Loading...
FMPC Minutes 05/02/2025 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANGEMENT PLANNING COMMITTEE SECOND QUARTERLY COMMITTEE MEETING GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2800 N HORSESHOE DRIVE,NAPLES, FL MAY 2, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Floodplain Management Planning Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:01 am, in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Department,2800 N Horseshoe Drive,Naples,Florida,with the following members present: Chairman, Eric Johnson(Zoning/GMCD) William Lang (FMPC Staff Liaison) Paul Shea(Public) Stan Chrzanowski (Public) Kenneth Bills (Public) Robert Dorta(City of Naples) Ned Miller (Public) Dennis P. Vasey (Public) Linda Orlich (Public) Lisa Koehler (Public) Natalie Hardman(City of Naples) Kari Hodgson (Collier County Public Utilities) Excused: Amy Ernst(Public) Deborah Curry (Communication& Customer Relations) Matt McLean(Collier County Public Utilities) Also Present: Christopher Mason(Director, Collier County Community Planning &Resiliency Division) Peter Hayden (Collier County Stormwater) Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,-which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. NOM-Collier County nor this Board shall be responsible for providing the record. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m. by the Chairman, Eric Johnson, after establishing that a quorum of 8 had been met. JibeyAsthappan (Vice Chairman) arrived at 9:49 am. 1. Approval of Minutes from the first quarterly meeting held February 14,2025. Chairman Eric Johnson asked if there were any questions or changes to the minutes, and there were none. Duke Vasey made a motion to accept the minutes with no changes; seconded by Stan Chrzanowski, the motion carried unanimously. 1 2. 2025 FMPC Draft Schedule Update • 8/1/2025 rescheduled due to Code Enforcement Magistrate Hearing needing conference room 609/610. • Proposed August dates are 8/8/2025 or 8/29/2025 - William Lang proposed these two dates for our committee meeting because there are other advisory committee meetings on August 8 & August 29. Lisa Koehler sent an email suggesting August 8 due to hurricane season. Lang asked if anyone had any objections to setting the third quarterly meeting for Friday, August 8. Paul Shea excused (out of town). Eric Johnson has no objection to August 8 because August 29 is a three-day holiday. No further discussion. Eric Johnson asked for a motion to set the next meeting for Friday,August 8; motion requested by Stan Chrzanowski; seconded by Kenneth Bills; motion carried unanimously. 3. Membership • City of Marco Island Membership Vacancy Update Lang advises that we have our municipalities participate in addition to the citizens and our staff members. The City of Marco Island, unfortunately, lost Kelli Diederichs, Floodplain Coordinator for Marco Island, and that vacancy has not been filled. Raul Perez, Chief Building Official for the City of Marco Island, was going to make it to today's meeting. They have a candidate and are currently going through the initial offer process. If they don't have a Floodplain Coordinator identified by August, they are going to be in a bit of trouble: 1)they need that position filled;2)I will advocate for Raul Perez to be the primary for now, at least until we have some representation for the City of Marco Island. That is the only membership item on the agenda. 4. Repetitive Loss Area Analysis (RLAA)WSP Deliverable Update Lang provided an image for the committee, reiterating that the reason we are here is because we have a certain number of repetitive loss properties,which is a FEMA category, as it pertains to flood insurance claims that are paid out. We have a responsibility to formulate the Floodplain Management Plan, which falls under the 500 series in our community rating system and is a part of that plan. Before we can get to that part, we must address the Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Study. We hired a consultant (WSP), which is the same company that we used last year(under a different company name).WSP has been very helpful with various groups around the county, and they have been working with us since last year on our Repetitive Loss Area Analysis. We notified property owners that they were in these repetitive loss areas,not specifically a loss,but their home was in a repetitive loss structure, to garner what their experiences were in these historical flood events. We sent out a letter with a survey and received various responses. We had three different methods of responding: using a QR Code, sending an email with WSP, or submitting a letter. We received 10 physical letters in the mail, which were transmitted to WSP. WSP is at the report development stage, which involves processing data. On June 2, 2025, the notice will end, so we will proceed by talking to WSP probably next week, making sure that they are on point to finish the last task of the report development. If an unforeseen issue arises that is alarming, we could always call a special meeting. Following the Repetitive Loss Area