Loading...
FPMC Minutes 05/02/2025 (Draft) 1 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 4) Excused: Amy Ernst (Public) Deborah Curry (Communication & Customer Relations) Matt McLean (Collier County Public Utilities 4) 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, you 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. Neither 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. 1. Approval of Minutes from first quarterly meeting held February 14, 2025. 2 Chairman, Eric Johnson, asked if there were any questions or changes to the minutes and there were none. Motion was made by Duke Vasey to accept the minutes with no changes; seconded by Stan Chrzanowski, motion carried unanimously. 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 15 & August 22. 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 Roberts has no objection to August 8 because August 29 is a three-day holiday. No further discussion. Eric Roberts 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 that 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 City of Marco Island, and was going to make it to today’s meeting. They have a candidate and they are going through the initial offer process. If they don’t have a Floodplain Coordinator identified by August, they are going to be in a little trouble: 1) they need that position filled; and 2) I will advocate for Raul Perez to be the primary for now, at least until we will have some sort of 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 – reiterates that the reason we are here is because we have a certain number of repetitive loss properties which is a FEMA c ategory, as it pertains to flood insurance claims that are paid out. We have a responsibility to formulate what is known as the Floodplain Management Plan, which falls under the 500 series in our community rating system and a part of that Floodplain Management 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 were in these repetitive loss areas, not specifically a loss, but their home was in a repetitive loss structure to garner what were their experiences in these historical flood events. We sent out a letter with a survey, receiving various surveys back. We had three different methods of responding: QR Code, email WSP, or send in the letter. We received 10 physical letters in the mail which were transmitted to WSP. WSP is at the report development stage: processing data and report development. On June 2, 2025, the notice to proceed will end, so we will be talking to WSP 3 probably next week making sure that they are on point to finish the last task of the report development. If there is some unforeseen thing that is alarming, we could always call a special meeting. The primary thing that we will be doing after the Repetitive Loss Area Analysis will be identifying WSP or another company for permits in the county for the Floodplain Management Plan. Because of the amount of history that we have with WSP, we are hoping to retain them as the vendor, but we have to go through the appropriate government protocol. That is our next step. Keri Hodgson raised a question about committee review of the WSP report before June 2nd in light of the fact that 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 and Lang will check to see if the report can be amended after the NTP date for a completion of the report or 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 so that is why we want to make sure that we meet the deliverables, including that the committee has the ability to 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, but the Floodplain Management Plan is overdue and it was completed 10 years ago. It is supposed to be done every 5 years, but the flood maps are not updated. So far, FEMA has been understanding that we don’t want to update our Floodplain Management Plan with old 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 series in our CRS, which we are required to submit. We will write a narrative which will state that FEMA is aware that our Floodplain Management Plan is delayed because we have been waiting on an update to our flood mapping data. The deadline on our Floodplain Management Plan is past due, 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 (as long as we don’t have any issues or objections) will be at the next three-year cycle in 2028. We will get it into them a lot sooner than that, but our acceptable date is June of 2028. What will most likely happen is that once we update our Floodplain Management Plan at the next annual cycle, 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 later in the year, a Floodplain Management Plan. 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 of these provisions that we had to create, we should be okay either way. That is the goal of this committee, the RALA and Floodplain Management Plan (diving into goals, objectives, strategies for mitigation). That is when it will really get 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 with WSP and it will depend on whether we call a special meeting to immediately review the Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Study OR if we can wait until our August meeting. There 4 are two things going on: the vote of support, which means a meeting would have to occur because we don’t have any virtual options and the resolution. My question to WSP is that you completed the report and that does not necessarily mean that the committee has to review it immediately. That is not a condition for the completion, but approval is needed by this committee. It was agreed that the committee would need adequate time to review. There was a discussion on how much time was needed by the committee to review and that the Repetitive Loss Area Analysis was not in the older plan. Repetitive loss increased significantly after Ian; Helene & Milton also contributed to repetitive loss property. If you increase the number of properties, your methodology for study is basically a buffer zone structure, touching other parcels which increases the total number of properties overall. You can go from 12-100 depending on methodology, 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 on seeing the report prior to public review. We m ay not be able to provide before public review. Suggested that drafts were more difficult 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. Prior to 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 21st, so we have already submitted two of the four that we need to submit. We are currently working on the 500 series for soon to be 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 have the 500 & 600 series submitted by the June 1 deadline, then we will have an in-person visit with ISO (Insurance Services Office), audit vendor for FEMA with Fred Carter on June 5. When they come into town, they may want to see some work sites, look at some items that are under the CRS program as they are occurring within the community, usually construction sites. They are touching base as a requirement. There should not be anything big there, just getting that 500 & 600 series finished next month, so we will be very busy doing that. No further questions. 6. Division of Emergency Management’s (FDEM) “Elevate Florida” Program Update 5 • https://floridadisaster.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/e1222bdbeae5495c90a6 845fa42a9010 Lang provides for viewing a slide of the Florida Disaster Map. 