
FEMA would implement these provisions,and that the analysis that we would be proposing will
be accepted by FEMA. Right now he just wants to remind all that we're simply working on data
revisions and need to get through it. But the topic Duke has brought up needs to be and will be
addressed.
Robert proceeded with reviewing the changes he has made to date.
Phil wanted to know why on pages 47-49,we've included all these 2009 projects. Why don't we
have more current data included in the plan? Robert said please notice the red line running
through some of these pages. This means it will be taken out and become an appendix
document. The red line is very fine and hard to see.This will be convenient because every year
when we need to create our annual progress report,we will be able to update the appendices-it
should make it a more workable document. Robert left the general assessments pretty much as
they were-he just went through and updated them. On page 34 they were talking about the
LASIP project-it's now more than half finished,so he's trying to emphasize that. All the maps in
this area have red lines through them-Robert had our GIS people create a single map that has
all the needed information on it to consolidate-it brings us down to a one page exhibit instead
of a five page exhibit. He's trying to keep mapping exhibits all in one location to make for easier
reference and follow through.
Rick said that if you convert the maps to pdf,you can have the ability to turn on and off layers as
you want to see different aspects. That way you can look at only one aspect if that's what you're
looking for.
Robert is not sure exactly how far he is at the moment-he will get to a point and will have to jump
forward to change a reference-so everything is still fair game for editing. He would appreciate
any input from fresh eyes. Robert is also trying to give the Action Plan a more definitive
direction to go toward,so we have items to accomplish year by year and can update it every
year.
Phil asked Jerry if the projects he put in AUIR this year flowed to a certain extent out of the
Watershed Management Plan. Jerry said some of them. Phil thinks the linkage Robert is
advocating is good,but doesn't think it's advisable that we have two different feeds of projects to
the BCC to be funded in one mechanism or another.Phil asked Bill-do we want to double feed
projects? He thinks there should be a direct linkage without redundancy between action plans
either in FPM (which incorporates WMP) or somewhere else,but we don't need two feeds here.
Bill said when we did go to the Board and the Board accepted the WMP,there were a series of
recommendations-called initiatives-staff said we were going to implement plans with existing
resources that we would then reprioritize from different departments-plus there may be
certain types of items that we would need a budget for, or some additional dollars that could be
spent under current authorizations. So that was the general background that we provided to the
Board-we also indicated there would be additional items that we would take a look at and we
would come to the Board for budget funding and recommendation so they could proceed over
time. There are two types of projects-structural (e.g.improvements to a canal) and non-
structural (e.g. additional studies or regulations) that staff could research and bring back to the
6
Board. Bill said we have several initiatives we are working on now that Jerry has briefed us on
and are underway now. He thinks these could now be added to the Action Plan that Robert has
been talking about because they are currently funded. Staff in the Engineering Dept. is already
looking at the WMP initiative for developing a Low Impact Design (LID) manual and eventually
the LDC amendments for that. Jerry is also working with a consultant to begin addressing the
North Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration initiative in the WMP. Bill is also looking at the
Pollution Control Department which recently came under him,looking at current activities that
may have outweighed their usefulness. He may be making recommendations that we shift those
activities to new ones we have identified. His point is that there are certainly activities within
the WMP that assist in Floodplain Management and planning-and to the degree that those
initiatives can be pulled into the Action Plan that we currently have resources allocated towards,
it would be a good idea.
Phil commented that one common committee concern of the past is bringing initiatives that we
speak of down to the ground and actually see it being worked on or seeing it result in a specific
request made thru the established channels (e.g.budgeting,AUIR, etc.),We tend to look for hard
linkages in order to assure ourselves that committee discussions and approval of initiatives
result in projects which result in budget requests which can then be tracked and then you can
mark a completion on it. He thinks the closer we can integrate between the WMP and the FMP
and show the linkage down into the separate county projects,then we can complete the feedback
loop. This is what he'd like to see happen. If we can incorporate some of these initiatives from
the WMP into the FMP Action Plan,it would be good.
Duke said in the past the committee has talked about lists of tasks that result in earning CRS points-
he thinks we should take every funded action on our task list(with a CRS point value) and try to
complete them to get CRS points for it. This will help us get to our 25%insurance premium
reduction. Phil agrees and thinks it should be one of our principal efforts.
Robert said that is something you can focus on-however,the CRS program does advise
communities to not do something for the points-do something to reduce the risk for flood
damage in your community. If you do something only for the points,the motivation to complete
the task may not be there.