Analysis, our next step will be to identify WSP or another company 2 to obtain permits in the county for the Floodplain Management Plan. Due to our extensive history with WSP,we hope to retain them as our vendor,but we must follow the appropriate government protocol. That is our next step. Keri Hodgson raised a question about the committee review of the WSP report before June 2nd because the committee would not meet again until August 8. Lang suggested that the report may be emailed to committee members for review and comments, with a vote at the August 8 meeting.Alternatively, the NTP date will end, but we can still review the report at the August 8 meeting. Lang will then check if the report can be amended after the NTP date to either complete the report or create an addendum. The third option is whether we need to extend the NTP date, and we would have to talk to WSP about this. The worst-case scenario is that we will have to extend the NTP date, which is why we want to make sure that we meet the deliverables,including that the committee can look at the public report. If the public report is too late, our objective would be to extend the NTP. We will make sure that the committee's comments, if any, are included. In response to Keri Hodgson's question about FEMA deadlines, there is no FEMA deadline assigned to the Repetitive Loss Area Analysis. Still, the Floodplain Management Plan is overdue, having been completed 10 years ago. It is supposed to be done every 5 years,but the flood maps are not updated. So far, FEMA has understood that we don't want to update our Floodplain Management Plan with outdated map data from 2012. We are currently in our three-year verification cycle, which is our big audit with FEMA, and they will be here in June. We have been submitting a series of our CRS, as required. We will write a narrative stating that FEMA is aware our Floodplain Management Plan is delayed due to the pending update of our flood mapping data. The deadline for our Floodplain Management Plan has passed, but FEMA is okay with that due to the issues they created. In response to Keri Hodgson's questions about a new due date,the deadline (if we don't have any problems or objections) will be at the next three-year cycle in 2028. We will get it to them much sooner than that, but our acceptable date is June 2028. What will most likely happen is that once we update our Floodplain Management Plan at the next annual event, where we don't have to submit every item, we will make sure that the Floodplain Management Plan is submitted at that time. Our end goal is to have a Floodplain Management Plan later in the year. We would start that after the RALA, and I could see this being completed at the audit time next year, which would be June of 2026. That is what we are shooting for — best-case scenario. Technically, we are under the three-year cycle, so long as they accept all these provisions that we had to create, we should be okay either way. That is the goal of this committee, the RLAA and Floodplain Management Plan (diving into goals, objectives, and strategies for mitigation). That is when it will be interesting when we start the State Board meetings, specifically with this committee, in response to Eric Johnson's question on whether the committee will need to act between now and August 8. It depends.Lang will discuss it with WSP, and the decision will depend on whether we call a special meeting to review the Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Study immediately, or if we can wait until our August meeting. Two things are happening: the vote of support requires a meeting since we don't have virtual options, and the resolution. My question to WSP is whether completing the report does not necessarily mean the committee must review it immediately. That is not a condition for the completion, but approval is needed from this committee. It was agreed that the committee would need adequate time to review.A discussion took place regarding 3 the time required by the committee for review, and it was noted that the Repetitive Loss Area Analysis was not included in the older plan. Repetitive loss increased significantly after Ian; Helene & Milton also contributed to repetitive loss of property. If you increase the number of properties, your methodology for study essentially involves a buffer zone structure that touches other parcels, thereby increasing the total number of properties overall.You can go from 12 to 100,depending on the methodology and how it has changed with FEMA requirements, etc. FEMA does not necessarily have new criteria, but the Community Rating System Coordinator Manual has not been updated since 2017. The point is, we have a deadline for the report, but what is the deadline for feedback from the public, and do we have to call a special meeting to have a committee review and approval? A special meeting would deviate from the calendar. Discussed sharing via email and either having a special meeting or sharing it and discussing at our August 8 meeting. There was some discussion about seeing the report before public review. We may not be able to provide before public review. Suggested that drafts were more challenging to change, and a draft would have to be archived with the Clerk's office. 