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 will receive a certain amount of money based off of a 30-day estimate of damages. And we would take that money to the local mitigation strategy working groups under our LMS plan and 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 the resident cannot apply directly to the state for these grant programs. They need a sponsor, which has to be a state agency, a local government entity, or an Indian Tribal Territory. Historically, residential mitigation usually fails; something would happen with the homeowner because these grants are very laborious and time intensive. No work can be done until you are rewarded. We ha d a homeowner that did not use HMGP during Hurricane Ian and 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. Element plan, which is updated every five years. Amy Howard is our planner in Emergency Management and doing a fantastic job. We've got preliminary approval from the state for our local mitigation strategy plan. And we're waiting on FEMA to approve that. In the meantime, all the jurisdictions and all entities that participate with the local mitigation strategy working group, have to adopt our element plan. The Greater Dayton Fire District is engaging with their commission or their advisory board. The city of Marco Island advised that they will be updating theirs at their city council meeting on May 5th. And we're encouraging all the 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 LMS working group specifically. They have $400 million between the two grant programs and with the amount of applications statewide, money will run out very fast. State asked that we contribute our hazardous mitigation grant money for Helene and Milton that was allocated to each county – wanted us to allocate all or a percentage of the money to the Elevate Florida Program. This is an unprecedented opportunity that 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 back 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 6 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, advised that the county 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 to FM hiring consultants to fulfill that obligation statewide and the meetings were held in Everglades City, Marco Island and one for Collier County, which Lang attended and answered the majority of the questions that the vendor did not regarding the program. The hazardous mitigation grant program is funded with 75% federal share and 25% local share; however, that is a little misleading because it looks like 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 have to have 25% in each phase; and if you pull out at any time during those phases, you have to 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 that 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 has to potentially call a special meeting because the grant program, the NOVA funding availability expires July 21, and our next meeting is 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, and within that mailer we included an LLA Explorer flyer with all the information. Lang has been receiving several calls and was able to answer a majority of the questions when the vendor came representing the state. Lang was reaching out to the state trying to get information, due to all of the questions. Based on projections, estimate $350,000 just for elevating an existing home. With the potential of only having the availability of the LMS HMGP $100 million that were 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 the math with the $6.2 to $6.9 million that we got for HMGP, we estimated about 17 properties that we were going to be able to potentially mitigate (not taking into account 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. A lot of homeowners end up demolishing their homes because they don’t have other options. We are currently in the high 200s, close to 300s. Our biggest concern, which is conveyed to many of the homeowners, is that we don't want them to misunderstand the program, and the consultant did a great job of helping them understand the cost allocation and the percentage 7 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 state can’t accomplish this with all of their resources etc., how do communities accomplish residential mitigation. In the future, we hope homeowners have an avenue to work directly though the LMF at a minimum for project approval, and then directly to the state for residential mitigation. As concerns programmatic changes at FEMA, we have already lost the BRIC grant (Building Resilient Infrastructure in Community), which was eliminated by the current administration. We understand that Virginia, impacted by Helene, got denied their HMGP. We are concerned about how strict they are becoming within the existing program, as 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, and 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-case scenario is it's dismantled and it goes 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 and let them manage the expectation with the ability to then apply for the additional 25 percent. So, there's a lot of different discussions out there right now. Everything's in flux. We are just hoping that it is a reorganization at a minimum. 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 identifies the link to navigate to the new LMS plan and pointed out that Collier County has adopted our LMS plan by resolution 25-74. Thanked Amy Howard, Collier County Emergency Management Division, for arduous efforts. She simultaneously completed our Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. The LMS is a FEMA, state, and local plan, so this must to be approved by FEMA, which is being held up due to the programmatic changes. Our CEMP, our Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, is a state-to-local interaction, so that has been approved. We're just hoping that FEMA can get those authorities to approve these items currently so we can move forward and continue with the current mitigation programs as they exist. 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) 8 We've conducted a lot of outreach this year; actually more than we usually do in a short period of time, especially considering how busy we've been after Helene & Milton. We do have some upcoming events with the Collier Building Industry Association. Acri sure, formerly Gulf Shore Insurance, is very good about working with us on flood outreach (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 floodplain regulation. Lang, Mr. Dorsett, Steve Beckman and building official for 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 – Acri sure 2025 Annual Flood Symposium – Christopher Mason & William Lang Every year we do a flood symposium with Acri sure, which is more insurance related. But we go over all aspects of the NFIP, which is Mapping, Regulation, and Insurance. So, we have a large portion of that presentation that we cover under the Annual Flood Insurance Symposium. Acri sure is doing a lot of outreach and it will check the box for our next three-year annual cycle if we need it, but we may submit these items as well for this three-year cycle. So, we will get credit under Activity 330. In response to questions on location of meetings, CBIS will be at Mercato and the Acri sure Symposium at a church right across from the Acri sure offices. 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 made by Duke Vasey and seconded by Linda Orlich. No discussion or objections. Motion to adjourn passed unanimously. Floodplain Management Planning Committee _____________________________________________ Chairman, Eric Johnson The Minutes were approved by: _____________________________________________ NAME _____________________________________________ SIGNATURE As presented on ___________________________ Or amended on ____________________________