Moving on with the review-Robert showed one of Jerry's documents-an appendix that shows
what we've done. Robert has set up four appendices so far-Jerry's stormwater business plan,
one from Big Cypress Basin,Appendix three is going to be the repetitive loss analysis and
Appendix four will be the Action Plan. He will have the Action Plan for the next meeting but will
email it before the meeting.
Duke wonders about a certain map in the plan since we don't have much control over the RLSA-
why do we include it in our floodplain? Who speaks for the RLSA? A discussion then followed to
differentiate between the Preliminary Projects Map for the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study
(SWFFS),which was included in the ordinance for the Interim Watershed Management
regulations, and the RLSA. Bill said the SWFFS map was put in for a very specific purpose.
Robert said we adopted it for the interim Watershed Management regulations from the
requirements of our Growth Management Plan. These were identified as areas of flowage,and
7
we wanted to make sure that if these areas were developed,it would protect the continuity of
flowage through these areas.It does not represent the RLSA-it's just a map we had available at
the time.
Duke thinks it's problematic that we're responsible for managing the floodplain of the entire
county,yet we don't control 2/3 of it or have the information we need about the RLSAs. We
don't get much input or hear much from the people who control a lot of the physical land space
of Collier County.
Ken thinks it's just a physical description of the county and the FPM attempts to describe the whole
county as being in the floodplain. He is more concerned with areas we can control-he passed a
100'x 100'lot the other night that was cleared and elevated 36"and they're building a multi-
million dollar home on it above everyone else. His worry is what will happen during the next big
hurricane and a flood of water comes and we end up subsidizing the rebuilding of that property.
As far as the sloughs and rural areas,he doesn't think there will be much change or buildup of
multi-million dollar properties out there-so not as much to worry about.
Duke is just concerned about the fact that we don't get a lot of correlated information. Land owners
have their own ideas and they fight for what they feel is the highest and best use of their
properties. For example-when the Department of Interior decides it's going to cut out its
canals,or when they decide they're going to open something up. The problem is- our floodplain
manager is responsible for running the entire county,yet he doesn't have all the information he
needs. We've looked at a small part of the issue regarding insurance and permits. The desire is
to permit activity which will not cause higher flood exposure.
Robert is moving on and showing some changes within the land use patterns-this is one area that
Dave Weeks has gotten involved-he replaced old text with new- cutting and pasting. This is the
planning side of it-Robert just sent him the old text and he's working on new. Natural and
beneficial functions (P. 58)is an area where we're trying to emphasize through the WMP-not
just structural but non-structural.
The committee members have these changes in the electronic document that Robert sent out. He
asks that you please email him all your comments so he can address them. He wanted to cover
identifying the hazards. He wants to work with Rick with this. Biggest concern is the flooding
evaluation in the LMS,is not addressing the same floodplain. Rick suggests Robert just send his
things to Rick,so Rick can verify against his plan. They need to identify"critical facilities"-such
as schools,police and fire stations,hospitals,essential government facilities,etc.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Public Comments
Mike Ramsey from the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association wants to speak. He has read all the
changes in the FMP and thought it was very good. He said there's a lot going on in this thing. He
said from the Golden Gate Estates standpoint,he is concerned about the issue of the restriction
they are facing on the possible restriction of placing fill in the AH and AE areas. His impression
is that the committee is very focused on insurance issues. It seems like everything in there is
focused on this issue and secondarily on emergency management response. He thinks there
8
needs to be more intense focus put on the ecological function of the floodplain. Tobim,the
primary goal of this group is to prevent re -not insurance He thinks
insurance is a byproduct of this because of all the federal regulations. He thinks this group is
lacking in ecological understanding of the function of the floodplain in Collier County. The
discussion he hears in the meetings is not based on the function of the landform but on the
federal regulations to complete and be a part of the NFIP process. As he attends these meetings,
he is going to keep reminding you that because of the lacking in the ecological understanding of
the floodplain that the inadvertent repercussion of having SFHA declared is causing real issues
with this fill issue. If he was going to spend money on something,he would reorient his focus to
that issue instead of a risk analysis.
As people were waiting to use the conference room,Joe Gagnier motioned to adjourn the meeting.
It was seconded and motion passed unanimously at 11:00 a,m.
Next Meeting: Monday, November 5m'2O12 starting at9:U0a.mo.io Room 6IOof the GM0-P&R
building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104.
]3
` ^*�
�^°/ ^~7' /��u°*�
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.
9