5. FEMA/ISO 2025 Community Rating Systems (CRS) Verification Cycle Visit (Three- Year Verification Requirement) Update Lang reported that we are currently under our three-year audit. This is our big audit, and it happens every three years because we are a Class 5 community under CRS. Before being a Class 5 community, we had a five-year cycle. We like our annual cycles because they help fill the gap in our documentation gathering, so we are not scrabbling every three years (e.g., 4-5 thousand elevation certificates for review — done annually as a requirement). These three-year audits incorporate other items, so before April 21st, we had already submitted the 300 series, which is the public information portion of the CRS. My director, Chris Mason,was able to submit the 400 series on April 21 St, so we have already submitted two of the four that we need to submit. We are currently working on the 500 series for submission to the ISO. Then we will be working on the 600 series (which is response), and we will be working with Emergency Management on that. Director Mason streamlined the process, making it easier now, and I had the luxury of having him for direction in those historic actions. It has been imperative that we have Mason on staff, so I want to thank Mason for everything. Our end goal is to submit the 500 & 600 series by the June 1 deadline. Following this, we will conduct an in-person visit with ISO (Insurance Services Office) and the audit vendor for FEMA, led by Craig Carpenter, on June 5. When they come into town,they may want to visit work sites and view items under the CRS program, which are often located within the community,such as construction sites.They are touching base as a requirement. There shouldn't be anything significant there. We're just getting the 500 & 600 series finished next month, which will keep us swamped. No further questions. 6. Division of Emergency Management's (FDEM) "Elevate Florida" Program Update • https://floridadisaster.maps.arcgis.com/apes/dashboards/e1222bdbeae5495c90a6 845fa42a9010 Lang provides a slide of the Florida Disaster Map for viewing. Reminder that the map was reviewed at the last meeting, but the recap is that historically there were three grant plans under FEMA: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program,which was a post-disaster award program where communities would receive a certain amount of money based on a 30-day estimate 4 of damages.And we would take that money to the local mitigation strategy working groups under our LMS plan. We would usually utilize this money (in the millions) for public infrastructure projects. Residential mitigation projects were allowed to come through the LMS working group, but residents cannot apply directly to the state for these grant programs. They need a sponsor, which must be a state agency, a local government entity, or an Indian Tribal Territory. Historically, residential mitigation efforts have often failed because homeowners find these grants to be very laborious and time-intensive. No work can be done until you are rewarded. We had a homeowner who used HMGP during Hurricane Ian. She is still waiting for the award from FEMA, and with the shakeup of the current administration, she is still waiting due to the pause in all programs. The Local Mitigation Strategy Plan is updated every five years. Amy Howard is our planner in Emergency Management and is doing a fantastic job. We've got preliminary approval from the state for our local mitigation strategy plan. We're waiting for FEMA to approve that. In the meantime, all jurisdictions and entities participating in the regional mitigation strategy working group must adopt our element plan. The Greater Dayton Fire District is engaging with its commission or its advisory board. The city of Marco Island advised that they will be updating their plans at their city council meeting on May 5th. We're also encouraging all other current stakeholders in that group to adopt plans by resolution to their governing groups. • Collier County Local Mitigation Strategy Working Group (LMSWG) Helene/Milton Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) allocation to Elevate Florida Program for Collier County Applicants Elevate Florida Program, whereby the state stepped up through the Florida Division of Emergency Management Mitigation Bureau to sponsor a homeowner mitigation directly, and they have about $400 million between two grant programs that they are allocating statewide. You can see on the screen the total number of applications statewide. They've roughly estimated that structure elevations will cost $350,000 per structure. They are asking the community and the LMS working group specifically. They have $400 million between the two grant programs, and given the high volume of applications statewide, the funds will be depleted very quickly. The state asked that we contribute our hazardous mitigation grant money for Helene and Milton, which was allocated to each county, and wanted us to assign all or a percentage of the funds to the Elevate Florida Program. This is an unprecedented opportunity, as the state is doing this for residential property. We held a vote for the LMS working group, and we are allocating 100% of our HMGP funds to the Elevate Florida Program. We owe it to our residents under the following conditions: that the money will go strictly to Collier County residents, and any unused portion will come back to the LMS working group for any public infrastructure projects. The money will always be reallocated to Collier County through the Elevate Florida Program, directly or indirectly, returning the unused funds to Collier. Lang signed a letter to the State, basically an MOU of those conditions of agreement. Discussion and demonstration by Lang on how to navigate through the interactive map provided via link in the electronic version of the agenda. The map also shows the types of mitigation opportunities: structural elevation, mitigation reconstruction (demo and rebuild with cap of$220,000), wind mitigation (if home is already up to code with flood) and property acquisition (pretentious because the community has to agree to purchase the property and maintain it in perpetuity as a green space, and we lose the tax base). In response to Kari Hodgson, the county advised that it 5 would not be involved in managing the hazardous mitigation grant funds; the state will go directly to the homeowner. We had some outreach meetings at the end of March with FDEM hiring consultants to fulfill that obligation statewide, and the sessions were held in Everglades City, Marco Island, and one for Collier County, which Lang attended and answered most of the questions that the vendor did not address regarding the program. The hazardous mitigation grant program is funded with a 75% federal share and a 25% local share;however,this is somewhat misleading,as it suggests the homeowner only needs 25% of the total project cost. The reality is that it is broken down into different phases (e.g., assessment, construction, relocation, etc.), and you must have 25% in each phase. If you pull out at any time during those phases, you must pay back all of the money that was contributed. The board does not have to approve. We made a recommendation to the LMS working group [Lang, Dan Summers, Chris Mason, and others], and we briefed the county manager on the interest in using those monies for public infrastructure projects. LMS had $6.9 billion between those two grant programs, and the three LMS projects that we were interested in had a $38 million deficiency in the budget. The LMS working group agreed to allocate 100% for Elevated Florida with the understanding with FDM that we would receive any unused portions back. We had a meeting on April 18th,I believe,which was our second quarterly meeting for the LMS, and we didn't meet before. Lang may need to call a special meeting since the grant program and NOVA funding availability are set to expire on July 21, and our next meeting is scheduled for July 18. We need to get those projects pushed through. In response to questions about resident awareness, effects on reporting, and FEMA,Lang advised that the residents were notified in the repetitive loss area analysis mailer. Within that mailer, we included an LLA Explorer flyer with all the information. Lang has been receiving several calls and was able to answer many of the questions when the vendor came representing the state. Lang was reaching out to the state to gather information, as there were numerous questions. Based on projections, the estimated cost is $350,000 just for elevating an existing home with the potential of only having the availability of the LMS HMGP $100 million that was allocated, because it's going up to other communities potentially that had harder impacts than we did from the Helene and Milton specific money. So, just doing math with the$6.2 to $6.9 million that we got for HMGP,we estimated that we were going to be able to potentially mitigate(not considering residents electing for a cheaper mitigation plan or leftover money not utilized by other counties that could be reallocated to this community). The priority is repetitive loss properties. At minimum, we get a few off the list; don't see a significant number like in the hundreds. Many homeowners end up demolishing their homes because they lack alternative options.We are currently in the high 200s, close to 300s. Our biggest concern, which we convey to many homeowners, is that we want to ensure they don't misunderstand the program. The consultant did a great job of helping them understand the cost allocation and percentage breakdown. Weary about the follow-through, because the Rebuild Florida app program after Hurricane Irma was not hugely successful. We are all concerned about execution at the state level, but if the state can't accomplish this with all their resources, etc., how do communities accomplish residential mitigation? In the future, we hope homeowners will have a direct avenue to work through the LMS, at a minimum, for project approval, and then directly to the state for residential mitigation. As concerns programmatic changes at FEMA, we have already 6 lost the BRIC grant (Building Resilient Infrastructure in Communities), which the current administration eliminated. We understand that Virginia, impacted by Helene, was denied their HMGP. We are concerned about the increasing strictness within the existing program, which is a result of an advisory council created to review FEMA. Although we agree in the emergency management world that FEMA needed to be re-evaluated, there is a difference between restructuring versus dismantling, and that is the argument across the board in the emergency management community nationwide. Kevin Guthrie, the State Emergency Manager, has been selected as a part of that advisory committee for FEMA. With the amount of HMGP that the state uses,we are hoping that he can advocate for those programs. And if it's not those programs, it's an equal to or better program. The worst scenario is that it's dismantled and sent to the state, but the other method has been pushed. We are concerned about that,but maybe that might work as well. We might be able to get money faster. There's been a recommendation to allocate 75 percent of those monies immediately to the state, allowing them to manage expectations and then apply for the additional 25 percent. So, there are a lot of different discussions out there right now. Everything's in flux. We are hoping for a reorganization at the very least. It will probably not affect the RALA project, because by the time they're executed, our RALA will be done on the next cycle for the Repetitive Loss Area Analysis and the next Floodplain Management Plan (assuming we don't have further disasters). [General discussion about FEMA restructuring versus dismantling with states handling.] 7. 2025 Collier County Local Mitigation Strategy Plan Adoption (Resolution 25-74, dated 4/8/2025) Lang identified the link to navigate to the new LMS plan and pointed out that Collier County has adopted our LMS plan by resolution 25-74 and thanked Amy Howard, Collier County Emergency Management Division, for her arduous efforts. She simultaneously completed our Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. The LMS is a FEMA, state, and local plan, so this must be approved by FEMA, which is being held up due to the programmatic changes. Our CEMP, or Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, is a state-to-local interaction, which has been approved. We're hoping FEMA can secure the necessary approvals for these items, allowing us to move forward with the current mitigation programs as they stand—no further questions. 8. Other Items/Committee Correspondence • Future Outreach o 5/22/2025 — CBIA/Acri sure Flood Outreach — Christopher Mason & William Lang (City of Naples and City of Marco Island participating as well) We've conducted a lot of outreach this year; actually, more than we usually do in a short period, especially considering how busy we've been after Helene & Milton. We do have some upcoming events with the Collier Building Industry Association. Acrisure, formerly Gulf Shore Insurance, is excellent about working with us on flood outreach(the company issues flood insurance policies and national flood insurance program policies). They are working with TVIA and asking that each jurisdiction within Collier County (specifically Marco Island, City of Naples) present some of the regulatory items to the Florida Building Code as it pertains to 7 floodplain regulation. Lang, Mr. Dorsett, Steve Beckman, and the building official for the City of Naples will be in attendance.Raul Perez will represent Marco Island, along with Lang and Director Mason, who will present items on floodplain regulations. We have already addressed some preemptive questions. o 5/28/2025—Acrisure 2025 Annual Flood Symposium—Christopher Mason &William Lang Every year, we host a flood symposium with Acrisure, focusing on insurance- related topics. We cover all aspects of the NFIP, including Mapping, Regulation, and Insurance. So, we have a large portion of that presentation that we cover under the Annual Flood Insurance Symposium. Acrisure is undoubtedly doing a lot of outreach, which will check the box for our next three-year annual cycle if needed. However, we may also submit these items for this three-year cycle. So, we will get credit under Activity 330. In response to questions on the location of meetings, CBIS will be at Mercato, and the Acri sure Symposium will be held at a church right across from the Acri sure offices. CBIS has requested to send out location information via email to all committee members. Adjournment There being no further business for the good of the County,the Floodplain Management Planning Committee Hearing was adjourned at 10:03 am. Motion to Adjourn was made by Duke Vasey and seconded by Linda Orlich.No discussion or objections. Motion to adjourn passed unanimously. Floodplain Manag lent Planning Committee I . man,Eric Johnson The Minutes were approved a Eric Johnson, Chairman, FMPC Chairman, NAME 0.;(,t SIGN on, As presented on Or amended on 08/08/2025 8