Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/25/2009 S August 25, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE FLOOD ORDINANCE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 25, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat (Absent) Paul Midney (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (Absent) David 1. Wolfley (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Tom Eastman, Real Property Director, School District Page 1 August 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the August 25th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. This is a continuation of a meeting involving the review of the flood damage prevention ordinance. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the sake of expediency, let the record show that Mr. Schiffer, Ms. Caron, myself, Mr. Murray and Ms. Homiak are here, so we have a quorum. The first item of business is to let everybody know, this meeting starts promptly at 8:30. I'd appreciate it if staff would be here on time. With that, Mr. Wiley, this is a continuation of where we left off before. And I believe last time we had gotten through your presentation, and you were assembling data which you provided to us -- some of which you provided to us. For those members of the Planning Commission, I think we received our packets last Wednesday or Thursday, I'm not sure which day everybody got theirs. But we've had five days in which to review this information since the time we received it. Personally I've not been able to go through all of it. I don't see us finishing this review today. I think there's still a lot of issues that we're going to have to have answered at some future meeting. But I also want to know from this committee how long you all feel you want to go today. Is there any particular break point that you think is appropriate? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have to say, I'm sorry but I must be someplace else by 3:00, so I have to leave by 2:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, do you have any-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 2:30 sounds good to me. COMMISSIONER CARON: Fine. I mean, we need to maintain Page 2 August 25, 2009 quorum, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. So no matter what, we'll have a regular lunch break today, but we'll finish the meeting by 2:30 in today's meeting. Now, Jennifer, I want to thank you for your very well done job in the package you provided to us. And for those members, this is the blue packet we got. If I'm not mistaken, that was assembled by the county attorney's office. And there's a lot of information in here. And unfortunately I have not gotten through all of it. But thank you, it was a job well done. We certainly appreciated it. It did help to understand some of the changes and where the numbers are. MS. BELPEDIO: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the same time, I want to tell the members, there's -- in the packet provided by the county attorney's office or an e-mail, I can't remember which, there's a reference to a FEMA site or a location. I went there and I was able to obtain a book from FEMA. And this is it. It's just one of many, but this is the coordinator's manual. It really is an eye opener. Because what it does, it takes every category of these floodplain management issues and breaks them down into how they're defined, how many points, how the points are tabulated, how they're provided, how they're given. And it's an important document to read. I don't know how far we're going to go today, but if the rest of you had access to this document, if you were so inclined, it would be -- I think it would be well worth reading. You have to order them from FEMA and they take, I don't know, a couple of weeks or more to get here. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Isn't that what was sent an e-mail downloaded, the manual? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you -- Page 3 August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Because I downloaded it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I went to that download and I actually got the hard copy from FEMA, because it said you could order them, so that's what I did. So if you've got it, that's great. And with that, I don't know which way is the best way to proceed. We started working through the document last time, but since then we've had a replacement document, which is the first one in the book provided by the county attorney's office. And that one provides a comparison between the model rule provided by the feds and the rules that were written that we're supposed to be reviewing. And that is the -- prior to the first tab in the booklet. I've read that, made my notes in that document. I don't know what the rest of you have done. Does anybody have a preference? Because I would imagine we'd start with that document then, if that's okay with everybody else. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep, that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we get into the document, Mr. Wiley, do you want to go through any preliminaries before we start working our way through the document? MR. WILEY: For the record, Robert Wiley, with your county's engineering and environmental services department. Up on the screen is basically towards the end of the Power Point presentation that we were in on our last meeting. And this is a recap of the higher regulatory standards. These are the additional criteria that we are recommending placement into the county's flood damage prevention ordinance. The bulk of what you're starting with with the initial document is a comparison document prepared by the county attorney's office, as you've said, relating to the model ordinance put together by the state and approved by FEMA, and then indicating where we have made additions, deletions, things of that nature to it. We can look at it from a very detailed point-by-point basis, or do Page 4 August 25, 2009 you want to start with the basic principles of the higher regulatory standards and even address which of those you wish to consider or not even consider before we start going through the details page by page? And that's -- I'm asking your direction so I know which way to proceed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think-- MR. WILEY: If you looked at the overall scheme, or do you want to start looking to details and throwing part of it out once you get through the details. So I don't want us to waste our time today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I don't want to waste our time either, Robert. And I'm very frustrated with having to review all this information and not having had the time to review all of it. And I know that staff got it to us at the best time that they could, but five days just isn't enough for me to have read it all. And I usually can read everything that's provided to me within the time frames. On this one I just couldn't get through it. One of the things that I did not see in there that is a critical component is everywhere that there's a change that has an impact fiscally, either on the government or on the private sector, I did not see cost associated with that fiscal impact. And I'm wondering -- I understand what you're asking us to do now. Did you have a more cost -- detailed cost analysis, or do you have a detailed cost analysis that we could have? MR. WILEY: That is part of our presentation, going through it today. There's a spreadsheet that I'll be able to put on the screen for you, and it begins to show you the impacts of the CRS program and the cost from it. Now, understand that this is the CRS program, this is not a capital improvement schedule program listing. This is the impact strictly from the CRS side of it. And we can go through that whenever you want to do that, if you want to start with that, to give you a perspective of what we are facing in the county. Page 5 August 25, 2009 You did ask for the draft unreleased, whatever you want to call it, information that our consultant has prepared and has submitted to FEMA's national service provider, which is Michael Baker, Jr. Corporation, for the development of the new flood insurance rate maps. At our last meeting that got to be a big issue as to what are going to be the changes so as to how much of the county this ordinance , would have an impact upon. We can also start with that discussion. I just wanted to figure out which is our better path to go as far as the commission's concerned to address the issues that we all want to be covering today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, first of all, as far as the additional map that you sent out that we requested last time, I believe we all got it. And it basically shows what I thought it would, and that is the entire county now is going to be an A or a V zone, with the exception that some small pockets that are still going to remain X, according to the colorations on the map. Is that a fair statement? MR. WILEY: When you take all the different types of zones that start with the letter A, that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it even looks like lmmokalee would be for the most part an A or a V zone with some little pockets of yellow, which are the X zone. MR. WILEY: Immokalee has a lot of AH zones proposed for it. In some of the deeper sloughs, particularly along the southern side of lmmokalee, there are some AE zones. And then outliers of that, which are outside of the areas studied by our consultant, those would remain the approximate A zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the special flood hazard areas, the SFHAs, I think the acronym is, applies to all A and V zones. So even though lmmokalee is AH, it would fall under those categories? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the reason that's so Page 6 August 25, 2009 important, that brings in a pile of ramifications. Right now Immokalee is going through a new master plan for their community. I don't know how many civic leaders out there are aware of this potential change for their community, but I think that it would have an impact on their community, as well as the utility structure for that community, since these are going to require floodproofing for all facilities, including critical facilities. Those are the kind of concerns that I could not find in this document in reviewing what I had reviewed so far today, the cost to all those points across the board, not to just the coastal community, which is expected and understood to be a V zone, but all the A zones that will now be throughout all of Collier County basically. And that's a concern that I don't know if everybody's aware of. I know that I've talked to three department heads in this county in the last 48 hours and they aren't aware of the impacts. I told them I wasn't sure what the impacts are, but I wanted to find out if they had precise knowledge of the cost if the impacts were to apply. And while they were aware of this going through the system, they did not acknowledge to me that they've had a time to formulate any formal costs. Although some of them have said they've tried to indicate that there's millions of dollars in cost here. But they haven't had a chance to provide that to you or I guess us at this point in any more formal format saying basically these rules will have this kind of impact on public facilities. That's really important stuff, Robert. That to me drives a lot of the elements that are on the screen in front of us here. And that part I haven't found yet. And I just -- do you have information on government costs, costs to staff, a department that would have to be formed to keep up with these rules and regulations and monitor all the data that this has to collect and keep on file? MR. WILEY: Most of what you're seeing in front of you from a Page 7 August 25, 2009 level of staff, that's the people who are already here. And we're already doing a lot of this stuff, we are just not getting credit for it. Through the building department they're keeping track of a lot of this stuff already. Through me, I'm having to report stuff to -- ISO is the insurance services office. That's the entity that oversees the CRS program. So we're doing a lot of the information reporting already. This would add to the workload. It's another item that you put on your checklist of things to provide for them. So from that standpoint it's not looked upon as being huge in its impact to existing staff. There are some situations that you're concerned about on the fiscal impact to the various governmental departments, particularly as they go to construction. We have had discussions on that. I do not have detailed information on it. Because right now it's any body's guess, since we don't even know what they would be proposing in the future. From the critical facilities side for the utilities department, they're not elevating so much as they're floodproofing to keep the water out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My ignorance. Isn't this really all around the idea of insurance? MR. WILEY: This comes around through us thinking of it as the flood insurance program. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. WILEY: It is tied to that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if it's around insurance, we buy insurance to protect us against loss. Unless we know what the potential loss is, how can this correlate properly? We're all going to do -- we're all going to lift buildings and we're going to do all these things with the purpose of saving money, but the costs may never, or may, be recoverable. And so fiscal analysis it would seem is essential, at least Page 8 August 25, 2009 in general terms, to the government's projected capital and retrofit, remanufacture, reconstruction, whichever way you want to relate it. Am I wrong here? MR. WILEY : Well, let me give you a different perspective, because I do not view it in that perspective at all. I view it from the perspective of making the community more resistant to flood damage. Whether we have a single penny of savings or not, I'm viewing it from the standpoint of factor of safety for our community against flooding. That is not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, statistically speaking. Now, if you do your program in such a manner that at the same time you are making your community more resistant to flood damage, you gain a benefit of a savings on insurance, then that is to the good. Let me give you an example, speaking of insurance. You have an insurance policy . You have 17 -year-old son. You go to add him to your policy . Your cost is exorbitant. But if you can show that he is a good student, and if he has had driver education training, they provide you discounts. You have to have the insurance anyway; he cannot drive. But by doing things in accordance with what they will offer you discounts, you reap the benefit of it while still maintaining the safe driver and maintaining your insurance coverage. If you look at the flood insurance program in that perspective from the side of what CRS is for, the community rating system, you're going to have to have the flood insurance anyway. If you want to gain the benefit of reduced benefits, reduced premium costs, while gaining the benefits of a safer community because you're going beyond the bare minimum requirements, then you participate willingly in the CRS program. And you implement activities they have identified that across the nation have a track record of making the community more resistent to flood damage. And that's what this is about. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, you used -- I thought it Page 9 August 25, 2009 was interesting your choice of analogies. And I understand your choices are limited in that regard. But it just occurs to me, out in the AH zone for Immokalee area we have -- if I understand this thing correctly, we're going to urge people to floodproof, spend lots and lots of dollars to prepare against floods that statistically may be relevant but may never occur. And they're not required to have insurance now for their mortgages, but now because we're going to introduce this, they're going to be required to have insurance. How does this make sense to the general public? MR. WILEY: The CRS program, this ordinance, this does not introduce the requirement for flood insurance at all. That's coming through FEMA. We-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's tied together. MR. WILEY: You can look at it from the standpoint it is tied together. The CRS program is a voluntary program the county participates in to make the impact less onerous in the long run from a standpoint you're making the community safer. The flood risk is identified. That has nothing to do with the CRS program. The flood risk is identified through the modeling, through the mapping that FEMA does to produce the flood insurance rate maps. The CRS program simply says if you go beyond the bare minimum, you are making yourself safer against the identified risk. And by so doing, they do offer a return back through the process of reduced premiums, a discount on your premium to everyone who has to have the flood insurance anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, right now if someone has a home that they're building in any zone and they want to -- in let's say an X or A zone and they -- or a V or an A zone. If they want to reduce their insurance cost, at their option they can raise their foundation as much as they want to the point where there's a saving; is that a fair statement? MR. WILEY: That is correct, yes, sir. Page 10 August 25, 2009 Keep in mind that by raising it, there are situations where people have a total maximum allowable building height which starts at the FEMA elevation. So they voluntarily reduce their allowable building height if they choose to elevate their building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the -- you're only talking a freeboard of -- a maximum freeboard credit of, what is it, three or four feet anyway? I'm not sure that -- MR. WILEY: The maximum that they will let you go up to is I think four feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I'm not sure that four feet is going to put anybody beyond a threshold in most of your typical zoning districts, because most homes never get to that height anyway. I mean, I know projects after projects where the 35-foot height for example is never reached. Not even close to it, even with the nicest homes. So let's assume they all can go to this three or four feet without jeopardizing their ability to build. They can then voluntarily pay the money they want to pay to get that much higher. They can voluntarily reap the benefits from their insurance policy. But what you're asking us to do is institute a policy that is government mandated. So we take the voluntary part out that the citizens' rights would dictate, that they have a right to make their decision, and say no, you're not making your decision, we're making it for you, and this is what you're going to do. And the benefit -- I'm sure the homeowner gets the same benefit as if he did it himself. But then there's a broader benefit to the public at large. But for that additional cost we're seeing a benefit -- I think it was from six to seven we're looking at $23. And those are the kind of factors I'm wondering where the weight is. You didn't have numbers last time on the foundation costs, for example, of a typical home. And I wasn't sure when you asked or made those phone calls to contractors how much thought they really Page 11 August 25, 2009 put into it. Because a typical home is not a rectangle or a square, it's usually cut up pretty much, which means the foundation would follow that cut-up pattern. And then depending on how they utilize the area within those stem walls, either by fill or by open cavity with joists, we have rules applied to each one, but all those are additional costs as well. And so last time we didn't have costs, at least anything other than a short phone call that you may have made to a variety of contractors, some of which responded and some didn't, by what you had told us last time. Are you any further along with an analysis that is more analytical or -- I shouldn't say scientific, but more factually applied than just a brief phone call with a contractor? MR. WILEY : Well, it was the result of 44 phone calls, of which 10 people provided information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And did they-- MR. WILEY: The others would not provide information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have any -- first of all, was it done in an -- like an analysis, a stem wall and the shape of the stem wall, the size of the house, the square footage, all those factors that factor into the cost of such changes in construction? Or was it just well, a stem wall generally cost us so much "X" more per house? MR. WILEY: When I was talking to them, it was identifying a certain size house, whatever type of construction you use, whether it's stem wall, whether it's a raised foundation, joists, Polycor, whatever, you tell me what it would cost to do that. And that's -- I was giving them their choice to provide information. And I was very disappointed only 10 chose to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as questions, how do you want to -- what's this panel -- first of all, Robert, did you -- I had asked for this document, which is the recent community rating system verification report. And you had given it to me and asked me if we Page 12 August 25, 2009 should distribute it to the rest of the Planning Commission and I -- MR. WILEY: Then you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- said yes. MR. WILEY: -- said no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MR. WILEY: Then you said no, I asked the wrong question, so I CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, that was not this -- this was the thing I asked about almost a week or two ago. I asked you for the report, and you sent me the report. And then you said, should we distribute this to the Planning Commission and I said yes, and you said fine and then you -- I believe you distributed it. MR. WILEY: No, I did not. I was going to bring it today, but then yesterday I got the e-mail from you, oh, I asked the wrong question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was about -- no, that was-- MR. WILEY: Oh, well, I read it wrong. Then I thought oh, you don't want it, so I didn't bring them today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Robert, what I -- I'm sorry then. MR. WILEY: I can get them to you shortly. I do have an original. I can shoot the copies and get them to you during our meeting here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw your answer to my question. I thought I had asked the wrong question, because I had heard that during your discussion with the floodplain committee, and through I guess a grant or money using Dan Summers' office you had -- there was another more recent verification report that was in draft format being sent to FEMA for review that changed the potential numbers on here. I had this one, which is what I intended to use today because it's got a lot of good information. And that's why I wanted the rest of the Planning Commission to have it. Page 13 August 25, 2009 But I also wanted to understand, when I found out there was possibly a more recent one that was applied for, it would sure help me understand what was applied for, because I found a lot of application missing in this one. I found elements in activities that I think we could have much more easily applied for and possibly gotten rather than going the harder route of freeboard and more costly elements. So I was hoping that the more recent application would have taken and gone in and possibly applied for some of those additional activities. So that's what I was trying to seek is what your most recent one was, even though it wasn't approved. MR. WILEY: Okay. What you're talking with the consultant we hired through Dewberry, we hired a consulting firm to give a crosswalk review of the floodplain management plan. Totally separate issue from this. It was they were going through to see that we follow the 10 steps as required to complete the plan and submit it. So then that was their crosswalk scoring just for the floodplain management plan, it was not these kind of issues here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And by the way, for the planning commission members, when I asked for this, I asked for it after our packet was distributed when I was getting into more of this reading. So that's why Robert was going to bring it today. And I guess -- MR. WILEY: And I can get it for you, it will just take a few minutes to run the copies. Because I brought the original. I thought well, ifhe asks for it, I'll make 'em here, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wanted all of them to have it because -- and the reason this is important, this tells us how we've gotten to the 1,565 points we currently have. And if you go to each activity in here, then you go to this book, which is the coordinator's manual, and you turn to the corresponding activity, it tells you how the credit points are laid out for each one of these. Let's say 310, elevation certificates. There's items 311, A, B, C, Page 14 August 25, 2009 D, E and F. Each one of those generates points for this community. Under 310 we currently have 56 points allocated to us, but there's a potential of 162. The average community in the United States gets credited with 69. So we're below the average, and there may be very good reasons for that. We may not be able to do some of these. But my intention and hope was that we could walk through every one of these and understand in our minds why we can't get these credit points through some other methods, rather than going into these costly methods that impose such drastic costs on both the public and the government. And that's kind of why I wanted you guys to have this. And if you were to go into the PDF or the version of the manual that you have and you were to pull out the first page of each section, that's the most critical. It tells you what points are available and how to get them in a very concise format. Then back in the document it tells you actually how those are more worked out on a point-by-point explanation, if you want the detail. And my intention today was simply to find out why we did not get more points from every single one of these categories and an explanation for each one, and if there was an opportunity to pick up the 311 points we need to still get to where we're going to go, or maybe even less than that now. I think my number -- yeah, 311 -- no, 435 to go. If we have -- if we can pick up the points, maybe we don't need some of these more horrendous and costly applications. So that was part of it. I didn't know we weren't going to have this. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to ask, Robert, did the committee go through those categories to try to maximize what we're getting now? MR. WILEY: We gave a presentation to the committee going Page 1 5 August 25, 2009 over the entire CRS program and the categories under which you can apply. We talked about issues that are within them. And when we got into the higher regulatory criteria, which is what you're going to see in the ordinance here, that's where we focused on making the community more resistant to flood damage, and that's why we concentrated on these for the ordinance. There are a lot of other credit points you can earn by various programs. Of course it takes more and more staff the more you spread out your programs to fulfill it. And as we explained to the committee and also to the commission here the last time, there are just some categories that we're never going to score points in, because they're not at all practical for the way our floodplain is laid out in Collier County; it's over flat, low-lying coastal community. So there are programs that give you high scoring points. They tend to be focused more upon removing properties from the designated special flood hazard area. And frankly, the county just doesn't go in and buy people out because they happen to live in a zone that starts with the letter A or V. We just don't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's your activity 520, of which we've got no credit, because it is removal of buildings and buying out. MR. WILEY : We've only tried that one time and that failed when the owner, after negotiating the price and getting all the applications ready to go, they refused to sign it. Go figure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree-- MR. WILEY: They sold the house two weeks later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you, Robert, some of those won't apply to us. MR. WILEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's the process, though. And that one I wasn't even prepared to ask any questions on, other than to make a statement. Page 16 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's understandable why 520 wasn't one of the ones that we -- but there are others that I was puzzled on. Because my reading of them and my reading of the explanations by FEMA, I don't know why we just wouldn't have done some of them. And they're not on this list. And so that's why I was hoping this other list that I alluded to may have had that information. Mr. Schiffer, you were next. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna's question was essentially mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would request that maybe you pick one that you thought and let's have the opportunity to hear what -- a discourse on that. MR. WILEY : Well, if I may interrupt here for just a moment, if you'll give Bill Lorenz a few minutes, he's making the copies for you right now so you can all have the document in front of you. That's what I handed him. So he's out trying to get them as quickly as he can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- question. Bob, this is while we're waiting. We got a draft, the 7/27 draft, which is I guess after our meeting. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only thing I think you did in there is move the acronyms ahead of the definitions and then highlight the definitions; is that right? Did you change any other wording in that? And the reason I'm asking is that on the 3/23, which is what's in the attorney's booklet, that's where I did all my work. So is there any wording changes or is it just what I said prior? Page 1 7 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: It's just what you said. We moved the acronym section to the front. We bolded the defined terms. You asked me to remove all references to flood way from it. Since that term is embedded throughout the model ordinance and definitions from FEMA, I have asked FEMA their take on do we run a problem of them having concerns if we take the term out, or should we just leave it in? Since we don't have designated floodways, it becomes a moot point, but it doesn't technically change their definitions and their program wording, so I have not heard back from them on that yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I think the only other thing I notice is you changed the standard code to Florida code. MR. WILEY: That was a request also as we went through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there anything else in there? And the reason I'm asking is because most of my notes are in the old version and I don't want to miss those changes. And the review that Mark was mentioning, we're going to go through that section, is the 3/23 version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just brought up an interesting point then. We probably need to -- we're not allowed to communicate prior to these meetings on the way the meetings are to move forward. And not -- at our last meeting I wasn't aware of everything that we have in front of us today so I couldn't suggest at the last meeting how we proceed. I went under the assumption that the way I would have proceeded and the way I did was reviewed the County Attorney's -- what's titled the comparison document. And that's what I was prepared to speak from today on a point-by-point basis. Is that what everybody is prepared for here today? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I did, I did get the new one and I did sit with both of them side by side. But all my notes were in the 3/23 and we never went through it in full. So I'm sticking to -- Page 18 August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- 3/23. Bob's saying what's in the latest version is minor revisions. I mean, we can have it open in front of us as we go now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the problem is the comparison document for the county attorney's office has nothing to do with either the 7/27 or the 3/23. It compares one of them to the state rules. What happens is you're not comparing them to the old language, you're comparing them to the state's standard language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they're using the 3/23 version in that comparison. MR. WILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Look at the footnote -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if that's -- can you work with that document, you and Bob? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. That's what I think-- that's why I was asking the question, because the new version isn't necessary. The 3/23 is what the county attorney also used. MR. WILEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So all of us have really red-lined in the 3/23. So just to be careful: Bob, the only changes were you moved the acronyms up, you bolded definitions and you changed standard code to Florida code. MR. WILEY: There were, if I remember-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then you said you eliminated the word floodway. MR. WILEY: No, you all had asked me to eliminate the word-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but I'm not -- MR. WILEY: -- floodway. I have not done so yet. Well, there are no defined floodways in Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, let me just, just for Page 19 August 25, 2009 the clerical part. So you have not done that yet, so that's -- MR. WILEY: I have not. The word floodway is still throughout the document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is there any other changes in the 7/27 that you can think of? MR. WILEY: None that I remember. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. MR. WILEY: Those -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're fine. MR. WILEY: That's as far as we got. We were into the definitions and so I didn't really go changing definitions yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess with all that discussion on the table, does this panel have a preference on how you want to proceed then? Because at this point we can start going through the comparison document page by page. Mr. Wiley's suggestion, do we have any general feelings about these standards before we get into a detailed review. I mean, the one that's the most concerning on here is the freeboard for its cost to the general public and the fact it's basically all the county, after this map gets changed. But without data, I'm not sure if we -- I mean, I'm already believing that's too much of a cost to be forced upon people when they have a right already to make by freedom of choice to do so if they want to. And I also, in reviewing the document, I was believing there might be other areas we can make up those missing points. So I don't know how much you want to go into -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to make sure, Bob, understand what freeboard would change. Obviously we know what it does to a building, okay, it raises everything a foot. The VE -- it raises Page 20 August 25, 2009 the requirement for the VE a foot, correct? Everything. What does it do to road building? MR. WILEY: Nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What does it do to site development? Subdivisions, you know, coming up to a grade, does it affect that grade at all? MR. WILEY: No, because those are all based upon a different criteria. They are not using FEMA elevations as they are using a design storm event through the Water Management District. Now, where situations could occur, that the FEMA elevation takes precedent, and I'm not aware of any right now as I'm thinking about it, could it potentially have an impact? I won't say it could not. Depends upon how you evaluate it. But from the standpoint of the freeboard, that deals with the building permits that the county issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then in the document here we reference sometimes that requirement is the base flood height plus one foot. And then you've added plus freeboard. MR. WILEY: That is with the dry floodproofing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Ifwe had a freeboard of one foot, could we get rid of that, you know, plus one foot? MR. WILEY: No, sir. Let me explain to you again how -- in dry floodproofing that is the option of the builder to take a nonresidential structure and not elevate it to the base flood elevation but to build the floor elevation below base flood. Then to offset that for the risk to flood damage, they designed the building for dry floodproofing, meaning you design the building to keep water out up to the base flood elevation, whatever depth that is. FEMA's program says if you are going to dry floodproof through the CRS program, you're required to dry floodproof to the basement elevation plus one foot. That's your minimum acceptable criteria for dry floodproofing. The freeboard simply adds the one foot to that. Page 21 August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But there are other references where, for example, meter enclosures in this -- the general standards. It says that they have to be one foot above the base flood. The question really is, if we made a one-foot freeboard, would that mean that -- you know, in other words, do these people have to add one foot plus freeboard? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, they would. If you add freeboard, freeboard for the building permit purpose effectively raises your base flood elevation by that freeboard amount. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you sure it does that? So what you're saying is that it really changes all our base flood elevations by one foot, or do we add one foot to the base flood elevation? MR. WILEY: What I said was effectively you are raising your base flood elevation by one foot for the building permit, for all parameters of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the way this -- MR. WILEY: Technically speaking, you have the same base flood elevation plus a foot of freeboard. But you then have to meet that. So again, FEMA says effectively it's the same as for the building permit purpose raising your BFE by that one foot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WILEY: Now, that's different though than how they rate you for your insurance. Your insurance is rated based upon the accepted base flood elevation. Which is how you get your discount. If you are one foot higher, then you have a reduced premium because you have decreased your susceptibility to flooding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But this phrase occurs a lot in here. It says, shall be located no lower than one foot above the base flood elevation. That occurs in multiple places. So if we had a freeboard of one foot, wouldn't that then comply automatically? In other words, in that case I wouldn't be two feet Page 22 August 25, 2009 above it, would I? MR. WILEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in other words, there's a base flood requirement plus one foot. With our -- MR. WILEY: That takes care of the freeboard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- freeboard we'd automatically be taking care of that. MR. WILEY: That's correct, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's my question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we get into this process, there's members of the public here. You could be sitting here waiting for days. So before we do that, I thought if you'd like to speak on any particular matter before we start, you're more than welcome to now. Just come up to one of the mics. And we ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes, identify yourself for the record and we'll go forward. Sir? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm Lou Schmidt. I live in the Vanderbilt Beach area. I was appointed to this committee by our county manager. And my interest in the committee was because I live in an area that is subject to flooding. Storm flooding in particular. I built the house in that area 10 years ago, and I wish I had built it in a different way. But I didn't have any guidelines that would have warned me that I should have built it in a different way. That's why I think it's important for us to go through these guidelines and make decisions for people like myself that just didn't know any better and didn't know I should have built my house, the foundation of my house another foot or two higher. I built that house 10 years ago, I'm two feet above the elevation requirement, I do get a discount on my flood insurance, but there is Page 23 August 25, 2009 still the exposure of the lower level, which is not habitable, is going to flood, and it's going to -- it's not covered by insurance, and it's an awful lot of aggravation and grief to clean it up. And in fact I might have to leave my house if I were to develop mold in that lower area. That's my concern. I don't think people know that. There's more to it than just dollars and cents. There's an awful lot of personal grief and inconvenience. And that's what I think this will do for us is help us avoid not just dollars and cents but grief and aggravation. I don't know how you put a number on having to move out of your house and have it decontaminated. And how long would you be out of your home? And where does your family go? That's not insurable. And that's why I think what you're doing is very important. I'm just impressed that you're going to go through this point by point. I have to give Robert credit. He had a lot of patience with us. Our committee, Robert, has been in operation for over a year. I couldn't find -- how many years? Gosh, time flies. We've been doing this for four years. Did I read all of the items and all the information he gave me? No. It's just too voluminous. You're right, I've got three or four folders that thick back at home. But we did look at them critically point -- as you're going to do, point, point, point. And if you can get it done in a few hours, I'll be amazed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're not even -- a few hours? Forget it. A few days, yeah. But a few hours, no. MR. SCHMIDT: Maybe not even days. But I thank you for doing that, I thank you for the opportunity to tell you what my concerns are as a resident and why I became involved. And I do think it's very important, and I emphasize once again, there's more to it than dollars and cents. You would have saved me a lot of money if I had had those guidelines 10 years ago when I built my house. Page 24 August 25, 2009 My house is 10 feet above the required -- well, two feet above the minimum height right now, so I'm okay. But the homes around me -- I did an informal unscientific survey of the Vanderbilt Beach area. A quarter of those homes were built in the Fifties and Sixties, maybe into the Seventies. They now flood. We've had storms three times that have caused some of them to flood. You go to the next stage, those will probably flood. Because as we build bigger houses, there's less and less area for the water to run off. And the street just can't hold all that water. It's now getting into just not up to my doorway, it's a possibility of getting inside my lower level. And I thank you. I'd be glad to answer any questions I can. But Robert is our expert. We have been guided by him through all our efforts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. And thank you, Robert. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple of questions of I guess Robert. Did anybody do an analysis as to the impacts of these changes to our either building code or the Land Development Code? MR. WILEY : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that something that we can review before our next meeting on this matter? MR. WILEY: Well, it's real simple. There is no change to the building code other than putting in the requirement for a compaction test in the foundation protection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about Land Development Code? MR. WILEY: No, I have not done for Land Development Code. Some of these criteria would be put into the LDC through that process, yes, SIr. Page 25 August 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I -- the gentleman that just spoke lives along the coastal area in, I'm assuming, probably a V zone. Ifnot, maybe a high A zone. MR. WILEY: He's in an AE, coastal AE zone, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I completely disagree with his applications to the inland part of the county, places like I live. The last thing -- I've been there 30 years, my home's never had a problem. I don't have the heights required by FEMA. I'm pre-FEMA. And there's never -- there isn't a need, first of all, for my home or my land to go into the SFHA category. So I'm not concerned about those people along the coast being protected. I think they need the protection. I think that we have different applications for rules along the coast than we do inland. What I'm -- the problem I'm having is this seems to be a one size fits all, and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they want to spread the protection to those of us that while the federal government thinks it knows more than the local people and that they believe we may need something, we really don't. And I would still prefer that those of us that decide to get away from the coast because it's intuitively obvious that there's going to be problems living along the ocean front, and most of us don't have the money to live there, leave us alone inland. We don't need these additional rules and regulations. Is there a way to separate this out? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what-- MR. WILEY: You define your area of service that this ordinance is going to cover. If you do not wish to have freeboard cover, anybody outside of the coastal surge zone, you state that in your ordinance. What that does then, you declare which portion, what percentage Page 26 August 25, 2009 of your special flood hazard area it is applicable to and that becomes your pro rata factor. So if the coastal special flood hazard area is 20 percent of the entire SFHA, you would have the opportunity to get 20 points for freeboard of one foot in that particular area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then if the people along the coast, as I think some may, think that they should even be higher, we could impose a four-foot freeboard limit along the coast if we wanted to, and then they all would be protected against that possibility to the maximum allowed by the code, whether they wanted to do it or not. MR. WILEY: But again, this is where it becomes -- our ordinance, our program, all we do within the CRS is explain to them how we have it set up, and then they use their multiplicity of factors, as you saw going through, to come up with the scoring number for what they consider to be the effectively regulated portion of the special flood hazard area for that particular criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we had 100 percent of the county at one-foot freeboard and that represented 100 percent of the homes, 50 percent of the homes, let's say, are in the surge zone, the higher intensity zone, and 50 percent are not. So we took the one-foot freeboard out of the 50 percent that were in the non-surge zones and then increase the freeboard to two feet in the surge zone areas, wouldn't that offset the loss of the points from one and balance them all towards the other? MR. WILEY: If you can show you have a 50 percent, yes. If you show you're 40 percent, you're less, you know. But you're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Bob, isn't the thing that prevents one size fits all the variable with the FIRM map? In other words, different parts of the county have different elevations. Freeboard is in response to those elevations. So it isn't a one size fits all. Page 27 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: It can be looked at as a one size fits all for uniformity purposes as currently proposed in the ordinance as a starting block to provide one foot of freeboard. You can tweak it. But everywhere throughout the county that there is a zone that is starting with the letter A, either from coastal surge which would have AE, and then we have interior from rainfall induced flooding, we are going to over about a year from now have zones that some are AE, meaning depths greater than three feet. Some are -- the big one that's coming to us is a Zone AH, meaning flood depths of less than three feet. But you still have that approximate A zone further out to the east, which does not have a BFE associated with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the base flood elevation in some areas may be established by a SLOSH value, in some areas by a flood value and some areas -- MR. WILEY: No, none of them are established by SLOSH. They're all established through the modeling that is taking place right now. It is a combination of the coastal modeling which uses FEMA's model setup for that. And they have -- you've got the surge model, you've got the wave setup, the wave run-up, all kinds of factors that are put into it. Then for the interior portions we are using a proprietary model from our consultant, and it's the S2DMM model. It's a two-dimensional sheet flow model that -- we are providing the code to FEMA, so it becomes a public model at that point. And there is an area of interface between the two. It has two totally separate types of model runs. But you do have an interface where you then do the joint probability analysis to come up with your one-percent annual chance event, so that you don't end up with a 100 year on top of a 100 year, which is greater than that. You blend the two together. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And in some case it's the surge that determines it, in some cases it's the rainfall flooding, correct? Page 28 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. And what you'll see when the -- now, the current maps are all strictly surge based. The map that is coming, the draft preliminary not to be released, not yet released thing that we gave to you folks, that one is the combination between the rainfall and the coastal surge. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. You know, Mark, I think what would be important is, you know, there is objectives in section four -- is to see how these things that Bob wants to do affects those objectives. And one of the objectives is not insurance rates. So I'd be interested to see how you feel that foundation protection is going to help in any of the eight objectives that we have. You know, if you could run through it like that, I'd be interested. Because the goal of this thing is to meet those objectives. So, I mean, if raising freeboard does do that, I think it does, then let's hear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but then where do you stop? If raising freeboard one foot helps protect human life health and to eliminate the minimize property damage (sic), which by the way is the bureaucratic fallback for any code, why don't we just limit -- go to four feet then, because then you're doing even more to protect human life health and to eliminate even more property damage. So where do you stop? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the intent of raising something a foot is to lessen the chance that a flood affects it, you know. So if we feel a foot's good enough. Four feet, you know, doesn't make any sense. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I get in on the colloquy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One of the issues that I would ask Robert too is if we have one foot of freeboard or one foot above the above. Above, above. Ifwe went to three or four or five or seven, Page 29 August 25, 2009 does that impact on the insurance? Does that give greater discounts the more feet that you have? That one question I need before we have this continued here. MR. WILEY: Up to a point it does. But it is not a straight line equation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a decreasing value. MR. WILEY: You gain your benefit within the first two feet. Greater than that, you're diminishing your percentage. Above four feet there is no further reduction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. What goes through my mind on all of this, if you believe in the global warming issues that are so potentially consequential in the relatively near future, we're talking about people who live on the coast now who may think they're secure actually being inundated by this stuff. I'm not of the opinion that I want to start from the premise that it's an absolute and therefore we must. I have no empirical evidence, and I hope you do, that shows we've had typhus, cholera or any other diseases directly related to flooding. We have some property damage. I don't know how much of loss of life we have. The statements that we have here is it's an absolute and therefore we must do all of these things. And I agree with Mark, there are places here that may never get flooded and we're going to compel them -- and there are some economic consequences, and so I have a little problem with just taking the position that we must. So Brad, that's my thought on that one. Not an argument, but, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't mind, Brad, if you feel the best way to proceed is to go to section four with those bullets first and then start the process with the document. I'm -- there's no right or wrong way to do this today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To me section four is why we're here. So let's hear why Bob wants to raise these elements to protect Page 30 August 25, 2009 these elements. Does that make sense to you, Bob, or -- MR. WILEY: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So I guess the thing is like foundation protection, how would that meet any of those objections? MR. WILEY: Foundation protection is just what it says it's for. And the option we're going for here, and there are multiple options in foundation protection when you read the CSR manual, but the option we're going for is for structures that are placed on fill. That's not a pile foundation, that's fill pad and your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, as we go into each of these, can you tell us what activity code you're talking about when you say foundation protection? What activity are you falling under? MR. WILEY: Within the CRS document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Community rating system. MR. WILEY: Okay. Let me give you your copies then, because Bill handed them to me. So you -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EASTMAN: Robert, do you have one more, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good point. Let the record show Tom Eastman is here. And he's going to tell us how willing the schools are to raise their costs up substantially to support all this, since they have budgets that are phenomenal. Did I give you a good intro there, Tom? MR. EASTMAN: That's part of our concern. MR. WILEY: Are you stacking the deck against me, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sir, I'll tell you what, I have -- I'm very concerned about the cost to the public on this, both from a government viewpoint and a private viewpoint. So that will be my driving force during our multiple days of discussion, I can assure you. Page 31 August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will this be included in the current AUIR? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's another -- and Robert, as we go through today, at some point I have some suggestions on added information that I think would be helpful, if the committee agrees with me. But I'll wait till after we get to a point where I can bring some of these up. So now we left off on Mr. Schiffer's question on foundation protection, and the only thing I needed to know is which activity is that going to fall under on our CRS point system. MR. WILEY: It's all under 430, because it's a higher regulatory standard. And if you are in the CRS manual, it's going to be 430, and it is sub-point B underneath there, foundation protection. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, question on that. Have you MR. WILEY: Do you need me to walk you through -- or you have the book, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have the book. MR. WILEY: You don't need me to get mine out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, have you reviewed the building code requirements for pad foundations to see if this is covered already, or do you know exactly where the building code puts a foundation protection? MR. WILEY: Yes. Hang on a second. I've got a copy of the applicable portion of the building code here. Under Chapter 18, Section 1802, foundation and soils investigations is where the Florida Building Code goes through the requirements for your foundation. What's interesting is the older code specified a compaction test. The new code does not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the new code specifies Page 32 August 25, 2009 compaction requirement, so -- MR. WILEY: Whatever is-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there are multiple -- MR. WILEY: -- by the engineer or the architect. It doesn't say there is a standard compaction test. It's whatever they're willing to design for. They put it in their report what they want to design to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. But the test you reference, the old proctor test, is one of many. And in the test itself it doesn't have a percentage of compaction, where the building code establishes the 95 percent. And, I mean, there's no problem that you regulate it to one type of one ASTM test, there's multiple ones. But anyway, that's not the real question here. So in the building code, if we built it pure building code right now, we would be building something lesser than the requirement you've put in here for a foundation. MR. WILEY: You have the potential to do so. I'm not saying that if you are the architect and you propose that sufficient compaction is simply dumping it off the truck and not even stepping on it, you know, you may not stay in business very long. But technically whatever you would agree to in that report you submit is what is deemed acceptable. So it really falls back to the credibility of the designer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't agree -- MR. WILEY: FEMA wants to see a minimum standard. And that's what this is for, just bringing back in the particular test. Now, you notice what it says, we have the test that's in here. Within the code it says you're meeting a certain testing within that. That's why we just simply identify what the test is. And that will meet their requirement then. And it gets us back to what we're already doing, but it just simply puts it on paper to identify what we're going to be doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I do have a Page 33 August 25, 2009 disagreement. The building code is clear as to what requirements of compaction have to be there. Obviously you have to have a -- you know, the fill is outlined. It tells you the 95 percent, it has to be designed to meet the loads. You don't just throw it in and say there it is and sign a form. So I'm not -- in other words, maybe we have that already is my point, and it's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Brad, when you read this book, you go through it and I've found numerous instances where I believe, based on my experience as a licensed contractor in this state and have been in the business here for 30 or 40 years, that we already meet some of these as well. And that's why this whole process has become more of a puzzle to me, but it is also why we need -- we're going to have to go through just like you're providing the example now, item by item to get to the bottom of it. MR. WILEY: And I agree, we are meeting a lot of it. And it's a matter of documentation as we go through it year by year. That's one of the programs that we're working on from staff level, just simply to begin to have better documentation of what we're already doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we get to more input on your response to Brad on the first bullet, we have two more questions that have come up so far. Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not qualified to take on the issue that Brad is taking on, but I'm certainly interested in your response the way you said it, that, you know, they could just leave the dirt there and step on it and walk away. Brad indicates that there are standards. You also indicate a specific test or a format, a means, a standard, and there are others that have been stated exist. Can you help to -- can you help to be more certain for us in these matters? I'm not qualified to make the judgments that Brad is qualified Page 34 August 25, 2009 to make, but I have the desire to understand them and to support them where they're appropriate. So that little issue between you and he, I don't know if it's been resolved, quite frankly. He says that there are standards. You say that a person could dump dirt. Now, it's certainly -- if we're talking about an ordinance that compels people to perform and you allow at the first instance that something like that could even exist, I'm disheartened, to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So Mr. Murray isn't going to get any response to his -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure he knows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if there was -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know that -- I made a statement, I guess not a question. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think -- I want to understand this also. Is the reason, for example, the compaction standards are being put into this particular ordinance just a way of tracking them for the insurance program the counties were involved in? MR. WILEY: For just that reason? I'm trying to understand what COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it's already in the building code, and so we just need to restate it here so that we can get credit for it. MR. WILEY : We are supplementing the current Florida Building Code by specifying a particular minimum compaction testing procedure. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. WILEY: Which is not stated in the Florida Building Code. By so doing -- and it's the compaction testing that's being done all over the place. Page 35 August 25, 2009 When I took it by DSAC, they did not have any disagreement with it. They said they're fine with that. What we are doing here is putting it in the ordinance so that we state it so it is documented as a legally binding requirement now for a particular level of testing and for how far outside of the building footprint the foundation of it that you do that compaction testing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, go to Page 27 of your thing. At least the 3/23 draft. That No. 14.A is where you state that. Because I think maybe what you should do in your parenthesis there is note that it's tested by that. Because you're giving the impression that it's properly designed and compacted fill. And then you give it the ASTM. I think you should note in that parenthesis that it's tested by the ASTM, because that's solely -- isn't that what you're doing? MR. WILEY: That's right. That's what I'm asking you guys. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WILEY: That's the kind of input I want in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The three feet. Now, I think the building code has more than three feet, but I haven't researched it. I mean, that's -- I can remember, you know, these mound foundations have to go at least five feet before the break of the slope. So -- but the point of the matter is let's move on. That one's probably a freebie in the building code anyway. The sad thing is, and maybe we should look at it next year, Mark, is we'd be missing even more points by what is required by the building code, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not -- I mean, unfortunately I don't want to move on till I've exhausted my discussion on this as well, and I have some questions specific to this one if we're going to take it in this manner. So let's back up. You're asking for an FDN of 20. Why aren't you going for 35? Page 36 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY : We're looking to really address the bulk of the problem which is construction on fill. If you go with the 35 score, you're requiring every single foundation to have a PE sign and seal it. Right now we do not require that. We're not asking to get in that situation to require a separate PE certification for the design of the foundation. We could, but we didn't feel that there was sufficient justification for doing that route. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the building department -- how many plans are submitted by the building department that aren't designed by a professional engineer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Residential. MR. WILEY : Well, we're talking about a separate soils foundation certification report. That's beyond what we're doing right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says under FDN 35, if all new buildings must be constructed on foundations that are approved by a licensed professional engineer. That would just be a sign and seal the page that does the foundation details on a set plans, right? You don't need a separate report that you just mentioned. I don't see where it says that, at least. MR. WILEY: It would take a sign and sealed set of plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WILEY: And part of the plans, when you're doing a foundation, you do have a report that goes with it. Whether they submit or not, there is one that the engineer prepares. He has to do the geologist -- geo-tech, rather -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. WILEY: You know, they're doing their foundation work out there to come up with it for design foundation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not for a house on fill. I mean, basically they would design the -- they would have a foundation plan and sign, seal and that's it. Page 37 August 25, 2009 Are you familiar with any? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My answer to that would be single- family residential, duplex, townhouse with less than three units or less, you could build without a licensed professional doing the plans. So -- MR. WILEY: Not if we go for the 35 points you couldn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the only addition is you would require those buildings to have the -- MR. WILEY: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- engineer? MR. WILEY: You know, from the staffs standpoint, we do not feel we wanted to go requiring everybody to have that separate PE signature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but instead you're-- MR. WILEY: We could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- requiring everybody to do the following three items: All new buildings must be, one, constructed on a properly designed and compacted fill, ASTMD 698 or equivalent; B, that extends at least five feet beyond the building walls before dropping below the base flood elevation; and C, the fill as an appropriate protection from erosion and scour. Now, those are all elements that are already being done in Collier County. So the 20 points you're asking for here we could have already obtained under the current regulations. MR. WILEY: Once we identify the compaction testing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, we've got a -- you're requesting three feet, so we should make it -- MR. WILEY: When he just read it I thought, oh, that's another one. Through the iterations, we've gone from five feet to three feet. I've missed one here. That's what I've got to make consistency for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think building code is five feet, like I said. Page 38 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY : Well, I thought it was too. But then in the discussions we ended up with three. So I've got a mixture here. And I do need -- that's a good point, for consistency. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, boy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So under activity 430, you're going to go for 431.B, the foundation protection. What is involved in getting 431.C, cumulative substantial improvements, CSI, which is worth 110 points for counting improvements cumulatively? MR. WILEY: Under cumulative substantial improvements, that's where you set up a rolling calendar. In this particular situation we're going for a five-year rolling calendar. And you add up the value of all the building permits that are not mandated by a safety code requirement. Those don't count in your summation of value. But over five years you add up the building permits to a structure. And when that hits the 50 percent threshold, or in our particular situation if we choose to lower the threshold to 49 percent, it will be 49 percent of the value of the structure. At that point you require the owner to mitigate the structure -- typically that's by elevation, is one means of doing it -- before they can get that next building permit approved. That has some really good aspects of it. It has some really scary aspects of it from a situation that if someone has a valuable structure that they come real close to that half the value of it through improvements, remodeling and then they have a fire or they have a hurricane and they incur damage, it may at that point require them to mitigate the entire structure to bring it in compliance with the base flood elevation before they can get the building permit approved to repair the damage. And that's onerous. It is only for those which are below the base flood elevation. It is a way to bring structures into compliance with the identified level of flood risk. Page 39 August 25, 2009 So you don't go into these things lighthearted with the attitude of we want to do it to get reductions in our flood insurance. What I'm saying, that's why I'm saying, we do not do it for that reason. In fact, FEMA says don't go for the points just to get reductions. No, we're going for things, houses that are already below base flood or susceptible to flooding. It is a method by which we can stop what the building department has identified as a pattern. Forty percent this year, 40 percent next year, maybe skip a year, then another 40 percent. Within a five-year window they have more than rebuilt the value of the house and it is still at the same level of risk. Which means it puts FEMA in a very uncomfortable position of having a higher potential payout while the structure was improved in value. So that's why they do offer this as an option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I just -- on that question, the economic side of that relative to anybody's flood insurance, I'm not familiar, are there provisions within the flood package that would allow for the added cost of raising a structure if they're compelled? There's no provision, is there, to do that? The economic impact on them would be all cash as it were; am I correct? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. MR. WILEY: You cannot say it would be that for every situation. The case in point is there are situations, older homes below the BFE, they can apply for grants. Now, there is a percentage of funding they have put up. Typically they have to front the front 25 percent. But there are grants through FEMA, through the mitigation programs to pay a considerable portion of the cost to mitigate the houses that are below the BFE. In particular, if they have experienced flooding, your flood insurance policy itself has a rider attached to it called increased cost of Page 40 August 25, 2009 compliance, the ICC rider. And that will pay you up to $30,000 once flooding has occurred. Well, obviously we don't want flooding to occur. But should it occur, your ICC coverage, if you have cumulative substantial improvements as a program within your flood damage ordinance, it allows that rider to kick in and help pay for the cost to elevate your house. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Mark. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on that, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if the house gets damaged in your Section 21, the repetitive loss, that drops that automatically, correct? MR. WILEY: Repetitive loss is a situation where you have repeated flooding. And then severe repetitive loss you have even more. And the language in our ordinance is following the direction that FEMA wants to go is to get rid of the houses that repeatedly flood and produce a huge drain on the flood insurance program. Most of the houses in the flood insurance program don't flood. But then most of the people who have any kind of insurance policies never collect on it either. That's how they work. It's a matter of risk. The program's goal is to eliminate the repetitive loss structure, so therefore the threshold limit, as proposed in the ordinance, is dropped down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got that. But in other words, the point is that the cumulative loss is applied to structures that have never been flooded. Once a structure gets caught by a flood, people start to focus that it isn't a problem, then the cumulative loss drops back anyway. So what -- you know, what we're gaining by the other one is just people that have not had flooding, we're limiting what they could rebuild on their properties, correct? Page 41 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: What you are doing is relating to them that they're already identified as being at greater risk because they are below the identified base flood elevation. It is a way to control the amount of money that is put into that house outside of making it more resistent to flood damage. In other words, focus -- FEMA wants us to focus first on getting the houses elevated to a proper elevation before we begin to focus on the aesthetic aspects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And isn't your desire to go to 49 percent instead of 50; is that right? MR. WILEY: That is correct. For the cumulative value -- excuse me, for the threshold value, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I kind of agree the bookkeeping on the difference between that one percent doesn't make that such a hardship, but -- MR. WILEY: Right. It's sort ofa moot point. What's one percent, 50 versus 49. But it was almost like a free point sitting there for you to reach out and pick up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Okay. MR. WILEY: That was one we went strictly for the point, and we readily admit that upfront. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we just go through more of these, how it affects the objective? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not even finished with C yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Foundation? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've still got a whole page of -- if you really want to -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, no, we'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to understand foundation protection, you need to review all of Section 430, which is items A through P. We're still on C. We skipped A, we did B, which is the foundation protection itself; C is the CSI, which is cumulative substantial Page 42 August 25, 2009 improvements. But under that there's another six subsections. And each one of those subsections provide for additional points that I don't know why we haven't obtained or requested some of them. Robert's providing explanations. And until we go through every one of them, I certainly don't know. But if -- and I'm not here to take up all of this committee's time in any kind of process. I would have been able to do more of this had I had more time to read this before today. But since it all came in almost at the same time, I just couldn't do it all until I -- so I'm asking it here today. Otherwise, I could get together privately with Robert. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- because Mark, isn't the obvious question -- I mean, didn't the committee, Robert, take the manual and go shopping as to what you could obtain, I mean, from us to do that now? I mean, you've supposedly done that and these are the recommendations that come from that; is that right? MR. WILEY: That is basically right. We the staff took the shopping list, went through, identified what we felt was a reasonable thing to put in the ordinance for the value you got from the overall benefit, knowing how flat and how quickly we can flood or not flood. We then took that to the committee, discussed it thoroughly with them many times. And they came to the point that sometimes they agreed, sometimes they didn't. The ordinance you have before you is the ones with which they agreed, other than cumulative substantial improvements. And they asked us to not include that. So it's not technically in the ordinance. It was in the cover memo that I gave to you from staffs perspective through our building department. They still want us to have that put in. So the ordinance is the recommendation of the committee having vetted these things. Page 43 August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Mark, I guess what you're actually doing is you're going back and questioning way back into the committee why they didn't choose some of the other options as opposed to just dealing with the ones that they wanted to bring forward today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm not. MR. WILEY: I don't see it as that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, just a second. No, I'm not. I don't accept anything provided to me by an analysis of staff. If staff wants to provide an analysis, that's fine. But I'm here to review it as a member of the public and form my own interpretation. As Robert just said, he reviewed it, they went through it and they presented it to the committee. As a committee member stood here today and said, they didn't get this book, they didn't read it. As I've talked to two other committee members on the phone, they said the same thing to me, they don't have this book, okay. They relied on staff to present stuff to them and analyze it for them. And that's fine, because that's 99 percent of what happens in this county. I will not do it that way, and I'm not going to start doing it here. But I don't mean interpret -- MR. SCHMIDT: Sir, I have to correct you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir, come on up and correct me. MR. SCHMIDT: I have to correct a misimpression. I did not want to imply that we relied on staff and that we did not have the information. I told you of the books I have in my closet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have this book, sir? MR. SCHMIDT: I don't know which one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Coordinator's manual. MR. SCHMIDT: Is that the one -- I don't have that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have this book. So did you read the book then? Page 44 August 25, 2009 MR. SCHMIDT: I told you I didn't read them all. But is that the book that -- why don't we have that one? MR. WILEY: What you have out of that one, Mr. Schmidt, is sections that we gave to you as we went over the different criteria. You do not have the entire book. You do have Section 430 out of the book. MR. SCHMIDT: And so we did -- we didn't just operate in the blind and we didn't take staffs recommendation in the blind. And that's why there was discussion and disagreement with staffs recommendation for increasing -- or decreasing from 50 percent to 49 percent cumulative value. We did debate that. I was on the losing end of that debate. I felt we should go to 49 and there was a member of the committee was here last time you heard it was in favor of retaining the 50. The vote was 50. But we did do our work. Not as thoroughly as you are doing; I admire you for that. But we didn't just rely upon what they told us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I was careful with the way I chose my words, because I didn't want to insinuate you didn't do your work. That's not what I was trying to say. You did what you did in a manner that you did it in. I do mine in a different way. I will research it, I will ask the questions myself and I will take nothing given to me by staff without doing my own understanding of it completely. You guys approached it in your manner, that's fine. I'm not critical of that. But I am going to proceed with the way that I do things, unless this committee doesn't want to hear it, then I'll do it a different way. MR. SCHMIDT: I admire you for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll turn to the committee again. I -- Page 45 August 25, 2009 my intention is to go through these to understand them completely. I can do this on a one-to-one with Robert -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but I want this committee's input. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, this committee will benefit from this type of investigation and analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, under section 431.C where we left off, yes, we have the CSI issue and which is cumulative over 10 and five-year increments worth of a series of points. But we also have three other categories. Again, one of those is cumulative, but the last two are not. Number three, C-3, it's worth 20 points. It says CSI is a total of the following points, not to exceed the maximum credit; 20 if the community adopts regulatory language that qualifies properties for increased cost of compliance insurance coverage for repetitive losses. Now, the way I read that it seems to me that if someone has a repetitive loss, they have to pay more for insurance. And if we institute that as a process, we might get 20 points. Is that how that works? MR. WILEY: No, sir, it is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then can you explain it to us, please. MR. WILEY: Okay. Repetitive loss does not increase your insurance costs. Repetitive loss is a cost factor to FEMA, but your flood insurance rate does not work like flood insurance, you've had an accident so therefore we bump you up. Your rate is established by Congress through the Flood Insurance Manual that they update about once a year, and those rates are what you have your premium based against. And by the way, you can get this right off of FEMA's web page. But if you thought the first document will put you to sleep, this one is quicker than that. But it is their insurance manual. This is the manual that the insurance agents use to rate your house. Repetitive loss is simply a Page 46 August 25,2009 repeated claim that you're putting against it. So what they're wanting you to do is to word in your ordinance so that you put restrictions against the repetitive loss definition property so that it is forced, if you want to look at it that way, to bring about mitigation at a quicker level than a house that's never had a flood claim or only had one flood claim within that 10-year window so that you're able to correct and mitigate so the house quits being a repetitive loss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let me go back to the language that's here. Twenty points if the community adopts regulatory language that qualifies properties for increased cost of compliance insurance coverage for repetitive loss. I haven't understood from your definition what you meant how that responds to that. If the community adopts regulatory language. Number one, so we've got to look at some language that qualifies properties that have increased cost of compliance insurance coverage for repetitive losses. So we need some regulatory language that qualifies a property for the increased cost of compliance of insurance for repetitive losses. Why couldn't -- what's the downside of creating such regulatory language? MR. WILEY: The downside is whether or not -- in repetitive loss property, the way you define it within a definition section of our ordinance, is the language that they say qualifies it then to be allowed to file a claim under increased cost of compliance. Increased cost of compliance is a rider that's attached to your flood insurance policy. Used to be it was an extra, now it's a default. It's already in there, all of them. Supposed to be in everybody's. Hopefully the agent put it in. But that's up to the agent. The definitions and the way you define repetitive loss per the direction that they give you in the CRS establishes the parameter Page 47 August 25, 2009 under which it falls into qualifying for ICC coverage to come in and help pay upfront up to $30,000 of the cost to mitigate that house. If you don't want to define it in that particular way, you don't have to. But then when they flood, the ICC doesn't kick in as quickly. It will kick in under certain situations but not as quickly. And it's a way of bringing that coverage more readily into play for the claim. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To me that sounded like that if you have a loss your insurance is going to cost more. Isn't that what it's saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And ifit does, then that's a good way to start -- there's nothing wrong with that. If someone has a loss because maybe they could have done a better job, maybe they shouldn't be where they're at. But they realize that instead of the accumulative losses pushing them out of their house, they may cost some more in insurance until they correct the problem or whatever, what's wrong with that language? And that's what I'm trying to understand and I'm not getting an answer from you that relates to the language that I'm reading in the FEMA book. And maybe that's -- if you've got it in front of you, Robert, it's on Page 430-8, C.2 -- C.3 is the number I'm focusing on. MR. WILEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- based on your answers, I'm trying to understand how they relate to that sentence, and I can't. Now, maybe I'm not hearing you clearly or maybe you're talking in a background you have more knowledge in of course than I and I can't interpret what you're saying as to how it applies there, but could you simplify your explanation somehow? Because I think Brad read it or listened to it the same way I did. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically if you pay more to cover Page 48 August 25, 2009 yourself because you've had repetitive losses and we have regulations that say it will cost you more if you have repetitive losses, then so be it and we get 20 points. Well, at the same time it's kind of like a penalty for you having repetitive losses. Until you learn your lesson, it's going to cost you more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I could see the community downside would be let's say, you know, in these blocks in Golden Gate where we're building pad foundations we finally hit tipping point with the one too many pads and it floods everybody else. That would put the everybody elses into an expensive insurance program, I believe, more expensive than if we didn't have that clause in there. So to me that's the only downside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the other side is, though, too, they don't necessarily have to apply for the coverage. I mean, you can fix your car yourself if you don't want your car insurance to go up because you don't want to report a claim. Same thing could happen for a house. If you have a problem, you can fix it yourself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think people -- you know, if a block of homes all of a sudden had a foot in their residence, they would want the insurance help. But wouldn't that be the answer, Bob, that if there was a situation that caused a lot of people to have flooding, that would mean their insurance rates would go up, not necessarily the pad builders that may have even caused that foundation -- that problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it sounds like it's -- sounds like the local regulatory process can make that occur. I would just like to add, many, many years ago on Long Island you would have nor'easters, occasional hurricane. People had homes right on the beach on stilts, and along come a nor'easter and knock the home 90 percent down. FEMA would come in, pay them, they'd build a home, same thing again. And finally it made the papers that this was Page 49 August 25, 2009 absurd and they said no more. And I believe that's that 40, 40 and 40 thing going into effect. What I haven't heard is whether or not it ever ends here. I know that that was what they said that was going to happen there, and that if you wanted to rebuild your home you would not have flood insurance and that's life. I understand what the carrot and stick premise is all about, but that language to my way of thinking clearly means that local regulatory process allows for this. You indicated that you hoped the insurance agent added the ICC. I thought that's what you said anyway. And that scared me, because we're talking about American Society of Testing Material standards and we don't have somebody operating under the standard of the insurance clauses. I don't see we have two things meeting, okay. They wouldn't meet anyway, but I think you understand my point. So my sharing that with you is that that may be what ultimately happened on Long -- and it maybe worked in the Mississippi Delta area, in the valley and the whole business. The question is can we do something here. That's the question posed. Can we add regulatory requirement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Robert, before you answer, some of these you may not have complete background answers on today. If that's the case, I would much prefer that you held off responding until our next meeting and we'll circle those that we have to get responses to and you can research and see why C.3 mayor may not be good for the community and give us a balanced report. Because that's -- I'm not trying to institute something that's bad for the community. I'm trying to find a way that we can find things that are better but at the same time not cost us like some of these bullets do. So I don't mind if you can't answer it today because you need to research it more. There's going to be hundreds and hundreds of pages Page 50 August 25, 2009 of issues here, and I don't expect anyone person to have in their mind every answer to every one of these, but I would just like an answer is all, so we can make a good decision. Does that work better for you? MR. WILEY: That's fine. In this particular case, we do have -- we are going for C.3. It's within our ordinance as you are looking at it to address that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so C.3 is the first bullet point, the one you're going for? MR. WILEY: No, we're going for C.l, 2, and 3. That's how you come up with a total of the 70 points, the 25, 25 and 20 that we're seeking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the bullets in front of us, which one are we now -- which one is C.3? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob? MR. WILEY: Well, it's on the bullet in front of you down at the very right where you see the orange line, total possible points. Right above it, cumulative substantial improvements, up to 70 points. That 70 points is as a result of C.l.B, C.2.B and C.3, 25, 25 and 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we already acknowledged that I.B and 2.B probably weren't good for Collier County because of the cumulative effect that you obviously described that someone can inadvertently have a fire after repaired (sic) their house a couple of times and they couldn't rebuild their home. So I don't -- I'm not saying we buy into these. I'm trying to ask you which are good and bad for the community. And I'm certainly (sic) this board will make a recommendation. And I thought we already went past I.B and 2.B and 2.A and I.A. MR. WILEY: I was saying that, sir, so you understand how I came up with my 70 points. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WILEY: That's all I was showing you, that we were already Page 51 August 25, 2009 looking at C.3 as part of the criteria for which we're seeking credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But now then, why-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? Just a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at, I'll tell you what, it's 10:00. Let's take a IS-minute break, because I'm really confused now. So let's come back here at 10: 15. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when we do come back, Bob, could you put these things -- because you and Mark are having a nice conversation, the rest of us are like paying attention -- COMMISSIONER CARON: This says nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. So put that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10:15 we'll come back. MR. WILEY: Put it on the viewer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Put it on the overhead, yeah. MR. WILEY: Okay. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from the break. We're going to move on to the -- we're still on activity 430, Item C, which is the CSI cumulative substantial improvement rules. And the next question I had, Robert, I'll assume that C.3 we can get a better explanation of after you have time to research our questions. MR. WILEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's look at C.4. C.4 reads, if the regulations require that any addition to a building be protected from damage from the base flood. Now, is that one of them we were considering or not considering? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, we want to consider that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So C.4 is one of the 70 points that you originally were looking at. MR. WILEY: Right. Page 52 August 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: C.1.B and C.2.B were also part of that. And that gets to your 70. C.3 you really hadn't -- we need to get a more definitive answer from you, one on which you'll get back to us on. MR. WILEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. C.1.B and C.2.B are the cumulative impacts. So down the road as we get moving on this we need to remember that, because that is one that we'll probably have to recommend or not recommend going forward. I know the committee recommended against those, if I'm not mistaken. MR. WILEY: The committee recommended against it, that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WILEY: And again, their concern was it could put a huge financial burden upon somebody when they weren't expecting it. At the point of basically disaster hit their house and then suddenly have to -- huge expense to the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I mean, we probably tend to agree with that. MR. WILEY: And we've -- I've made that clear to everybody, that is the possibility that could happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there's a potential out of this one to retain 20 points and maybe 20 more, depending on your answer to C.3 when we get back together again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, a question on that. If somebody gets hit with a disaster on their house, for that to be a concern would only be if less than 50 percent of the house was damaged. If the house was damaged greater than 50 percent, it would have to be brought up anyway, right? MR. WILEY: That is correct. The issue here is the summation Page 53 August 25, 2009 over a five-year window, though. You can add up dollars a lot quicker than -- the current rule is an annual 50 percent rule. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But these are people building onto a nonconforming house not damaged. MR. WILEY: I wouldn't say nonconforming, but it is -- the base flood elevation is above the lowest floor. Nonconforming may have different meanings in planning and zoning issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what we're talking about today, it's nonconforming. MR. WILEY: Yeah, right. It does not match up with the base flood elevation, correct. Those are the only ones it would apply to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So your explanation if something happened to the house, they couldn't build it back without a lot of expense that exists now anyway. MR. WILEY: It does exist on an annual basis, that is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Robert, if we can go back to your bullet points, because we're done with this page. And we got -- I want to look at something -- I think the next item, which is 431.D, lower substantial improvement threshold pertains to one of your bullet points. I wanted to check the value. Yes, 10 points. So you're looking at the regulatory standard number five under D.l 0, if the regulatory threshold is 45 percent to 49 percent; is that right? MR. WILEY: I think that's correct. Let me get over here to my book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: He has to put on his other hat now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, members of the committee, if we can go through these and if we find ones that aren't objectionable and we want to make a consensus on it now so when we come to vote it's easier, I mean, that's part of the process, if you all are fine there. At Page 54 August 25, 2009 least we haven't (sic) go back and revisit it multiple times then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Either way. MR. WILEY: So that's where you come up with it, right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you relied on number five. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. And again, the reason for that was it looked like it was a free set of points versus making a substantial impact upon what the threshold value would be for one percent. We didn't figure you'd get two appraisals to agree even one percent anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does 49.5 fit in? MR. WILEY: 49.5 would be considered as 50. Anything above 49 (verbal sound) point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: DSAC was not favored -- did not favor this one? MR. WILEY: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did they have a reason? MR. WILEY: Their reasoning was that there are other portions of building code requirements that is based upon a 50 percent value. Now, let me -- careful here. I use the term building code requirements. I don't normally refer them to the Land Development Code building code, but they say there are other code requirements that are involved in the building process that they're going against a 50 percent value for other types of criteria, so they just wanted to keep 50 percent so everyone knows 50, and not have 49 for some, 50 for others. That was really their reasoning for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, are they confusing that with the damage, the 50 percent damage, Bob? I can show you parts of the code that's 25 percent in, you know, one year and stuff. MR. WILEY: I do not remember the specific points. They just said for consistency they wanted to keep it 50, because that matched up with other things that were involved in the reviews, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just think the accuracy of the Page 55 August 25, 2009 bookkeeping between 49 and 50, it looks like a freebie to me too, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I would agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next one is item 431.E. And it's -- did you ask any points on this? I see your other paper back here, protection of critical facilities. MR. WILEY : Yes, sir, we are. If you'll look -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many points are you seeking under this category? MR. WILEY: Up to 50. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty? MR. WILEY: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how did you -- so you went to E.2. There's a walk-around behind you, Robert, hanging on the -- if that helps. MR. WILEY: Okay, so I can have a mic when I'm over here. Under E.2, what we were looking at was the issue comes in do you want to protect -- first of all, we did not support the concept of keeping all critical facilities out of the floodplain. So we're looking at what level of protection. And in this particular situation here for critical facilities, which we identified what they were, we wanted to protect them from the 500-year flood, but without requiring them to also have to provide that same level of flood protection for the access to it. So therefore we went to the 50 point value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell us -- I mean, I think I know what they are, but could you tell us what critical facilities are? MR. WILEY: You can-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a definition, I believe, in one of -- MR. WILEY: Right. If you look at your definition under critical facilities, and there's a big listing of them. Fire stations; sheriffs office or law enforcement agency facilities, excluding the gun range; Page 56 August 25, 2009 medical emergency service stations, EMS stations; government agency vehicle and equipment storage facilities; the Collier County EOC, emergency operation center; emergency evacuation standards; water treatment plants, pump station and wells; wastewater treatment plants and pump stations; electric power substations; telephone communications centers, switching stations and towers; hospitals. And then the committee specifically added in through discussions from our emergency management department representative the extremely hazardous substances facilities. Those are the SARA Title III facilities. And that is to match up with the documentation that's already in our county's hazard mitigation plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess my -- go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess my question -- well, there's quite a few questions. But let's focus on the last bullet to start with. I asked you for the SARA section Title III, and I got it, it's on disk. I think we all got it. I reviewed that. Everything is on that list. I mean, common elements we find in our garages are on that I ist. Most everything in Home Depot is on that list. How are those treated based on this bullet? It says, extremely hazardous substances facilities. Is a retail store that sells paint, toluene, benzene and the other components that painters may want to use become a substances facility and thus become a critical facility? MR. WILEY: I cannot answer that. As I said, this was added at the request of other committee members. We had Ray Smith, who is the director for pollution control. And you had Rick Zyvoloski, who is with the emergency management. I really wish Ray could have been here. He was planning on being here. This was one of the issues he wanted to have information for you. He knows what the SARA Title III facilities are. I don't. He knows which ones meet certain threshold limitations that put them in this. I don't know that, sir. So I'm sort of in the dark. I just stuck it in Page 57 August 25,2009 because the committee said yes, we want it. So that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's going to be an important answer. Because if everybody that has a can of benzene or toluene or gasoline or whatever they've got in their garage that happens to fall under SARA Title IV or III -- Title III -- MR. WILEY: I'm sure that's not what it means, but I cannot tell you what is the threshold limit when you are a producer, when you're a manufacturer. I don't know that stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm worried about the way it's referred to. It says substances facilities. And I don't know if a facilities is just something that stores it for sale, that has a bulk, that is a retail shop that happened to have -- I mean, that list you gave us is huge. MR. WILEY: I know. That's why I had to put it on a disk. There's 109 pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, of chemicals. And they're each one line at a time. So those chemicals are going to be everywhere in this county. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, then-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, in this version of the code you're requiring critical facilities to be protected via elevation; is that correct? In other words, as referenced here it says it has to be protected. But somewhere in here I read where critical facilities can only be protected by elevation. In other words -- MR. WILEY: There are some of them that you would want to use for elevation and there are some that you could manage to floodproof. But -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing is -- MR. WILEY: -- let me give you an example there would be something along the lines of a water treatment plant. There's portions of it that you would not have to elevate because it -- you can simply mount your motors up high and put the drive down to it so, you know, Page 58 . _Ill. ...."._."q-._..,~ August 25, 2009 you can floodproof in that kind of situation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're hopefully keeping water in, so you're not worried about outside water. MR. WILEY : Well, this is supposed to be a sealed system. If it's not sealed, the water's squirting anyway, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A different problem. And then it's also saying the loss of access. So how far does that go? Does that mean all roads leading to it from Bangor, Maine, or what does that mean? MR. WILEY: The basic premise behind that is you would -- if you went for the point score to also provide access, you're providing that access to the 500-year level all the way throughout till you get outside of the special flood hazard area. Well, for Collier County, as you know where we are right now with coastal flooding unidentified (phonetic), you can do that. When we come up with the new terms in Immokalee, you still have special flood hazard area, so you really can never get out of it. So that's why it is not at all practical for us to try to say elevate the road that goes to a critical facility to above the 500-year flood elevation. That is not a practical thing to do, so we did not pursue that angle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But aren't we looking for something that will protect the loss of access in this number two? And while you're doing that, Bob, what is -- is there any map that shows our 500 year, or are we all in the 500 year? MR. WILEY: When you look on the current Flood Insurance Rate Map -- now you won't be able to see it on that small slide we gave you, because we put all of the X zone just as a single block of yellow on there because of the scale factor. But when you really zoom down into it, your X zones are divided between what is from the 100-year elevation up to the 500 and then from 500 on up. So you have shaded and unshaded X zones. We Page 59 August 25, 2009 just lumped them all together in the GIS for that particular graphic there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there is part of Collier County out of the 500 year. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Small part of it. MR. WILEY: On the current Flood Insurance Rate Map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But on the new-- MR. WILEY: On the new one there are still areas that are exceeding even the 500-year elevation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're very minor, Robert. Those little spots of yellow that show up in most of Immokalee is in yellow. MR. WILEY: They are very minor, sir. And most of them are fill pads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And so what happens is everything becomes -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we have islands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's this map that they -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it's the yellow. So the yellow on the draft version is essentially everything above 500. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So what happens is the yellow is the only thing that doesn't need flood insurance; the rest of the county now comes under these new rules. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then back to my question. The loss of the road access, there's nothing in Collier that wouldn't lose the road access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Soon there won't be anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how does that get us the 50 points? I think Brad's question is real relevant. MR. WILEY: Right. And the point score comes in on providing the access to the facility. Are you able to say it's totally above it or are Page 60 August 25, 2009 you able still to travel across it. So we're going to show them how we can still access the facilities. The facilities would be designed to be above and protected to the 500-year or above in this case, and we'll request a point value. They may not agree with the scores. We are going to go for it and see if we achieve it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just afraid that this would require us raising the height of roads and stuff. MR. WILEY: That's what we are not going for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, can you show us -- I mean, at the next meeting can you bring -- you said you're going to show them how we can get the access to meet this criteria. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you bring that to the next meeting and show us how you intend to show them? MR. WILEY: Yeah, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So E.2 will be another one we'll get into at the next meeting. In regards to -- and Brad, did you finish? I didn't mean to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In regards to some of this stuff on here, and it's all for critical facilities, are protected from damage and loss of access of the 500-year flood or the flood of record, whichever is higher. What is our highest flood of record? Is it greater than or less than the 500-year flood? MR. WILEY: Less. So we're going to the 500. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we can say that absolute. There's no doubt that will be what you just said? I mean, I don't want us to have a surprise down the road and find out that FEMA has a flood of record all of a sudden that is higher than the SOD-year and now we have a bigger problem. Page 61 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: I'm not aware of one, let's say it that way. In all the years that I've been here, I'm not aware of there being a flood documented greater than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What has Jim DeLony's department told you would be the cost to his department to meet the criteria ofE.2? MR. WILEY : Well, that's an interesting question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I asked it, Bob. MR. WILEY: I know. We had a meeting, it was involving utilities division and transportation division representatives. I was in the meeting, as well as County Manager. And so it was a very heated discussion at the start of it about all these enormous costs they would incur, they would incur this, dah, dah, dah, they were going through all this big list and it's going to just -- they can't afford it. And the County Manager looked at him and he said, we do not want your facilities to ever flood. You will support this. That was it, end of conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad we don't listen to the County Manager. So now, what is the cost ofE.2 from Jim DeLony's department if that were to go into effect? MR. WILEY: I do not know that, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think it's critical for us to know that. So can I have you contact utilities, specifically Mr. DeLony, and ask him who in his department should be assigned to respond to that question. MR. WILEY: I can ask for it. I don't know what kind of answer I will get back, but I can ask for it, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they would want to respond. MR. WILEY: Well, I'm sure they want to respond, but can they effectively give me a realistic answer? Keeping in mind that every water plant stuff, there's going to be unique situations to them. They Page 62 August 25, 2009 may come up with some ideas, but I don't know. See, when we originally went in to it, their discussion was that they were going to have to physically elevate every single plant immediately. And we says (sic) no, that's not what it says at all. But as you build plants, you will build them so they are able to be protected to that five-year (sic) elevation. Which in a lot of the situations for water treatment plants involves floodproofing techniques, not necessarily elevation. At that point they began to see where the County Manager was coming from, that it's a matter of how you arrange your equipment within existing buildings, providing some floodproofing for the outside, and your cost becomes very minimal. So as I say, I can go back to them, see if they can look at it. But their original discussion was assuming they had to just simply elevate everything, and that was not where we were going with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think as a member of this board myself, I need to see the costs. I need an estimate of costs. Because when the A VIR comes along and they have new facilities coming up down the road, they better know how much they're going to cost within fair reason. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And for retrofitting, that would not be fees associated with it, that would be ad valorem, wouldn't it? MR. WILEY : Well, utilities division is self-funded, they're an enterprise fund. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. WILEY: So it would come through their funding mechanism they currently have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So they would be charging customers for -- oh, boy. MR. WILEY : Well, now, in the situation for which you're describing for a retrofit, that is the prime example to where you apply Page 63 August 25, 2009 to FEMA. And they give you 75 cents on the dollar to do just that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would give that to governments as well as private enterprises? MR. WILEY: Well, let's say it this way, they prefer to give it to the government. In fact, a private entity cannot apply for a grant. If you homeowner wanted to go for a grant, you have to be a sub-applicant to your local government who applies for you. And they require the local government to be the overseeing entity. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's interesting; I didn't know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now do we set -- our elevations are set by -- is it the 100-year storm, Bard, our codes? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know. It's the FIRM maps are -- MR. WILEY: There are different elevations that you use. In your typical design for south Florida they use a 25-year, that's for your roads. For your house elevation, it is a zero discharge 100-year rainfall event. Or the FEMA, whichever is higher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the FEMA is generally close to the 100 year? MR. WILEY: Depending upon where you are, the closer you are to the coast, FEMA will exceed the 100-year from the rainfall event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, going to a 500-year most likely then would be higher? MR. WILEY: The 500-year by default is one foot higher than a 100-year. And we do not have those values for Collier County until the new FIRMs that are in development right now will be implemented. At that point we would have established 500-year elevations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, under E.2 and under the definition of critical facilities in the proposed ordinance, we're not just Page 64 August 25, 2009 talking about utilities, we're talking about everything the sheriffs office does, the EOC, fire stations, water treatment plants, pump stations and wells, wastewater treatment plants, electric power stations, which now is FP&L and Lee County Co-op or whoever, telephone communication centers, switching stations and towers and hospitals. I am very concerned about the cost of these facilities in regards to this increase, this 500-year level. We need more information on this. MR. WILEY: Well, what I did with it was I called up and asked the entities that would be involved with it. FP&L said that they fully supported it. At the time when it was the Sprint office I talked to, they fully supported it. They said yes, we agree to that. I talked to the sheriffs office. They're the ones that said put everything that they had. And so I asked them even about the gun range, and oh, no, no, no, leave that out. They wanted everything -- they don't want anything to ever have a chance of flooding. What people are looking at is by default people build to code, and they know that. So these agencies said yes, we want that. I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. WILEY: -- simply put it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Mr. Murray. Ms. Caron first. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah, I was just going to ask, I mean, which one of these would you like to see flooded and not worry about, your fire stations or your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait, wait. I don't want to see any flooded, Donna. My point here is what's the cost to do this, that's all. I just want to know what the cost was. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Relative to the sheriffs office, I think you'll find that, and maybe you know, they don't own any Page 65 August 25, 2009 buildings. By statute they're not allowed to own any buildings. So I don't know, that would come under the county's funds to take care of that, all of their facilities. That would be ad valorem or grants, correct? MR. WILEY: The portion funded by the local government would be probably ad valorem, since that's the way you get your funding for that from general taxes. And then the grant would be to supplement it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert. MR. WILEY: And those to be on retrofits, not new construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, one way that might help with this and might help all of us understand it, myself in particular, is if Bob Dunn were to take a stab at what this would entail going to the 500-year elevation. Bob's got building department experience, he knows how the codes work in regards to building. What do you think, Brad? I mean, he might be a good source to say well, yeah, from all the buildings we do in Collier County, this would cause all these to be -- this change to him. That might help us, and at least it might help me understand the impact of this. Because that's -- and I'm not saying we don't need it. I'm more concerned on how we get there. And if it's impractical to get there, it's like everything else, I mean, there's a lot of things I wish we could do that are better but we may not be able to do. So that's the point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, just based on your definition of between 100 and 500, if we had a firm plus one foot freeboard, wouldn't that essentially put everything above that 500-year at that time? MR. WILEY : Well, from that standpoint you could think of it yes, it would. But keep in mind that the freeboard issue is separate from -- Page 66 August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I understand that. MR. WILEY: So that if you have the one-foot default from the 1 DO-year to the 500-year, while that looks like that your freeboard took care of it, really you didn't do that. If you implemented a freeboard, you still to the 500. Then you still have the freeboard on top of that. The freeboard is a one-foot difference related to everything that you build against, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me follow up. Because in reading this, I don't get that impression. We have a base flood elevation -- MR. WILEY : Yes, sir, which is on your 100-year event. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that's the number. That's fixed. That's on maps. That's all over the place. We add to that freeboard in certain locations. What you're saying is that you're adding freeboard to everything. When I don't -- MR. WILEY: Well, that is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- think that's the case. MR. WILEY: -- the basic premise upon which the ordinance is based, which was the way we started our conversation, and across-the-board freeboard. Now, we followed up with the conversation that said we can selectively pick and choose, should we so desire. But the current ordinance is across-the-board uniform freeboard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't think if we add one- foot freeboard that adds one foot to every time we mention an elevation here. And the reason I don't think so is when I asked you about where in the code it required the base flood elevation plus one foot, that if we had a freeboard of one foot, that would have been met by the freeboard. Page 67 August 25, 2009 So, you know, you do have places in the code where you say base flood elevation plus one foot, plus freeboard. But freeboard is applied only where it's referenced in this ordinance, not everywhere. So in other words, if you have a 500-year elevation in that section and we have a freeboard requirement, that doesn't mean you add one foot to that 500-year elevation. MR. WILEY: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how do you come to that? MR. WILEY: Because by our definition of freeboard, we have said it applies to the base flood elevation that's for the lowest floor elevation. Now, the reference you were speaking of dealt with floodproofing which has its base flood plus one foot, and then we added freeboard to it. You were also talking about the installation of a meter and stuff. This talks about base flood plus one foot. Different situation there. But when you're establishing the lowest floor elevation or you're floodproofing, be careful how you look at it. Because if you put a uniform across-the-board freeboard, that applies to that floor elevation upon which a structure's based, no matter which design storm event you go against. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, I don't agree that it changes all our numbers by one foot. I agree it's -- where we reference the need for freeboard it applies only there. But move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: From what I understand, the way you're saying it, and I may be missing something, it's too subtle for me, but it sounds like it could be more easily expressed, but not accurate, necessarily, is that we're planning for the 500-year storm plus a foot equal to freeboard. You say 100-year storm plus a foot plus freeboard, but you want it uniform. Am I right so far? MR. WILEY: We're mixing terms again. Page 68 August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm trying to hang onto here. And I realize we're talking flood prevention now, or flood whatever it is you said it was. And that's what I thought I was talking about. MR. WILEY: Okay, for the typical situation of a non-critical facility, we're talking about to the 100-year flood elevation plus freeboard, if we choose to have a freeboard condition in the ordinance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's for Joe Average. MR. WILEY: That's for Joe Average. F or a critical facility -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Like the Home Depot. MR. WILEY: Right. For a critical facility, we're saying not the 100-year but you start now at the 500 -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Five-hundred year. MR. WILEY: -- and then if you have a freeboard, you would add the freeboard to that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I finally got the difference. MR. WILEY: Now, by fault, what we're saying is the 500-year FEMA, without a study defines it as one foot above. So this one foot keeps getting confusing around in there, but that's just the way that their program is set up to work. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, excuse my continued ignorance, but what are we compelling Joe Average to do by having it across the board? Aren't we compelling him to go to the 500-year standard? MR. WILEY: Effectively you are, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I've been hearing, and that distresses me. MR. WILEY: Because you are putting the one foot of freeboard as a factor of safety above -- Page 69 ~""""-~ n 1'11" ._,.""'~._' August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why don't we just say that then, if that's what we really want to do? Why do we insert something that becomes a tripping hazard to the understanding process, only to find out that in reality if this were passed as you've written it, that it would be compulsory anyway. MR. WILEY: The reason you don't say it is -- you're going to design to the 500-year elevation, is because your flood insurance rate map, the flood map that FEMA gives you, is defined by the 100-year event. So the elevations are always based upon that that you have to build to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So maybe we shouldn't be looking to compel everybody to comply effectively with the 500-year and the free board. MR. WILEY: That's the direction Mr. Strain was also -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, no, it's the same direction I'm going in too, I assure you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on E.2 you're going to get back to us from input on some of these cost factors that may have impacted some of the other departments. And I think utilities is important. Capital facilities is also important because they do the sheriffs station. If you don't have -- if you believe the electric and telephone companies are happy with it, that's fine. I work with a lot of their planers, I'll probably give them a call myself, and it would be nice to -- we'll just -- so I'll save you the trouble there. But any other facilities here that you could contact would be helpful. Dan Summers probably doesn't got (sic) to worry about it because his new facility has got to be state-of-the-art for $60 million. MR. WILEY: He's good for a Category 5 hurricane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. So I'm sure he's going to be happy with it. Fire stations -- fire departments I'm a little concerned about. Page 70 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: I did not call them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only reason is if we go to the 500, we're getting up in height. Sometimes the lots that they have to work on can't take the height. MR. WILEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that may limit their ability to be spread out in the county in the way they like to be spread out. And that also then affects ISO ratings because they can't get close enough to the constituents there that are protect for (sic), so there's a lot involved in that one. And I think some impact would be helpful from them as well. As we move along at a snail's pace, Item 431.F, protection of floodplain storage capacity. If I'm not mistaken, that was one of the ones you're trying to utilize; is that right? MR. WILEY : We will utilize it after the flood insurance rate map is put into effect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does that mean, Robert? MR. WILEY: Okay. Well, let's go back up here. Thanks, Brad. We're looking -- that is down at the bottom of the screen where it says next year protection of floodplain storage capacity. Basically that is only applicable in the CRS program when you have a defined riverine type of flooding, not a coastal surge program. Our current flood insurance rate maps are all based strictly upon coastal surge. Until we get the new maps developed, which will be about a year from now when they'll go into effect -- when they may go into effect; I may not state the schedule quite that affirmatively -- they will have areas that are rainfall induced riverine type flooding. At that point we could then have within our ordinance a reason to propose protection of floodplain storage capacity. And basically what that says is when you are in a floodplain, if you're going to place fill, you will have to come up with an equivalent displacement volume somewhere within close proximity and at about the same elevation as Page 71 August 25, 2009 where you placed the fill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you got a 4,000 square foot or a 3,000 square foot home and you've got five foot around it, so maybe you're using 4,000 square feet, and you got -- what about a driveway coming in? MR. WILEY : We have stated in here that for a single lane driveway, and should you have a septic system for all the septic and drain field, those volumes would be excluded. It would strictly be the pad for the structure itself that would be having to be considered for displacement volume. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the outside slope of the pad? MR. WILEY: That's fill. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you would just go to another portion of your site and do what to make the site meet this criteria? MR. WILEY: Between the surface and the wet season water table you would excavate down to create a replacement volume for the area that you filled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What time of year would you take that MR. WILEY : Wet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- water volume? MR. WILEY: -- season water table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So out where I live I have a foot; maybe 18 inches, but let's say a foot. I have -- my house is small, but let's say it was 4,000 square feet. And I have a barn that's, say, 1,000 square feet. So I've got 5,000 square feet. So now I've got to go out in my backyard somewhere, take the trees down, of course, that the environmental department won't want me to take down, take all the fill out down to what depth in order to compensate for this issue? MR. WILEY : Well, what you would look at is the volume that Page 72 August 25, 2009 the fill displaced from the surface up to the elevation for that 100-year event. Now, let's just assume it's a foot of depth. That way it makes the numbers easy. So you now have 5,000 cubic feet. So you have to replace that with 5,000 cubic feet of storage between the surface and the wet season water table. The storage volume in your existing soil is assumed to be equivalent. You're already having it there. What that would do is it would basically direct a lot of the construction techniques to somewhat change to not having a big fill pad to going more to a stem wall type construction. The really zero example would be using an elevated foundation where you had the flood vents so that during those peak storm events water could actually flow under and then back out of the house through the automatic vent. And at that point you would have a zero impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I could dwell on this one for a while, but this is not going to come up to us until possibly next year. It's not being recommended with this round, is it? MR. WILEY: It is not recommended with this round because it has no applicability right now, that's correct. Just so you'll understand, within the LDC we already have that requirement for portions of the county as part of our interim watershed management regulations. So this follows up with what we are somewhat already doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We would not be advocating stem wall or vented foundations be initiated in new construction here in the western Collier or in the flood zone? MR. WILEY: We would not say we're adverse to it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We wouldn't advocate it. MR. WILEY: But that really it boils down to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we're going to wait the year Page 73 August 25, 2009 until we get -- year or more until we get that other part of it, which is the velocity issues of water out there in the East to take that on; am I correct? MR. WILEY : Well, just so you understand, the riverine flooding comes all the way up to where your coastal surge ends. Round numbers, that's somewhere not too far from U.S. 41, Goodlette-Frank Road area. So on -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess maybe it's out of the scope of this, but I remember Stan Chrzanowski coming before us and talking about the desirability, especially in the Golden Gate Estates, because of the flooding now because of neighbors, the large size of homes, advocating stem wall invented -- maybe just stem wall at the time. But this doesn't apply here, we're going to wait until we have that other piece in place before we even relate to that. MR. WILEY: We could put it in the ordinance right now. We could not apply for credit points until we have an effective map which has a riverine based flood zone designation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't it be useful to have it in there in anticipation of -- MR. WILEY : Yes, it would. I'm not adverse to putting it in. But I'm trying to go with what I know has a regulatory impact. And I figure I'm getting beat up enough with what I've already proposed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not going to beat you up. MR. WILEY: From other -- not you, sir, from other people who have reviewed this because they did not like what Stan put through either. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay, but I will just finish up by telling you that if it's a good practice and it's intelligent to avoid flooding for neighbors' homes out there, right now irrespective of 500 and 100-year storms, it seems like something that if you're going to Page 74 August 25, 2009 have it eventually, it might be useful to have it in there today. Maybe you want to expand on why those persons -- maybe it's not applicable. But certainly I think -- one person thinks that's not a bad idea to put something in there about that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? MR. WILEY: It is a very good feature to have even right now; would be an excellent thing. And it primarily dealt with the cost factor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Bob, isn't it in here? I mean, I'm actually trying to find it real quick. But I remember reading, because I remember the way it was worded, it was establish an area rather than -- you know, it seemed an odd code word, establish. But isn't it in here now that we have to do that in a riverine situation? Like I said, I've been flipping here and I can't -- MR. WILEY: In the current ordinance? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right now it's not in here? MR. WILEY: I don't think it's in there. But I've modified this so much, it may actually still -- I would have to go look and see. Let me follow up on that one just to confirm it. But I know that we can't apply for the credit points, I know that, until we get the new map. But let me look on that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we've still got to walk through the language in the ordinance, but we're working on the bullet stuff right now. The next item is 431.G. It's natural and beneficial functions regulations. There's a series of scorings in there. Some of them obviously wouldn't work, some I don't know why they wouldn't. Maybe Robert, if you have them handy we could walk through them. I understand I.A, it would be difficult to apply in this county. Page 75 August 25, 2009 l.B may not be, though. Especially since I don't know if our sanitary landfill already might meet the requirements and we don't accept any more. And most of the stuffs on the next page. MR. WILEY: Okay, we can go through them here. This just shows you where it starts so everyone can see in the CRS manual. But then when you flip it across, the points -- it says regulations -- just like you said, because we don't have a very limited floodplain, it's massive in the area. When we looked at the criteria we're going through here, some of the stuff we're already doing, we're not saying it's specific to floodplain issues. So it just really depends on how far you want us to go with some of -- but some stuff is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe're doing l.B, for example, it says one or two specific activities. One of them, sanitary landfill. Are we permitting any sanitary landfills in the floodplains? Because if we aren't and we already meet that criteria, why wouldn't we just apply for it? MR. WILEY: That's where our landfall currently is, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is currently, but are we -- we're not going to prohibit -- we're not going to permit another one, are we? We don't have any other ones on the book in the floodplain. MR. WILEY: Not that I know of. However, should there be an expansion? I don't want to get us in a situation that we box ourself in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does the landfill, by the way, come under the expansion if it's already in a floodplain and it's going to be in an A zone in the future? We always -- the landfills just came in for an expansion the other day that they haven't applied for building permits on, but they're trying to come through the PUD process. Plus they constantly regurgitate the cells out there. They create more space for newer cells. So how does that -- does that fall under the 49 or 50 -- yeah, regurgitate's a good word for it -- 49 or 50 percent rule? Does the Page 76 August 25, 2009 landfill come under that rule, or will it? MR. WILEY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WILEY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how is it and why is it exempted? MR. WILEY: Currently it's in a Zone X. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know that, but it's going to be in a Zone A. MR. WILEY: It's going to have a Zone AH, I think it is, around all the properties around it, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's zoned A and it's an SFHA, how do we avoid the 49 percent rebuild rule on the landfill? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good question. MR. WILEY : Well, the 49 percent rebuild rule deals with mitigating and bringing it up in elevation. That's not a structure. So you either have it in the landfill or you -- I mean, you either have a landfill or you don't. You don't raise the bottom of a landfill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how do we compensate for the storage that those cells take up then under the compensation one that we just finished talking about? MR. WILEY: Should we expand it, then they would have to go some -- if we went with the compensating storage, the volume that they were going to displace, they would have to go to an adjacent property or -- owner of the property or us -- and account for that volumetric storage. So it can have -- don't take these things lightly. These things have some potentially big impacts upon the way we think. But think of what it does. As it begins to focus, the real issue of addressing accounting for how we place fill in our county so that we do not change the impacts of flooding from this property onto an adjoining property. So you do not raise the base flood elevation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we don't really have a lot of choice Page 77 August 25, 2009 in placing the fill for our landfill. MR. WILEY: That is correct. So at that point you would basically bite the bullet and come up with the compensating storage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which involves a cost to the taxpayers, depending on how that is accomplished. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's going to be where the questions will be focused on that one. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did find it. We actually have it. It's under Section 17, 14.0. You have it in there today doing exactly that. COMMISSIONER CARON: What page, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 28 of 48 in the 3/23. Line 16. MR. WILEY: Okay, so I do have it in there then, it looks like. Okay, good. I didn't know if it was still in or not. I know -- I'm glad it's in there then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the item that we were previously talking about we didn't dwelling on because it wasn't going to be applied for a year from now -- MR. WILEY: It looks like -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is already in the ordinance that -- where it wasn't supposed to be. MR. WILEY: It looks like it still is in there then, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason that it wasn't going to be applied for in a year from now is because it couldn't be applied for now because we didn't have the establishment of those floodplains. So now that it's there, what does this all mean? Page 78 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: Since there is no FEMA established floodplain in an area for which this would apply, it becomes an issue that you do not address until your FEMA map changes. Now, where you do still address it, that's what I said, the issue is within the development approval and not the single-family house approval. But it's in the development approval through the Land Development Code as far as the interim watershed regulations. You already have that requirement in there for new developments that are addressing that issue, and it identifies which areas they have to address it in. This comes into play for the single-family, but only at the point that we have a FEMA designated riverine floodplain, which we don't have them yet, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But with the new map that we now got from you, the whole county is there and we will have it in the future. MR. WILEY : You'll have it there in a little over a year from now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it is a real concern. And as you just said, it needs not to be taken lightly. So with that language in there, we automatically have now created a problem for the landfill. So when Mr. DeLony looks at the utilities, would you ask him to look at the landfill impacts of this particular clause as well? Because ifhe has to compensate for that, I'm sure Dan Rodriguez would like to know where he's going to get all this additional land that seems to be a problem out in the area where he's working, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we'll discuss later when we go page-by-page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, we're going to go page-by-page through that document. We're still trying to get through Page 79 August 25, 2009 the bullets that we got started with in the beginning. And I'm not sure how long that's going to take. But I mean again, I will also defer to this board, if you all want to sidetrack and get back into something else. Otherwise, I'll just keep plugging ahead. We're on that natural and beneficial functions regulations. COMMISSIONER CARON: Slow down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Poor Cherie'. You're going to kill me when this day's over. COMMISSIONER CARON: Poor Cherie' and for yourself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I.A is impractical. I.B may be practical for new applications, but maybe not, if we have to apply it to existing applications. Under 2, where regulations require new floodplain developments to avoid or minimize disruption to shorelines, stream channels and their banks. Does any of that apply to Collier County? MR. WILEY: You do run into that. But we do not prohibit it. As a part of the regulatory review through the various agencies that are involved, generally those are wetland areas, so they do have regulations, but it does not prohibit certain things. We are not proposing to come in and put an across-the-board prohibition on it. We feel like it's being addressed through the regulatory agencies. With that being said, we're very limited on whether we can ask for credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where in this county -- the shorelines I'm assuming are only meant to be the shorelines along the Gulf of Mexico? MR. WILEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's -- where else is shorelines? What else would be considered shorelines then? MR. WILEY: Any lake-- Page 80 August 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any lake. Manmade-- MR. WILEY: -- that's a water body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or otherwise? MR. WILEY: That's a water body. Once it's built it's a water body, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So all water management facilities in this county then. Then that makes sense as to why that applies that way. Number 3, either -- that's 15 for habitat conservation plan or similar plan that has been credited under 511.B or 3.B, which is regulations that protect aquatic or riparian habitat from new development. We've got a lot of regulations to protect habitat in this county. Do we qualify for either of those, or have we used that qualification? MR. WILEY: I have not looked at this one for that issue yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well there's -- MR. WILEY: That stuff -- that's stuff for us to look at from staff level. We have not done so with this one yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When I -- when the guy from the committee was here a little while ago, didn't they walk through these? Or did you just present the ones you were looking at and they didn't see the rest of them? MR. WILEY: We presented the ones we were looking at in our discussions. We gave them the entire Section 430. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then they questioned -- okay. Well, I guess this is why this process has to go forward. And I wish he was here so he could understand the differences. Because I didn't want him to think I wasn't -- I was criticizing his job, it's just that there may be more that we need to look at. So if you could look at, oh, it would be G, three, A and B. The next one would be H, and it would be enclosure limits. 300 points prohibiting first floor enclosures. Page 81 August 25, 2009 Did you already address this in your bullet points on the first page, the one that's not on the screen right now? Because I remember reading a lot of language in the document that we're going to go through that prohibits building enclosures on the first floor. COMMISSIONER CARON: No air conditioning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, all kinds of stuff. So did we capital on that in using H.l ? MR. WILEY: Under H.l it says you get 300 points if you prohibit building enclosures, including breakaway walls below the base flood elevation. Now, remember, this is going to affect you primarily. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We need to see it on the -- MR. WILEY: Okay, hang on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thanks. MR. WILEY: When you are along the coast line in a VE zone, you elevate the structure. But it allows you to have up to 300 square feet of enclosed area for your access, such as an enclosed stairway and stuff. If you put this in, they cannot have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this eliminates everything: Lobbies for elevators -- you can't even bring an elevator down to that floor? MR. WILEY: You could bring the elevator to the floor, but it would be an elevator that would have to be -- currently it's even right now designed for the FEMA requirements, because you have the elevator opening below the BFE. So it has certain criteria for it. But what it would prohibit you from doing is what a lot of people are already doing is you've got the elevated structure, so they build the breakaway wall to basically enclose it so you don't know that it's built up. It looks like it's living -- but it's not supposed to be living space. However, we know that some people then turn them into living space without getting the proper permits for that. Which is illegal, but Page 82 August 25, 2009 it happens. If you put this regulation in, you would never be able to have anybody even put up the stuff for breakaway wall. It would be wide up underneath the houses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that makes sense. Item 2.A is pretty self-explanatory in reading it. But item 2.B, if we don't allow item 2.B, why wouldn't we want the owner of the building to sign a non-conversion agreement? I mean, we don't allow that conversion now, do we? MR. WILEY: Permit-wise, no. Does it happen? Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know it happens. But then of course the world comes unglued because somebody violated with-- did something without a permit and everything breaks loose. But they weren't supposed to. So why wouldn't 2-B be something we'd want to consider, or have we considered it; it is in your numbers somewhere? MR. WILEY: It is not in my number. I didn't figure it was enforceable. If we aren't enforcing it now, how would we enforce it just because somebody signs a paper? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't say enforcing, it just says they get -- they signed the non-conversion agreement, which could be issued with their building permit where applicable. And that the -- and in that non-conversion agreement that they signed, they also signed their right to inspect the enclosed area. Boom, it's done. It doesn't say we've got to send people out and inspect it daily, does it? MR. WILEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Explain to me why we -- if it's already in our code and they're already not supposed to do it and we just simply tell them when they apply for a building permit they agree that they won't do it and that they agree to let us inspect it to make sure they didn't do it if we want to, how -- what is wrong with doing that? I'm just curious, how does that not fit into the plan? Page 83 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: I am not disagreeing that there's -- there's nothing wrong with doing it. From the practical side I don't think we will be able to prove to FEMA every year that we are enforcing it. And if I cannot prove to FEMA we are enforcing it, we get nailed. I have to go through and certify every year that we are enforcing every criteria for which we apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. MR. WILEY: Okay. Maybe I'm reading this wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're missing something in our communication here, Robert. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I think we are missing something. One of -- you know, some of us are missing something here, because it doesn't say anything about enforcement here. It just says we have the right to inspect. It doesn't say you're required to inspect, it doesn't say how often you're required. It says nothing about requiring you to -- you have to get them to sign off on it. Sign a letter that they're in agreement not to do this, and giving us the right to inspect. It doesn't say we have to inspect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, doesn't the building official have that right anyway if it's -- he has suspicion that it isn't proper? On the plans to build that building, all these notations are made such that -- so if the building official saw a window air conditioner unit in it, he would certainly be able to inspect that. Anyway, I mean MR. WILEY : We can, through our building officials and the code enforcement, go and inspect. We can. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, this isn't telling you to do it, this is just saying that when you do knock on the door, you Page 84 August 25, 2009 have a copy of this form where the original owner or this owner gave them the right to do that, which I think they have anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schmitt. Welcome. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. On entering private property, there are certain procedures we would have to -- there's a due process. I would have to receive some kind of a court judgment. I can go to the front door -- code enforcement official can go to the front door and knock on the front door, but I have no right to enter that property. If I have any type of -- I would have to get a court order. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you have health, safety and welfare issues. MR. SCHMITT: I would have to proceed through some court order to go on and inspect property, unless -- MR. KLA TZKOW: But Joe, it's like every other code case, you get an administrative warrant. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I'd have to get an administrative warrant to enter the property. MR. KLA TZKOW: But you do that for every other code inspection we have. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. To enforce this -- and what Robert's saying, yeah, I could put it in the ordinance, but I would probably have to demonstrate that I have some method of enforcing this, either through auditing property transfers, making sure that these documents are signed and filed. Part of the file -- and recorded in the clerk's office or some other mechanism to ensure that we're complying with this requirement. I could put it in the ordinance. It's a matter of demonstrating that we're enforcing it, and FEMA would check that as part of their audit. But to answer your question about entering property, the building official can't summarily just go up and enter a property. There has to be a -- Page 85 August 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have an agreement that says you can, you can, right? MR. SCHMITT: If they sign an agreement, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all says to do. Mr. Murray? MR. SCHMITT: But that agreement is signed when? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When they get a building permit. MR. SCHMITT: When they purchase the property and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When they get a building permit. When they come in for a building permit. That's what this is saying. If regulations -- so we establish a regulation that says if you're going to build a building in one of these zones, you're going to agree not to convert the area below flood elevation. And you also are going to agree to let us come on the property and inspect it when we so choose for that reason. What is so hard about that? MR. SCHMITT: That they sign that and they sign a waiver and it's legally defensible, yes, I can inspect it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: I'll give you an example. Barefoot Lely Beach. They built above floodplain. They get their building permit. Those buildings are approved and CO'd. But we know after CO people have gone in and put improvements into the basements -- their alleged basement, their first floor. Yeah, they were designed to be frangible walls, breakaway walls. And the first habitable floor is supposed to be at that -- out there was what, 14, 18 feet, whatever it is. But I don't go knocking on the door and say now I want to come in and see your basement to see if you put anything in your basement. If this were in effect and they signed it, I would have that authority to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but see, if -- I think what the Page 86 August 25, 2009 intent here is, if you create a regulation that creates this additional non-conversion agreement that obviously then becomes an issue and these people know that you have the right to -- a lot less people may do that conversion. That's the whole purpose of this code in the first place is to discourage people from doing these things. And if that's all this does for 50 points, it might be a good one to look at. Mr. Murray, I'm sorry you have-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's all right -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm talking. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is -- MR. SCHMITT: I have no argument. We report every year -- or every other year we have to report any variances that we approved. And I can't think -- Robert, what's the last variance, back in the Eighties? I think we have a few variances where they were approved in Collier County. But we have to report all those. We have to report any type of a permit that we approved, any type of construction below the BFE. So this may be -- certainly be a viable process, but we'll look at it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm glad that you worked your way through that, because what Mr. Wiley was saying is that FEMA holds us to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to, by he would have to certify that there was an active inspection process that precluded any violation, which is in itself I think beyond the pale. We have code enforcement. Code enforcement will come in with a case that can be seven years ago they did something and they only found it now. We can't stop the realities of life. I definitely think this is something that is worthwhile going after. And it's pretty obvious. And if this is a FEMA guideline, you know, we're talking about a contract between the two parties, the government and the owner. And I assume its heirs, successors and assigns. So I don't see where the problem is, quite frankly. MR. WILEY: I'll be glad to add that one. Page 87 August 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, on these things, remember you said earlier that we could get partial? For example, if half the county met a requirement, you could possibly get half of the bonus points? Is that true? MR. WILEY: When you look at your score sheet, you look to see the area covered by it, right. So that is one of the breakdowns for breaking out the percentage of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what I'm thinking of is, you know, there's a lot of parts of the county that would never, once you elevate them, really have room to build underneath it. So why wouldn't we grab some of these? Like let's say I had to build, you know, a stem wall house four feet in the air. I'm not going to go down there and furnish it. So the 300 up there, if you had a regulation or -- you know what I mean? You could start putting some regulations on areas you know it's never going to apply, just to prorate some points. So in other words MR. WILEY: I'll be glad to add it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you look at that -- I mean, obviously there's some error. I mean, I don't think people with four- foot elevations want it open underneath, but you could grab some of these. Where if you're enclosing it with stem wall and stuff, that there's no height that you could even develop it anyway. We may be able to snag a percentage. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and I have another thing. After having reread this again for the ninth time, you made a statement, Robert, that they could not have this enclosure down there for an elevator or for stairs. And yet when you read this it says promising not to improve, finish or otherwise convert. Page 88 August 25, 2009 If it were in -- if that enclosure were in the building plans in the first instance and was approved because it was appropriate for an access, why would you then say that they couldn't have that? MR. WILEY: Because we were looking at the first part of this regulation, not this particular part. This is the last item on the list, which is your B. And the initial discussion started up at the top of the list. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but have you changed your mind about that now? MR. WILEY : Well, if it's approved with the building where you can have the breakaway walls, then that's what you can have. This one says then you will not go inside and remodel it and basically -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's fine. MR. WILEY: -- turn it into living space. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if the person signs the agreement, that doesn't preclude then the construction of access ways. MR. WILEY: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. WILEY: That's part-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you had indicated that's what you thought. MR. WILEY : Well, again, that's where we were talking about from the very first one where it says no enclosures. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, Joe did bring up a point, that you knock on my door and show me that thing, but it was the prior owner's signature, I'm not the owner of -- you know, I may be able to chase you away. So there might be something that has to happen in a closing that moves this forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, interesting you should bring that up. Page 89 August 25, 2009 Look at the next page, Robert, after this one. If the community also requires that the non-conversion agreement be filed with a deed and other property records, it would receive credit under activity 340 hazard disclosure, section 341.B of the disclosure requirements. So you got a chance to pick up even more points by simply recording it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But don't we have hazard disclosure already? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there we get in -- I was going to tell you, there are 17 of these sections, 17 activities. We're halfway through one of the 17 activities. And out of the 17, 16 or 15 probably apply to us. One doesn't because it's out of our realm. The time frame in the process as you can see is going to be a little intense. But as far as the hazard one that Mr. Schiffer's asking about, that one was a little different. There's a -- I'm trying to find it. Hazards, Robert, changed. Oh, it's 340. We have -- if you look at the -- there's a total of 81 points for hazard disclosure under activity 340. But we've not requested any of them, according to the sheets that were just given to us. And I think that's another issue that I think we're going to be walking through like we are this one, Brad. Because there are -- but they are I think in the new application, the ones you're -- yeah. MR. WILEY: That's in the proposed ordinance. Here we're proposing to go for that; whereas, in the old score features we have not done it in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how many points are you trying to get out of hazard disclosure? MR. WILEY: We are going for 71. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And a total of81. So we're not too far off. Because -- I forgot what the average is, but it's somewhere in here. Okay. Up on the top is that answer to I think either Bob or Brad, one of you guys just brought up that question about how a subsequent Page 90 August 25, 2009 owner picks it up. Well, there's how. And if you do that, you even get more credits on another section of this particular CSR -- CRS. But the next -- go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. So we can essentially pick up more than the 71 points by disclosing different things? MR. WILEY: I wasn't ready for that question. I've got to go back and look see how I came up with my 71 points. When we break for lunch I'll try to look at that and answer you when we get back. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one is I, other higher standards. Now, this is up to -- this is a catchall. It's up to 100 points. And they give examples. Could you move down to the examples of three bullets? And it says they're not limited to these examples. Now, some of them may not be practical, but I'm wondering if we could come up with -- has any -- did anybody attempt to come up with examples here that we might qualify under? MR. WILEY: The one that we are trying to qualify under is the periodic inspection and practice installation of your dry floodproofing components. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how many points is that? MR. WILEY: Well, I don't know until I apply. When I ran it by FEMA, they were real excited about it, but they did not tell me how many points they would give us. So we'll apply and we'll ask for a lot of points and see what they come back with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's not on your bullet list. MR. WILEY: It is under other higher standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, on the bullet list, the colored one that's on the other screen. And we can't -- I know you can't keep them both up here. MR. WILEY: Other higher standards. It is your one, two, three, Page 91 August 25, 2009 four, five, sixth bullet down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You got up to 10 points. And this says 100. Up to a maximum of 100. MR. WILEY : Well, I'm guessing low on this one saying up to 10 points, because if you propose to not allow tloodproofing and require everyone to elevate, that's only good for 10 points. Well, I don't know how many I can expect to get beyond that if I'm simply saying we approve floodproofing. But you demonstrate to us that the materials are still there and you know how to put them up, they may not give one or two, they may give 10, they may give more. I do not know until we apply for it. But this is where we went out and we made up to address an issue that we see is out there. People who are approved for tloodproofing but then through the years, the things tend to disappear. And at that point they're not in compliance with what their building was approved for construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could put that page back on then. Let's -- I hate to keep shuffling here. We need multiple screens. MR. WILEY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's another million dollar improvement to this podium we could have. See like the third bullet requiring all new multi-family and commercial buildings to provide access to dry land. Well, when you step out of a building, they don't get you stepping out into a swamp, so we do that already. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering, what does this mean? How much dry land do they need? Is there a-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Build a mound. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, aren't we doing that by the fact we have a perimeter and all the properties are filled and we have walkways and everything else?, Page 92 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: Yeah, you would want to think that, wouldn't you? But where's the water when you have your one percent annual chance for flood event? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I couldn't-- MR. WILEY: Where is your water when you are in the midst of your 100-year flood? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're at the walkway at the level of your building, you're still dry. It's when you go down the walkway to a perimeter that you're not. But, I mean, since -- MR. WILEY: What they're getting at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I've been involved in building subdivisions, I've never built one where we didn't fill the whole darn subdivision. MR. WILEY: Let me give you the example that they use for this, and it was a very tragic situation. There was a nursing home that was built. Access was not provided to it in a community. During the flood, the building caught on fire, and the firemen simply stood and watched the people die. They could not get to it. This is the kind of situation that they're wanting you to say you've got access at all times to get to it during the flood event. Well, we don't necessarily have that ability, because our streets and things are not up to that elevation. So I'm not saying that we couldn't apply and get some credits, but I don't think we would have a good chance of proving that we have access during that one percent annual chance flood event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, these are just examples. And I just wanted to make sure we've explored any other possibilities. MR. WILEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the one you've actually come up with then is this one -- MR. WILEY: That's an example that they used to explain why they want to offer you points for other regulations that go beyond just Page 93 August 25, 2009 the building itself but considering the location within the entire community for access. That's just one example they're giving. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the next one, if you move down to Page J, this would be one of Brad's favorites. Land development criteria. And this is unique. Here we look at urban sprawl as lowering density and we try to prohibit it. This code does just the opposite, it encourages lower density and creates a huge amount of points if you lower density. In this county very few developments build out to the density that's provided to them. In fact, we're always bragging, developers come in here and say well, I could have built, like this last one, 722 on the corner of Santa Barbara and Davis, and instead they're building 525. So how many points can we get for that? MR. WILEY: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WILEY: The reason is because you would allow them to build out. They may choose to not, but your regulations do not prohibit the densities within the floodplain that would let us get the credits for this because -- and this is really set up more for a community with strictly a riverine system where you have just small portions of the community that are within the special flood hazard area, and so you put special regulations such as massive green space requirements, things like that, so it's really low density; whereas the rest of your community outside the special flood hazard can build that atypical density. Well, with our floodplain being so broad and encompassing, basically the bulk of the developed portions of the county, we would have to have that across the board. And I don't think that is coming. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Page 94 August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can make the argument we're applying. We're achieving that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, and especially right now with what's going on in the RLSA, we have purposely made land development regulations out there to leave swaths of flowways open that the environmental community has desired. And everybody's agreed to these things. Our regulations are going to read that way. Now, the RLSA is 200,000 acres. Collier County is I don't remember right now, but let's say -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So many square miles. Too many acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say it's 25 percent of the total acres in Collier County. Would we with that portion of our land development regulations get 25 percent of the 700 credits? Or couldn't we at least attempt to apply for them? I mean, we just did the RLSA, we know it pretty well. The regulations in there are very strict about using those flowways. It would seem to me to be a huge advantage in Item J here. And even if we got 10 percent, which I know those -- that land out there is greater than 10 percent of Collier County, 10 percent is 70 points. MR. WILEY: And once that gets to be within our floodplain, we may have a valid argument for that. That won't happen till the new . maps come In. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a lot of points, Bob. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we look at this? Because if we can do points like that for stuff that we're already accepting and avoid points for the freeboard that's going to be so costly to this community, and this takes another year, it's going to take a year to get through this committee alone, so we're going to be there already. MR. WILEY: This particular one would not require any change in our ordinance, as I understand it. It's just a matter of us Page 95 August 25, 2009 documenting it. We have nothing with which to document, what I'm saying right now, to apply for those points. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got the RLSA program. MR. WILEY: As they come into play where that is area within your special flood hazard area, we can begin to claim credit because we have lands to which that then applies. Right now all it applies to basically is our ability to show open space, and that's in your state parks, county preserves, things like -- and we are getting credit for that in another portion of the CRS program. COMMISSIONER CARON: But you're getting credit for it in another portion for all of our state lands; is that what you're saying? MR. WILEY: What I said was within the open space credits that you can get in the CRS program, we do get to add up the acreages for all these various preserves, open space as defined, meeting FEMA's criteria. We are already getting point credits for those. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. But back to the RLSA. It currently is in place with those flowways already approved. That wasn't anything new that we approved this last time around. MR. WILEY: That's correct. But that's in Zone 0 and Zone X. It's not within the special flood hazard area. COMMISSIONER CARON: But as soon as the new maps are out -- MR. WILEY: That's what I said, then we can apply for the credits under this particular activity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why don't we figure that out now-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we know how much ofa hassle we don't need to go through with all these other things that are getting so controversial and so upsetting to people. Why don't we look at that, at least come up with an idea what we might apply for. COMMISSIONER CARON: We may be able to move from a Page 96 August 25, 2009 six to a five. MR. WILEY: We hope to, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or a two. MR. WILEY: No, we'll not make it to a two, but I hope to get us to a class five within two years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- couple questions. How many points of this do we have right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of that one, none. MR. WILEY: On this one, none. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: None? Okay. What is low density -- MR. WILEY: Let me back up a minute. I say none, but I need to go verify that when I look at my official report. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it sounded like you were using it. What is low density, according to this section? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 430.LD. We've got to find -- this is the parts I haven't had time to read everything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because, Bob, we have -- you know, in our residential PUDs we have 60 percent open space, we do an awful lot of things. We have a pretty low density. That's how we're generating our urban sprawl, so we should get some reward for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 430.LD. Credit is provided for managing development of land so that new projects avoid floodplains or minimize the amount of construction in floodplains. Credit is provided for two approaches: Regulations that require or encourage appropriate development in zoning that restricts the use or density of floodplain development. Background: Appropriate development criteria in low density zoning, like open space preservation, reduces the potential for flood damage by reducing the amount of development in a floodplain. They Page 97 August 25, 2009 can also enhance natural and beneficial values and maintain floodplain storage capacity. Which is the exactly what we're doing with the flowways in the RLSA. And I'll tell you, if we take the acreage we're dealing with out there and apply it to the county, there might be a huge chunk of points right there in that one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And other projects, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On a micro scale we do this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 150,000 acres? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ifwe had a watershed plan or watershed master plan, would that give us more points? And adding this definition that was taken out of here for regular flowways and working more towards that end with a low density in certain areas? Rather than the freeboarding and the raising everybody's house for-- MR. WILEY: It doesn't affect you on your definition of floodway. That is a special definition within FEMA as to riverine situations -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In water -- MR. WILEY: -- how much you can encroach upon it before you raise it the one foot. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's also water courses. MR. WILEY: Right. I said riverine. It can be -- that's what-- you know, a flowing area. Lee County has floodways, Collier County does not on its maps. So if we had the watershed management plans that we're starting to development, does that provide a benefit to us in this program? It provides some continuity. Does it give us credible points? That I can't say yet. I don't know what we will have in our plan that could qualify for this. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But wouldn't that do -- Page 98 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: At this point I can't answer that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Wouldn't that take care of some of this? I mean, it would lower density in certain areas where there were sloughs or flowways or -- MR. WILEY: It has that potential. Plus we haven't even started writing the document yet, so I don't want to take credit where it may not end up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think there's a lot of potential in that 700 credits to look at, Robert. I think that's the gist of what you're getting from this panel. MR. WILEY: There are a bunch of potentials out here that do not deal with physically regulating to by itself produce an individual structures (sic), increased resistance of flood damage, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in order for us to keep our arms around this thing, we need a complete picture. And I think that's what we're slowly building up to here. And it's going to take a while. But all this stuff can help factor into the recommendation that we make to the BCC when this is all said and done. And so far I certainly like what we've learned here today, so it's been a good start. With that in mind, though, I'd like to take an early lunch so we can get in and out down there and then we can finish up for two hours when we come back from lunch. So we'll take a lunch from now until 12:30. We'll resume at 12:30 and be done by 2:30 so Cherie' can hopefully survive the day with us. Thank you all, we'll come back at 12:30. (L uncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from our lunch hour. This is a resumption of the meeting in the floodplain management for the Collier County Planning Commission. We left off discussing section 430 of the bullet point criteria. And I think we left off on J, which is the land development criteria. Finished that, and we're moving to item K. Page 99 August 25, 2009 And K, for everybody's benefit, is called special hazards regulations. And this one's interesting, it says credit points vary. I was going to ask you, Robert, what does that mean? Does that mean there's -- we get 'em if we do something special or they -- or who determines it? How's that done? MR. WILEY: This is one of those areas where if you think you have something that you're doing that deserves some kind of special review, you apply. And if they agree with you, they will make up what they consider is a point value for it. It's sort of a wild card type situation. There's nothing that in particular I can think of that would go in there. But as we go through we may come up with something we want to submit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the ice jam one won't work for us. MR. WILEY: If it does, we are in trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I -- that one's open for whatever we can dream up. So we'll move on to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Item L -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- Bob, do you deal with actual rising of the sea level? I mean, is that something that could be one of these things? MR. WILEY: I do not as an individual person. My understanding, it is an issue of concern for some of the planning people to take into consideration, but I personally don't deal with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that wouldn't be something we could establish, grab some of these points as to what to do if there is such a thing? MR. WILEY: I won't say it is not something we could do, but I'm not coming up with an idea off the top of my head right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, I've read in the document we haven't got to yet that -- or in fact, in this document somewhere too -- that if the state has already imposed something, or South Florida Page 100 August 25, 2009 Water Management District has that involves some of the CRS points, we can cash in and utilize that availability by meeting their criteria as well. Like the dams, the statewide dam approval, that's the last activity I think we have on our sheet. Activity 630, state dam safety. We don't have it, but because the state has it all Florida communities get a credit for it. I just thought of something under K, special hazards, regulations. We have an elevation requirement in the county and we have a special elevation requirement along the coast, in a sense that we just learned in the Moraya Bay approval when the project came through originally, and I think it was more on a discussion of the outhouse that we're building out there, that there was a certain elevation that they had to meet to be FEMA. But there was a grander elevation, one that was higher, and that's how Moraya Bay got by with pushing a building up a little it. They had to go under the special criteria by the state for being within a certain distance or past the control line. Why wouldn't we, by utilizing that as a domineering point in our development, which we'd have to do, we've got to abide by the state regulation that supercedes Collier County's, why wouldn't we apply for that as an additional credit for all those along the coast on some percentage basis? MR. WILEY : We could. But since it is related to flooding, that is not a different kind of a hazard. It may not really apply here, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it may not apply to K, but we had other ones like I, other higher standards that we just talked about has 100 points. And it says come up -- basically you come up with something you think is a higher standard. Why don't we approach it that way? Since we got to do it anyway, nobody's harmed by it. MR. WILEY: That's exactly right. That's issues that from the planning side as we put forth together, which is why we're supposed to be having somebody who's a planner person, not me the engineer Page 101 August 25, 2009 person, review this too, to bring those points of view into it. That's why we do that as sort of a team focus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: And has that happened? Has the planner -- MR. WILEY: We had a planner. His name was Michael DeRuntz. But he was involved in the reduction enforce. COMMISSIONER CARON: So nobody's around to take over. MR. WILEY: No one is able to do that right at this time. We hope that situation changes, but we'll have to wait to see on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which means that we probably have to take up that slack here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think by the suggestions that we're making, Robert, if you were looking for ideas from planners and we've just given you one -- MR. WILEY: I am looking for ideas, that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I suggest you look in that direction. And it may not fit under I or K, but look at L. Look at the next one coming up. State mandated regulatory standards, 45 points. No, those aren't -- those are different issues, but maybe -- do we have any -- if you slide your sheet up. Did you analyze any of the items L.l or L.2? Or has the -- is it state already mandating any of those; do we know? MR. WILEY: I am not aware of the state mandating any of these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you look into it? Did you question the state insurance agency and ask them? I mean, how did -- did you research it or you're just not aware of it? MR. WILEY: What I did was talk to our ISO agent about it. She has one of the three regions in Florida, and she did not know of anything that the state was mandating for this. But I can go through the state insurance office and find out if Page 102 August 25, 2009 that -- if you can tell me who I should ask. I really don't know the insurance people that well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I was assuming you'd tell me. But I guess I could look this up and try to find out. I don't -- I mean, all I'd have to do is turn to statutes and then Florida Administrative Code and run a word check on floodplain or insurance agents and see what it comes up with and see if anything relates to anything here. I mean, that's how I'd start. And if there's an agency involved, I'd call the agency. But, I mean, there's more credits available on that possibly unless we can prove otherwise. Item M. This one Brad likes. I can't blame him. It's building code. Maximum credits -- yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go on to building codes and whatnot, and just to back up for a minute under the land development section, I mean, right off the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J COMMISSIONER CARON: -- bat I'm looking at this sheet that Bill Lorenz copied for us, and it gives things that you can get credit points for. Are we already taking the 10 points if we allow cluster developments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got to have these backup-- did you look at these backup sheets? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what I'm looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one? Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's why I'm asking. Because it doesn't look like we've taken any of these credits. And I just started at the bottom and started working my way up. We obviously -- we require open space, we don't just recommend it. So we get at least 10 points for that. We allow cluster development. Multiple site plans doesn't get us anything. I don't know what they mean by density Page 103 August 25, 2009 trades, but that would be an interesting one to investigate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, it doesn't look -- to answer her question, have we looked at some of these? Have we taken these? If not, what is your intention? MR. WILEY: I don't know what we have taken, because I leave that to the planners. I really have no knowledge of that. I mean, I can pursue it through them, if they have an interest in doing so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. WILEY: Because I don't get involved-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're handling the floodplain ordinance; are you not? MR. WILEY: I am. And what I reviewed before you today is taking our ordinance, bringing it up to the minimum standard from the model ordinance, and then bringing in certain higher regulatory criteria that I've evaluated from an engineering perspective to make our community more resistent to flood damage. That's a different issue than the LDC credits here for land development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anything in this book that didn't pertain to your knowledge as an engineer working for your department in the county you didn't consider? MR. WILEY: Basically. In the planning area I did not consider it. I did go through the book to see what I know about. But in the planning, that's outside my purview, so I did not touch that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, do you have a moment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While he's coming forward. Bob, who fills this out, Jim Turner? MR. WILEY: This is a form -- the one you're looking at was actually filled out by the ISO people. Now, what -- they had changed their procedure recently, is they now are requiring the local community to fill it out. You give that to your ISO agent and you Page 104 August 25, 2009 discuss it going over together. And that's done during your -- any time you're proposing to increase your request for credits or every five years when you have your five-year site visit by ISO coming down and looking at all of your files. So the ones that will be coming up in the future, I will have to go through and Jim Turner and everybody's involved in a different aspects (sic) of the program, we'll go through and we'll fill out this particular form and submit it back to ISO then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, if-- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a form in front of us that was in this packet that Robert's got. And it's -- and Donna Caron pointed it out. On Section 430.LD, it's the Land Development Code criteria. There's a lot of references to Land Development Code activities that we could get credit for automatically for having them in our Land Development Code. And as Donna pointed out, two of them are no-brainers, requirements for open space and zoning that allows cluster developments. The mere fact that you did that, we could get 10 and 10, 20 points. But Robert hasn't applied for it because no one from planning has told him whether or not we're doing that. Is there someone in your department that could look at this document for the aspects of the LDC that pertain to the planners and get information to him so we have the potential for points here that might offset some of the other more contentions points? MR. SCHMITT: To answer your question briefly, yes. Mike DeRuntz was my floodplain manager. Mike sort of was -- of course he's no longer with us, but he was my certified floodplain manager, principal planner in camp. planning and he sat on this committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why he wouldn't have suggested this to be utilized? MR. SCHMITT: I don't. I don't know why. I mean, this is something that Mike should have identified as a requirement. And I Page 105 August 25, 2009 didn't go through and validate, but this is somewhere -- yes, it seems to be a no-brainer. My problem here is resourcing Robert with the planning staff to do this. And because much of this is a 111 function, general fund function, and so you understand, my principal planner, as you well understand, they're a fee for service, they're fully consumed in servicing product that comes in the front door and servicing those type of requirements. I really don't have a planner that's available to say, Robert, here, 100 percent of the time. You serve on this committee. The zoning staff -- by statute, the zoning member is supposed to serve on the committee. It's just a matter of resourcing it where I have the problem. And again, Mike was the resident expert. And when I had to begin to cut staff, that's where I cut staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a section in this CSR manual, it's titled Section 430, and it's 431.1. That's the only one that's pressing right now. If you could have a planner look at that just like we've looked at it, I can't imagine any experienced planner not knowing the answers rather quickly. And if they believe that we meet the criteria, and Robert's got it on the screen, the E and F on the bottom, there's 20 more points and we're done. So that isn't someone that's got to sit in a meeting and attend it day after day after day after day, year after year. Just simply look at this and let him know. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? I mean, that would be helpful. Then we got 20 more points. And by the time we finish all 17 sections, we might be a Class I community. MR. SCHMITT: I'll have to work with Robert to define what supporting documentation we need to do this, but we'll work it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I read the manual, and when you need the supporting documentation, it actually says provide them with Page 106 August 25, 2009 a reference on line in the section that they need to look at and they'll actually go look at it and verify it's there and then give you the credits. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's -- see, he just volunteered to help us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I don't -- hey, I will jump in and help if -- this is a great way to save a ton of money. MR. SCHMITT: No, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd do it right away. MR. SCHMITT: I need to look at it. Again, I just don't understand, some of these things are nothing more than validating. They're in the LDC. Like I said, I didn't go through this personally. But Mike is a certified floodplain manager and so is, by the way, Catherine. Catherine's a certified floodplain manager as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as we don't make this more complicated. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because Joe, I think you could probably take a look at this list and tell us whether it's is in our LDC or not. MR. SCHMITT: It is, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I think we can -- MR. SCHMITT: I will look at it. I just need to figure out what documentation we have to provide so when they come down and audit we can identify out the points and actually they come down and audit. I'll tell you what they did last time. It was -- and in fact, Mack had to go through a shapefile. They wanted to validate the total acreage of preserve in Collier County, and we already told them. But then they -- in order to validate it, Mack had to produce a shapefile to basically show all the preserves, existing preserves, both within developments, whether it's mandated preserve or state or Federal preserve lands or whatever. And we had to go through and actually provide a file for that. Page 107 August 25, 2009 Robert, what, you said a book 10 inches thick, two books we had to send back when the last time they came down in followup in answering questions that they asked us to validate in certain requirements as part of this ISO process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? MR. SCHMITT: So we could put it down. I've just got to make sure we can justify it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question, and it's really for Bob. In the past have we applied for that credit? MR. SCHMITT: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, obviously you start each year by looking at last year. So even in good times we never MR. WILEY: We have not applied-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we had staff around, we never MR. WILEY: -- for this in the past. What you're seeing is the old application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, the '99 application had a bunch of credit points. Some of them seemed really good, no-brainers. And the 2003 application took some of those out and never reapplied for them and we don't now utilize them. And we'll get into that when we get into other documents. But that's a whole nother ballgame that we need to talk about. So -- and I've got two sets. So anyway, I think we left off -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry, I didn't mean to take us back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that was a good -- that was an excellent suggestion. I'm glad you did. I made a note of it. Now we'll hopefully -- let's move back to -- we're on M, building codes. And Brad, this is a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me see. Page 108 August 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- pretty interesting one. I'm hoping you'll have something to comment on this. It's on Page 430.16. There you go. No, that's -- yeah, that's it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did look at that. We -- number one we should discuss. Number two, we meet all of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We meet all of number two? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many points have we already gotten? I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's 100 points. The second thing is the one up above, and I looked at this during the break, is we have to have like lessons to discuss these codes. Bob, could you -- Bob, can you put the next page on to explain the BCEGS? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go too far, since you already -- and I absolutely trust your judgment, Brad, because I know you deal with these every day. So M.2, A, Band C for a total of 100 credits, you believe we already meet all that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We do. The International Building Code is the base code for the Florida Building Code. And that I know. I sit on the International Building Code committees. We don't use -- or Florida hasn't adopt NFP A 5000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Have not. No state has, actually. B, the international residential code is the base code for the Florida Residential Code. Another ICC code. The International Plumbing Code, the International Mechanical Code, Fuel Gas Code. I don't know anything about the Private Sewer Disposal Code, but those are all our codes, too. They're the base code for the Florida code series. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, have we utilized that 100 points? Page 109 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: We have taken partial credit, as I understand it, because we have not adopted the entire IBC. And that's where Brad says well, we have. I do need to get a clarification. I'm just getting it from our building department. They said no, we haven't, so we have not applied for the full value. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only thing I think we haven't is we haven't adopted the International Fire Code, which isn't even one of the reference codes, because we've adopted the NFP A product. So we have certainly an equivalent. MR. WILEY: What I can do with that particular issue is bring it up with our building director and also then talk to our ISO agent to make sure we're talking apples and apples here on what we have adopted. But if we've adopted it, we definitely want to apply for it. But I've been told that we do not have full adoption, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Feel free to bring me into a conference call, we'll discuss that. Number one we can't get any credit for because aren't we a Class 8 now, and doesn't that mean that seven, eight, nine, 10's can't get that credit? MR. WILEY: You mean our CRS class? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's on the number one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number one, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See where it references the last sentence of number one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure what that means. MR. WILEY: I just have to look into this. I know what our building rating is, what class, but that doesn't seem to be the same number you're talking about here. Our CRS class, I know we're a Class 7 there. But that's a different issue they're dealing with here, so I'll have to look into that. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you pull that page down just a little bit? Down, not up. Page 110 August 25, 2009 In other words, if you look at that it says, the community must adopt and enforce a building code to qualify for Class 7 anyway . Well, we have a building code. That's -- never mind. Now, we haven't applied for any of the building code credits? MR. WILEY: No, what I said is we have not applied for the full 100 points because we have not adopted -- in the previous situation when we applied before, we were not the full adoption of the codes that you say we now are. So I'll have to get with Bob Dunn and confirm what we can apply for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much did -- can you tell us which ones we applied for? You gave us a documentation but I can't find it on here. MR. WILEY: No, sir, I don't know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you don't know if we -- MR. WILEY: No, in talking to Jim Turner, he has said we don't qualify for the full value. That's -- I'm just going from his statement to me, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. But do you know how much of the value we qualify for and how we qualify for it? Here's the reason. Under Section 430, higher regulatory standards, we only qualified for 125 points out of a total of2,740. The average community uses 166. So I'm wondering, of M.2 did we submit qualifications for 2.A, Band C? Do we know if we did or not? I mean, I know someone told you we probably do qualify for them, but are those part of the 125 points in the sheet that you gave us? If not, then how do we get to the 125 points? MR. WILEY: I can't answer that right off the top of my head unless I look for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, next discussion then maybe we would be more prepared for that then. But I think one, two, three, four, five -- we've got about seven or eight categories that have potential credits increases, just in the Page III August 25, 2009 discussion we've had on one category today. The next one that we have is section N, and it's called staffing, with a maximum credit points of 50. And we may not qualify for the best because it requires inspection criteria for our inspectors. But I guess Joe may know that. Do you know if we do any of numbers one, two or three? MR. WILEY: What we have is currently we qualify for 10 points. Jim Turner and I are both certified floodplain managers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so was Michael DeRuntz. MR. WILEY: But Michael's not here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But then Catherine Fabacher I think we were just told is. MR. WILEY: That's what I'm just learning today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it looks like we got more points. MR. WILEY: We may be able to pick up an additional five points, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe when you get a chance and can talk with someone else over there, see if there's anybody else that might fit that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, don't we get number two? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to ask that next question. That's right, Brad. MR. WILEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's either two or three or is it one or two or three? MR. WILEY: No, we do not qualify for number two from the staffing perspective that we do not have a CFM looking at every development project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't that be easy to do? Just you or Jim review it, or Catherine, right? MR. WILEY: That's a matter of organization of the review staff. Page 112 August 25, 2009 I review very little, and Jim reviews his portion of the building permit that comes through. He does not review everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does -- first of all, you'd only have to review the ones that are in the floodplain, but because that's going to be the entire county that kind of puts the whole burden of the whole county on it. MR. WILEY: It will at some time, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only thing you'd have to review, though, is elevations? MR. WILEY: You are having to review basically for complying with the elevation, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So someone would have to tell you with each plan it would have to be -- it has to be acknowledged on the plan that it meets minimum flood code. MR. WILEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can a building in Collier County be permitted that doesn't meet minimum flood code? MR. WILEY: Nonresidential building it can. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With floodproofing. MR. WILEY: You'd floodproof it, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe's coming up-- MR. WILEY: But again, that's still meeting a code. But, I mean, it's not elevated, right. MR. SCHMITT: The only way you can -- a building permit is through a variance. If you want to build below floodplain, you have to apply for a variance. The last variance we had was probably in the mid -- early Nineties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So someone doing a staff review for this requirement would basically have to see if they are at FEMA elevation or above. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, when -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And since they couldn't get a permit Page 113 August 25, 2009 unless they were at FEMA elevation or above, it would never be presented to them unless it already was there. So wouldn't we then be acknowledging through our reviews that we've met the floodplain criteria and we would qualify for a staffing at 25? MR. SCHMITT: All plans that come through review have to have -- are noted with the BFE criteria -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- and are approved based on the base flood elevation and they're certified. They come in signed and sealed by a registered design professional. And they meet the standard. When you read this, this specifically says reviewed by a CFM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Jim Turner picks it up, looks at it and moves it on. He acknowledges in his review that it's got the FEMA regulation on it. MR. SCHMITT: Jim is a licensed plan reviewer in the building department. He doesn't review any engineering plans, he's in the building department. Certainly yes, I could -- if I structured it -- Steve Seal is my guy who basically reviews plans, Steve and Stan. MR. WILEY: Mainly Steve. MR. SCHMITT: Mainly Steve. And reviewing -- Steve is not a certified floodplain manager, but I guess if we got him certified we could meet this criteria. Or everything goes through Robert. Robert, ifhe's certified that if we stated that everything went through Robert in some form or fashion or at least supervisory capacity, we would qualify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would like to see something happen just in the course of your normal events over there without creating a whole element to have to deal with so that you got to a point where we're slowing things down. MR. SCHMITT: Well, there's no question. Every plan that meets Page 114 August 25, 2009 the requirement, they have to meet the requirement. It's part of the design process. And it's -- and through permitting through the South Florida Water Management District. I mean, it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 25 -- Bob, what did it take to become a CFM? Is that something that -- you could establish a continuing ed. program over there right now, you would hit number one, too. What does it take? MR. WILEY: Basically you go to a training course. It lasts about four days. And you take the test. And you past test. And then after you pass the test, you have your continuing education you have to keep up with every year, at least 16 credit hours within a two-year period, no more than 12 in anyone year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's pretty involved. The number two, what would -- if you were to review a plan, what would you be doing as a certified floodplain manager? What would you be looking for? MR. WILEY: You're going to look at the actual application that comes in. You're going to compare it to its site location with what is the base flood elevation. You're going to compare it. If it meets it the other criteria that you happen to have in a regulation, if you have erosion, foundation protection, whatever, the criteria we would have today, you'd look for that, make sure it all -- and if it does, then you sign off as part of your review that you have reviewed it specifically for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it sounds like you really could add that. I know we have a reviews and it takes a lot of time, but MR. WILEY: It's not that it's good enough to be done, it's just a matter of it is not being done right now by a CFM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this kind of all goes back, and I listened to the interaction between everybody. You know, there's -- in business they have these people that do things called creative Page 115 August 25, 2009 accounting. This is creative FEMA. And if FEMA's got rules that just need to be creatively attacked to gain the points we need, we ought to be thinking along those lines. And it might be as simple as just something we're already doing, but finding a way to anoint it as it goes through the system. And I think that's all we're suggesting in something like this, Robert. It's got potential. MR. WILEY: I think it has great potential. It's a matter of implementing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 0, the next one, manufactured home parks. I think we're doing something with that, aren't we, in your bullet points? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we're taking the max. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, we are addressing the issue of manufactured home parks. We're trying to go up to 50 points. Basically the simple response is we're trying to make everybody on an even playing field who has a mobile home, manufactured home, within a special flood hazard area. The default that is within our current ordinance says that you have to be at least 36 inches off the ground. But we have places where the base flood elevation is higher than that, but yet they're allowed to build so -- at the 36 inches, even to come in and replace it. Because it's an existing park and you can replace a unit and put it right back on that 36-inch elevation. What our ordinance proposes is to say everybody meets the base flood elevation. I understand within the ordinance it also says plus any freeboard. So if you had a freeboard, it would include that also. And not just the floor elevation, but we're describing the things that hang underneath the mobile home, the AC, things of that nature that are susceptible to flood damage also. We're saying that must also meet that elevation. Page 116 August 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so this is one we're already -- the language that we're going to review already would put us in compliance. MR. WILEY : Yes, sir, it would put us into compliance, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll move on to P, coastal A zones, maximum credit 650 points. A coastal A zone is exactly what? Because we have a variety of A zones, but they're saying coastal A zone. MR. WILEY: Coastal A zone is that area between the VE zone, which has a wave height of three feet or greater down to some point. Do you want to make it a wave height of one foot, do you want to make it a wave height of a foot and a half? But you establish what you want to call your coastal A zone. And essentially what you do is by establishing a coastal A zone, you then mandate VE type construction within the coastal A zone. Right now we go from VE straight to AE. It's just a line. But the coastal A zone would then encroach within the coastal AE to a certain wave height reduction. And that's what you're also extending your VE type construction into it. We did not propose to pursue this when we felt that we would have no support. It's a very good idea to prevent damage, but we felt there would be no support from the community for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you explain the difference between the construction techniques in a VE versus an A? As in this transition area. MR. WILEY: The VE zone requires you to elevate your structure so that the velocity water, which is a V, velocity, can pass beneath the structure. The elevation for your compliance with your Page 11 7 August 25, 2009 flood elevation is the bottom of the lowest horizontal supporting member. So you've got your piers, posts, whatever you have it sitting on, and then you have your support beams underneath it. It's the bottom of that beam of the lowest beam that supports that house, that has to meet your base flood elevation. In an AE construction zone it's able to be built on fill. So what you would be doing in a coastal A zone is requiring the elevation requirements further inland into your AE zone that distance to which you would specify. And the thought process there is that within the VE zone you have a wave height of three feet or greater. But when you have a wave height of two feet, that still packs a pretty substantial punch hitting up against the side of a house that could -- and remember, your AE zone elevations are based upon a still water elevation, not crest -- not the top of the wave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman that was here earlier today, let's use his example. He said he moved into a home and he wished that he had -- the regulations would have required that the home he moved into been even more floodproofed. How does that fit into this segment? Or does it? MR. WILEY: In his particular location it may not even fit in, because of his location being on the lagoon area. We quickly go from VE zone to AE zone, just right about -- the condo lines right off the beach up in the Vanderbilt area. At the point that you get to where you would be going from your coastal A zone into an AE zone, he's already there. So he would still be in an AE zone. So this one would have no particular impact to him. However, houses to the west of him could. It just depends at what wave height you chose to set your coastal A zone as the limiting factor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how would you calculate this, if we were to look at establishing this? What we're saying is we Page 118 August 25, 2009 know where the V zone ends. That wouldn't change. Where the V zone ends and AE starts. And then now what you're going to have to do is raise the construction to obviously clear all the structural components or the horizontal structural components. But how far do you think that would go? And how would you judge it? Because remember you mentioned something like two-foot waves. How would you determine where that zone would end and then what would start there, another AE, or the rest of the AE? MR. WILEY: The way you define that is again based upon the wave height that you want to regulate against. And you pick that up off of your coastal model. As your model is drawn along transects projecting inland from the waterfront and projecting, your model shows you what your wave height is as the water physically moves inland. And you can set the limitations in the model to identify where is the three-foot wave height. Then that separates you between the VE and current AE zone. If you want a coast A zone, you would then set a second parameter that says okay, I need to know where my wave height is. And let's just pick a number, let's say one and a half feet, just split the middle there. Your model would show you where that is. You then connect the dots along your transects, the same as you do along your transects for your VE zone, that's how you'd identify what would be the inland extent of that coastal A zone. It's a modeling exercise done as a part of your flood insurance study. And that then gets put onto your flood insurance rate map. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So here's what we're doing now. You know, you mentioned the force of a two-foot wave. Essentially we've taken that house after we get out of the V zone, we've dropped that down to the floor level being the AE floor level. So you've really exposed that house. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So wouldn't this feathering Page 119 August 25, 2009 make a lot of sense? I mean, I don't think we can do it this year, but I think it would be good to look and see what those are, because that would be a really major way to protect some homes. Because believe me, the homes on the other side of a line in the V zone are the ones that are probably the most vulnerable. MR. WILEY: It's a very good concept. That's why it is given a lot of point value. But you do have to keep in mind the perspective that it gives within a community. You're moving your elevated structures further inland, and that's not generally thought of as a desirable thing by people who are slab on grade right now. Having seen all the discourse of conversation when we got our current flood insurance rate map and how it moved the VE zone inland and there was lots of negative discussion about how that's going to impact if I want to modify my house, now I've got to build it to VE zone standard. Well, that's what you'll be doing with a coastal A zone, you're moving that standard. From a safety standpoint, it is a very good thing to do. But getting the support of the community is a very tough issue also. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then just to follow up. What you would do is you would take that AE elevation and add to that a wave height parameter, and then raise the structure above that. MR. WILEY: No, no. What you would do is off of your coastal model it would identify for you the point at which you had reached that defining wave height that you wanted to set as the boundary between your coastal A zone and your AE zone. And that is how you would draw the line. At that point everything from that line seaward to your VE, follows a VE construction, is just able to be lower because your wave height is less than the full VE would be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. Page 120 August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Robert, you indicated that sometimes it's tough getting the support of the community. A review of the draft ordinance though is pretty strong about thou shalt, thou shalt, thou shalt and thou shalt not, you know. And so I'd like you to expand on that question that you have raised then about the support of the community. The community is what? They're not here today. We represent the community. So what do you mean? MR. WILEY: Well, just that. As we go through this commission here, the support that you would give says we want this in our ordinance or we do not. Going to the Board of County Commissioners, do you want this in the ordinance or do you not? We did not feel that the coastal A zone was an issue that we could get support to the board and through the board. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, health, safety and welfare. You know, we have a construction line and we have a -- you know, we recognize that there is a potential loss of life. There's certainly great damage potential. I'm surprised. I don't know about anybody else, but I certainly support -- and I recognize there's a cost and I recognize the implications of my statements, but so insofar as safety, health and welfare, it would seem to me that we would want to do everything in our power to reduce the potential. So if support is what you're looking for, you've got one person. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The concern, though, we have to have is especially in the coastal area where there's a lot of small lots with large homes, and we've had repeated concerns over mega-homes being built. Part of the problem is they're always a little higher than the house next door and the house next door is dwarfed by them. This would make those houses next door like ants. They would be miniscule because this would push the homes next to them even up higher. Page 121 August 25, 2009 So I think the resistance from the coastal community would be pretty strong. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I wanted to find out, what community he was really referring to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, anybody along the coast that would be impacted by this where their homes alongside existing homes would have to go that much higher. If they already complaining about mega-homes, which I don't blame them, they'd end up being really concerned over these much taller homes being next to them, most likely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's an excellent point, Mark. We already have that issue going on. How do we ever -- I don't know, mitigate is the wrong word. But you can't use eliminate either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Balance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Balance is a good word. How do we do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're doing it. I think we're looking at alternatives that we're going to suggest. We've -- as soon as Brad finishes I'm going to list all the ones we've come up with on 431. If there are alternatives that are less intense that harm people's pocketbooks less but still provide benefit, that's the way we go. That's the balance. That's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what I think we need to be looking for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifwe can reach that, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm not so sure this would make a bad community. I think the problem we're having with the mega-home next to essentially a slab on grade which had no consideration for flooding when it was built. So that's a really old legacy. Page 122 August 25, 2009 In this case, if you built this you really would be -- the homes would be stepping down at a much more gradual, versus a home built with an AE on one side of a home built with a V would be a pretty drastic step. Don't you agree, Bob, it would be a way to blend the height? MR. WILEY: It would, keeping in mind that would look better if you had a totally new community. Where you don't have a totally new community, you're going to extend that elevated structure line further back. It will be safer, I agree with that. It's just a perspective. And in particular it involves that someone hits the threshold. Because your coastal A zone, remember, requires you to be elevated structure, and that's to the lowest horizontal member. So if you have a house that's built slab on grade, as soon as they apply for your building permit, automatically they have the wrong kind of house. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you look at -- MR. WILEY: And you have that issue that it can be fairly well opposed by people affected by it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you look, like we up in our neighborhood, we have condos, which is really a low, you know, bulkheaded community where the land does actually rise. So I think in that case you would -- first of all, you'd get rid of these huge mega-homes sitting on fill. Because fill wouldn't be allowed because you'd have to build it to the V zone, right? So you'd have houses that are slightly elevated, but slightly elevated guaranteed not to be on fill. Which has to be good for scouring and stuff like that to protect your neighbors. So anyway, obviously let's not touch it today. But I think the interesting thing to look at would be what that line would look like if we did do that, and then see what that meant to neighborhoods and things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt -- or Mr. Murray, then Mr.h Page 123 August 25, 2009 Schmitt. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, just one brief comment. We were speaking of balance, and balance is fine. Those on slab in those particular instances, they would be subject to the 40, 40 and 40 rule, wouldn't they? MR. WILEY: Urn-hum. You've got your 50 percent rule, but then you've also -- yeah, you've got your -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so a potential calamity exists anyway. What I'm thinking is that maybe biting a bullet here is where I'm really going. But I realize balance is essential. You know, it's a process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: The -- when we first were notified of the maps that are now in place now where we first contested the FEMA flood maps, the requirements for building -- when the VE zone moved, that was the biggest and most emotionally significant impact from the standpoint of the City of Naples, changing the community character requiring VE construction versus AE construction. So when we looked at this we said we're not even going down this road. Even though there may be some practicality, it does change significantly. And especially in the city. Now, there are other areas of the county that it impacts as well, but essentially, as Brad, you said, this would require VE construction, where AE would now be allowed. And it does change the character of the building. All the buildings have to be on stilts and that type of construction, versus fill. And that's a simple term. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think an important thing, Joe, it's still not -- the V zones are very high, because they're really looking for structural damage -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- due to the wave action. The A zone, the AE sitting next to it, is a lower dimension -- Page 124 August 25, 2009 elevation. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And all we're doing is slightly raising it whatever the structure is. Let's say two feet is a lot of room to get structure. And we're eliminating the fill underneath it at that zone, which -- MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I think makes a lot of sense. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it may make sense, but it was probably the most significant issue when we dealt with the coastal community, the character of construction and the change in the character of construction. Because that was the biggest issue, even though the city is its own CRS. But it was the most -- it's going to be -- it was the most significant issue. And that's why the city joined with the county when we first appealed or we proposed -- we appealed but then we withdrew our appeal -- to create the new maps. But the intent of the city was to try and move that VE line back more towards the coast rather than inland, what happened in this most recent series of maps. So it was that issue. And we said we're not going to fight that . Issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The thing I don't agree with you, though, this isn't -- moving the VE zone is a disaster, because that's essentially a story above grade. This is different than that. This is what to do with that zone right next to the V zone, which drops you down rather low and you're on fill structures and stuff. And this brings you up a little -- slight little bit. But anyway, I think number one we'd have to do, to look at this carefully, and let's not do it this year, would be to actually look at what some of these maps might look like. And maybe you and I can Page 125 August 25, 2009 do that as a we-have-nothing-to-do project and see if in fact this really intrudes into neighborhoods like people would fear. It may not. MR. WILEY: I don't think we'll ever get to the we-have-nothing-to-do project. At least my schedule isn't quite as cleared as yours may be so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the private sector is getting nothing to do real quick, so I might be down and take care of it. I'll take it home and play with it. MR. WILEY : You are planning for us then. W e'lllet all of you guys show up and you can help me and I'll -- I mean, I'm there till 8:00, 9:00, 10:00 at night anyway, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. WILEY: -- you get my e-mails. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to say, any suggestion of following something like this would take a lot more analysis than we can do right now, and it really would have to go to another year. MR. WILEY: What we would need to do is actually bring-- before we would propose this is bring before you what the map would physically look like. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good idea. MR. WILEY: We have the ability to do that as we go forward because it's our consultant that has done the modeling. But we have not wanted to touch that one yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Robert, just to sum -- for summation, we've just gone through one of 17 sections of activities. In the one activity section we went through, we've recommended you look further at the following areas: C.3, E.2, G.3, A and B, H -- MR. WILEY: Can you slow down? I'm trying to write these to make sure I've got them too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. I'll start out again. C.3, E.2, G.3.A and B, H.2.B. Section J, in regards to the LDC. Page 126 August 25, 2009 Section I in regards to the additional height requirements from the state for the CCSL area. And Section M for the building code points. MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, when we come back at some point it would be nice, just as an example, because I'm not sure we'll get through a whole other section today, but if you could look at those for just that section, let us know what additional points this exercise today got us or didn't get us out of this review, I think that would be very helpful to know if we're on a course that's going to be productive or not. So that would be the beginning. And I think where we left off on the other overhead you have, the colored one showing your bullet points, Brad wanted to work through the bullet points and let's see which ones we haven't addressed and move to that section next. We've done foundation protection. Well, freeboard is actually part of this one. It's actually 431.A. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we didn't discuss that because we jumped to the foundation protection and went from B on, which is B. So we really didn't go into A. And I don't think we're evaluating it as far as what it involves, more or less just as did we apply for it. And it looks -- and we certainly did. Brad, is there something you wanted to move into on freeboard right now, or you want to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no. I mean, essentially what I wanted to do is just see which of these and how they effect the objectives of the ordinance. I mean, it would be good to look at freeboard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we put 431.A up there then, Robert. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'd like the conversation to Page 127 August 25, 2009 be not so much about insurance rates. The insurance rate is minimal; it's dropping down the construction costs, certainly it would never pay off. But just to see if it's something that's really important for the objectives of the ordinance. MR. WILEY: Okay, this shows you the how -- the CRS manual for Section 431.A dealing with freeboard. What we are proposing in the ordinance is to go for a one-foot freeboard, which qualifies you for 100 points. You get 100 points for every foot up to a limit. But we're not approaching that limit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're looking at a credit of 100 points for number one. But that would be affected by any changes between what zone it would be applied to; for example, the V versus the A zones, as we talked about earlier. MR. WILEY: Well, it would apply across the board anywhere you are within a special flood hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But in the beginning of the meeting today, there are obviously some people who think that they would rather the government regulate this issue than individuals given the ability to regulate it. So if we -- and it seems Mr. -- the gentleman that was here was concerned because he bought along the coast, closer to the coast. And I can assure you, in where I am we don't have the same problems that they have along the coast. So can this freeboard application be applied differently to different areas of the county? And I thought you said yes to that. And if it does then how much of the credit points do you get? MR. WILEY: You would be able to get your credit points reduced by the percentage area covered. So if you said, for instance, that we're going to limit it to areas seaward of 1-75, just pick a road, then what they would look at is the amount of your special flood hazard area that is seaward of 1-75. And obviously the remainder of that is landward of 1-75. And whatever percentage that came up to be, Page 128 August 25, 2009 that would be your percent times 100. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's kind of where I was . gOIng. Brad, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my question is, Bob, and this is to me the hitting the nail on the head, is how important is that one foot to meeting the objectives in section four? I mean, one of them is to minimize prolonged business interruptions. Yes, if everybody's floor happened to turn out to be one foot above the floor, that would keep the thing open. But is that an important thing for the objectives that are stated there? MR. WILEY: The -- to me the issue of freeboard is probably one of the most important issues to put in the ordinance, from the standpoint it is a factor of safety. Your base flood elevation is not a factor of safety. It is identifying where flood levels are expected to be in a one-percent annual chance storm event, meaning you have statistically one percent chance of that happening every year. It can happen several times a year. It can happen that your flooding is greater than that. What I have personally seen is as we have gone through several large rain events that approached the 100-year -- the terminology of the 100-year storm event and the one-percent annual chance storm event are basically speaking of the same storm. We sort of not want to regulate by the 100-year event because people think well, let's see, it happens three years ago so we've got 97 years before it's going to happen again. And that's what people tend to think. So FEMA wants everybody to starting calling it the one-percent annual chance event. But I've seen it rain and water will get up -- your yard is designed to flood. At the 25-year storm event, which is a four-percent chance event, your road in front of your house is designed to be under water. I've seen water right up against the stoops of houses, and then Page 129 August 25, 2009 along comes somebody driving down the street. And that house was dry until then. Suddenly it was flooded. Flooding is very expensive to correct. Now, they designed it to that one-percent annual chance event, and it was fine until something happened. There is no factor of safety. And I've seen it more than once. And I have not been the county two or 300 years. I know sometimes it seems that way for me. But it can rain very rapidly, and I do not want to see homes and businesses flooded. That's why I feel very strongly about the freeboard issue. It reduces your flooding impact, it keeps your businesses and your homes safer from unanticipated consequences such as people driving, such as systems plugging up and not flowing properly. So there's a lot of reasons that I support it that are listed here within these eight criteria, these objectives. It basically addresses something to do in most all of those eight from that standpoint. Y .? es, SIr. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, one thing, and this is kind of sad, speaking for design professionals, but we tend to design everything to the minimum in the code. What percentage of the applications do you think are actually establishing the floor level, let's say within two or three inches of the base level? I mean, I think -- I don't know how we could do this, but if we went through applications downtown, most of the people are setting it pretty much at that base level. I've seen that on applications that come through us here. MR. WILEY: I cannot speak for what actually goes into the building permit application. The ones I have reviewed in the past have been at the SDP or the plat. I will tell you, sometimes they take it to two decimals trying to get it to that specificity, making sure they don't put a tenth of a foot more fill than they minimally have to. Now, I can understand why that is from the standpoint that the Page 130 August 25, 2009 engineer is designing, and he's supposed to be designing it at the protective interest of his client. And so should there be an excess amount of fill put in, that client could look back to the engineer and say, you cost me extra that I didn't really have to have. And I do know that that has occurred within the county and that there was a lawsuit filed over that very situation. People build their -- they design their projects to the exact minimum, as the general rule. I won't say that's everybody, but that's the general rule that you see coming in. And, I mean, they really take it tight. There is no factor of safety at that point. And that's what I'm trying to get us to incorporate in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you feel -- MR. WILEY: But that's the engineer in me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in these objectives it obviously is going to prolong the business operations, it's going to protect property. I don't think it's an effect on human life. I don't think -- people can wade. It's going to -- I'm not sure it affects two. MR. WILEY: Let me interdirect (sic) you here. Effect human life does come into play in Collier County in a way you would not expect it. Have you ever been in a major flood event? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I've been in a real -- MR. WILEY: That's not a cork ball floating, that is a colony of fire ants. They are everywhere on the water surface. And if you step out in flood water, you are covered with ants. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the floor of my house is perfectly level with the flood, which is the fear here, what are you saying, that the ants are going to come into the house? MR. WILEY: No, if you -- at the point that you have water sweep into your house for some reason and at that point you decide it's time to leave, you're getting out into them as soon as you leave the house. As soon as you step down, you're in them. And that's just personal experience, having found out the hard way. Page 131 August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I went camping once and picked a high piece of ground and it rained and I discovered that phenomena myself. MR. WILEY: Well, I was in Tropical Storm Jerry out measuring high water elevations, and I got covered multiple times. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, enough. MR. WILEY: You'd go to put the nail at the high water line and you were covered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. MR. WILEY: So that's my fear of -- I wanted -- there is a safety issue here for health purposes from that standpoint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not going to belabor a point, but for every item you think is safe for your argument, I could argue equally it's unsafe. So I do not agree with you on this issue. MR. WILEY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You will not convince me otherwise. And so that's just for the record. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: If you increase it by one foot, Robert, it's from a one percent chance per year of flood, what do you go down to? MR. WILEY: By default you go to the .2 percent chance, which is 500-year flood event. So then -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Two percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's two percent. MR. WILEY: -- it becomes a matter of acceptable -- didn't I say .2 percent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: .2 percent, yeah. MR. WILEY : Yeah. So it's a matter of acceptable risk at that point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Bob, isn't -- the base flood is the one percent. So if we essentially added a foot to it, we'd be taking it to the 500-year storm level, which would -- Page 132 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: Which is the .2 percent annual change event. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's raising it to get to .2. I mean -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not .2, because that would be .002. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we finish with these CSR points and all the other changes that come into play, kind of like this one, I'm assuming then we either have to go into the building code or Land Development Code to change our regulations to coincide with this particular ordinance. Is that what the next step is? MR. WILEY: We would go into the Land Development Code, . yes, SIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so if you're inconsistent with the Land Development Code, what does that mean you are? Are you a nonconforming structure then? MR. WILEY: Well, we talked about that earlier from the -- the definition of nonconforming can be used for zoning purposes, so I don't like to use that terminology. But you are noncompliant with your FEMA elevation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But ifit goes into the Land Development Code, which is the zoning code, would it be then nonconforming with the Land Development Code, which means it would be a non -- noncompliant with Land Development Code, which means it would be a nonconforming structure. Which means virtually every existing home in Collier County, most every home, would be nonconforming structures. And I'm just wondering what the impact to the realtors are going to be when they try to sell nonconforming structures throughout this county. I'm not sure that all that aggravation is worth what you're attempting to do here. I don't know anybody that's going to live or die over one more foot of water in their home. They may have more Page 133 August 25, 2009 damages. And if we have compliance criteria where if they keep doing it over and over again, they don't protect their unit, they pay more for insurance or they have some other regulatory standard, that probably slaps them on the wrist as hard as a -- to the same impact that the freeboard would do, but not for the same cost. And that's the balancing I'm trying to find here. And I don't see it with this particular element. And I know you're sold on it, but -- MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I just wanted to get that on -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just follow through. If somebody got a floor elevation thing, it wouldn't note that they were below the freeboard, it would just note their elevation based on the base flood elevation, correct? MR. WILEY: If you have an existing structure, you're grandfathered with that elevation until you reach substantial improvements or substantial damage. Okay. So when a building permit comes in and the application is within a special flood hazard area, they get the elevation -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't go down the building permit. What I'm concerned about is the person that Mark described. In an existing home, when he sells it at the closing, there's an elevation certificate. It's just going to show its relationship to the base flood elevation, it's not going to have a little asterisk, by the way, this doesn't meet the freeboard requirements? MR. WILEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But does it meet the Land Development Code? The answer would be no. And that's the conformity part that I'm concerned about. Okay, Robert, I think we're through section 430. If you want to put that colored overhead back on, I'd appreciate it and we'll see what Page 134 August 25, 2009 we've missed from that one so far. First, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth. Haven't we -- so all of the standards that we're discussing are in this one section 430? One activity? MR. WILEY: Except for your public disclosure, your flood hazard disclosure. And that stretches across -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's in section 340, right? MR. WILEY: I think that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's go to that section next. What happens to the sections that aren't on any of these bullets? Does that mean you didn't find way ways to bring points from any of those and that therefore we're not suggesting those? MR. WILEY: I'm not suggesting put them it into our ordinance at this time, that's what that means. There are a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did that -- so from the committee's perspective, let's start with -- well, let's start with 310. When you went to the committee, did you start with 31 O.A and explain to them what 3 10.A meant, how we could or could not qualify for it, and then they decide not to do anything in 310 and jump to 340? Or how did you approach the committee in selecting which segments of these activities out of 17 -- we've picked basically one and one item from another. And the other -- I'm just curious how we got there. MR. WILEY: From the committee's standpoint, we asked them to review the ordinance as we prepared it, using these points for higher regulatory criteria. Because those are ordinance related. The many, many of other issues are programmatic related. So as a part of the committee's review we are also looking from program standpoints. And they have put forth within the floodplain management plan some action items that address certain ones of these. Do they address most of them? No, we're not even close. We're trying to take this a little at a time to build a program over a series of years. But within the ordinance those are regulatory, which is why it is Page 135 August 25, 2009 in the ordinance at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to hazard disclosure and that's Section 340. We didn't have any in our current report, the one dated 2003. Why hadn't we done this before? MR. WILEY: Because we do not require it of anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. But -- well, I could have told you that. You want to tell me why we didn't require it of anybody? MR. WILEY: It's never been put forth as any kind of a regulation within our flood damage prevention ordinance. Because that was back in 1986, and it's not been updated. So we went through, we looked at this one saying that is a concept that most people tend to agree with its value, so we proposed putting it regulatorily as a requirement this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how did you make the changes between the verification community rating report that we did in '98 and the one that was done in 2003 if it couldn't have been done without a change in the ordinance and you just said the ordinance hadn't been changed since prior to that original date? Because you've got two verification reports in front of us today. Both of them are different. They come to different conclusions and different categories. And I'm just wondering how you got there; how you could have changed them without changing the ordinance then, if that's what you just said. MR. WILEY: Okay. The verification reports that you have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WILEY: -- are based upon the documentation that in years past staff submitted to ISO. ISO took the documentation that it was given and put together the verification report. So that's why they changed, depending upon what they were sent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but how do you decide what documentation to send them? Because what I thought you just told us, Page 136 August 25, 2009 the reason that the hazard disclosure wasn't utilized before is we didn't choose to send it to them because it wasn't part of the ordinance and we had to update the ordinance. But yet we did change those activities that we sent to the CRS verification report at two different times. And I'm just wondering if we could change them before without going through the process we're sitting here doing today, what is it that we're going through this -- how did we do it in the past? How did we change them in the past if we hadn't already changed the ordinance at least once? Because I thought you said the ordinance hasn't been changed since it was originally done, or back in the Nineties. MR. WILEY: Well, the ordinance was approved in 1986. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, '86. MR. WILEY: That's the most recent modification to it, other than a couple little minor changes that dealt with some definitions and accepting the current flood insurance rate map. Some things that you submit are not ordinance requirements within the CRS program. They're programmatic. What I was saying is we have not had it in our ordinance that requires every time a property goes up for sale and you meet that person that you must disclose to them this property is within the special flood hazard area. Now, whether or not people volunteer to do that or not, we have no way of knowing. But the program says if you want the CRS credit, you will regulate that it is a requirement. We have never done that to this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to 340, disclosure. The first one is the -- it's up on the board. And Robert, you're getting 71 of 81 points, so that means you're taking the bulk of A and B, I would assume, and C -- you're taking A, B, C and D . You're taking various amounts from each of these, or can you explain to us how much you're taking out of each one? MR. WILEY: It's a combination throughout the criteria, when Page 137 August 25, 2009 you're looking at A we are trying to get the 46 points that are there. Out of A.l. Real estate agents notify those interested in purchasing properties located in the SFHA about the flood hazard and the flood insurance purchase requirement. Now -- and it goes on to say what the notice must clearly state. Within the documentation that I presented to you before, we actually showed a sample generic type form right out of the CRS manual. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Robert, how do you certify to FEMA that that's in compliance, if you enact that? MR. WILEY: I show them a copy of our ordinance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's sufficient for them? MR. WILEY: That's sufficient to show that we have established the regulation, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I relate that back to that earlier issue that we had. MR. WILEY: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which I think is essentially the same question. MR. WILEY: Now, what we would be doing also, just as a matter of followup, is to try them out. You're a real estate agent. You don't know me. So I come to your office, I want to talk to you about such and such a property, I'm in a face-to-face meeting with you. Let me just see how you react, do you give me a disclosure form or not. We're trying not to be subtle it but that's the practical side. Talk to people, did you get the form? Realtors, are you doing this. You know, you're trying to find out are they actually doing it. Would we ever be able to certify that absolutely everybody did it? No. And that's not the level to which we will be asked to do, but we have to have some way to verify that -- so -- but we will show thet Page 138 August 25, 2009 ordinance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was making a comparison I think fairly obvious to the earliest conversation we had. But as long as you brought that up, education is a good thing, too. NABOR is a good organization and giving them the opportunity to help their agents do a better job would be useful. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, under Category 330, that's called the outreach projects. The total available is 380 points. The average community gets 90. We've only applied for 37. So when we get into that one, we'll probably find out more issues relative to what you just said. Why don't we go on to B, Robert. MR. WILEY: Under B, when you look at the way it's worded for other disclosure requirements, you can earn up to -- I've got to change the paper. I'll have to show you. 7 in a minute, because I can't get on the screen. But within -- under Item B for other disclosure requirements, you can earn up to a maximum of 15 points from selecting through here. Now, each of these criteria have different ones you can do. We're proposing to do enough within our ordinance to pick up 15 points under B. Then what we propose to do is going down underneath your next one, which would be C -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you leave B, which of the three -- there's nine total. There's six on the page you're showing us, there's three others not shown. Of the nine, which ones are you suggesting that we obtain the five points from? MR. WILEY: Requiring all sellers to disclose. That's -- I sort of have them numbered differently than you all have them on your screen shot there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well-- MR. WILEY: But I think it's the first one, requiring all sellers to Page 139 August 25, 2009 disclose in order to cover those cases where a real estate agent is not involved. Requiring all real estate agents and sellers to advise potential purchasers whether to the best of their knowledge and belief their property has ever been flooded. Requiring landlords to advise potential renters about the flood hazard. Requiring final recorded subdivision plats to display the flood hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. WILEY: And requiring individual lot surveys to show the fl ood hazard area. Those were the five points that we were putting in to go towards the 15, understanding that that can potentially give us more, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you can only get -- it says maximum 15. MR. WILEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you pick five, you're still going to get 15. MR. WILEY: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So some of these are less harmful than the others. For example, number two. I'm concerned about what it means when you ask someone to the best of their knowledge and belief the property has ever been flooded. And what really impact does that have? A realtor is going to claim he has no knowledge and belief, but yet if there was a front page story in the newspaper two years ago and he's a subscriber to the paper, someone could accuse him of knowing it and he just failed to disclose it. Are we really -- do we really need those kind of discrepancies to enter into pictures in regards to how people buy and sell properties? So maybe number two is one we don't even get to, we just do the other three or four. MR. WILEY: That is a potential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you review this with any of the people directly involved, like any of the realtors? MR. WILEY: I have been working with NABOR and with the Page 140 August 25, 2009 Marco Island Board of Realtors. I hope I have that name correct. I think that's the name of the organization. They had an attorney who has worked, looking at the drafts. They also had another lady working with them, Ellie. So we have been communicating back and forth. Now, what I need to tell you is that we had everything all in agreement and they were supportive until we said you know the realtor is going to have to look at this stuff, not just simply accept it from the owner. They need to look at it and make a good faith effort to verify the information is correct. At that point we sort of separated. They did not want to take any responsibility for the information on the form. So then I have spoken to their attorney who was working with them. I sent him the documentation right out of this CRS manual so he could see why I said the program needed to have that requirement in there. He contacted me, he says he understood, that he would get back with me so they could help draft language to be in compliance. And then I have heard nothing from him until two days ago -- I think it was two days ago -- when I got an e-mail, he wanted to know what's happening. And I said we're going forward. But I explained that I'm telling everybody, I don't know if I have your agreement or not. I never did get a response back from him. I think they're going to be in agreement with this, because they understand how simple it is to verify. You simply go to the county's web page and you look up and you can see the flood zone for any piece of property in the county. Takes you less than a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which of the items in this category, maybe we haven't got to them yet, put that responsibility on the real estate agent? Disclosure is one thing. What you're talking about goes beyond disclosure, I think. I mean, disclosure is basically you're telling them that there's a flood issue. But now you're asking the realtor to divulge certain information that they have to research. Page 141 August 25, 2009 Which one of these requires that? MR. WILEY: It really deals with the first two points where the realtor is involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First two ofB? MR. WILEY: Yeah. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we have disclosure required in A. B.1 and B.2, if we were to drop those, you still would have B.3, 4 and 5 and you still got your 15 points. MR. WILEY: Excuse me, it's a part of the number one there. Again, that's where I'm looking off a system that's numbered versus one that's lettered here. Where we're talking about disclosure by the real estate agent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WILEY: -- the disagreement that we had was whether or not we would simply say the realtor was responsible to simply provide a copy of the form as filled out by the owner of the property and just straight provide that to everybody who he meets face-to-face. And my concern was okay, what if John Doe homeowner doesn't have a clue what's supposed to go on the line, they fill out anything they want to. Is the realtor supposed to be totally free from any responsibility to check to see does this look right. And so I changed the language back around from what the attorney had given me. So it says they will do a reasonable effort to verify the information's correct. So it does put some responsibility upon a realtor who has been given a piece of paper to make sure it's filled out correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just going to move on a second. Some of these I don't think are a good idea. Like requiring the subdivision plats to display it, because you change it. So what would you do? We're on the cusp of a change right now. All the old Page 142 August 25, 2009 subdivisions, anything recorded would show erroneous data. So don't pick any of those. MR. WILEY: Well, we're already doing that. It's already shown on the plats. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What are you showing? The FIRM? MR. WILEY: The flood zone line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So then when we change these all the plats we have on file don't show the correct-- MR. WILEY: They would not show the correct one, that is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, well, we can -- MR. WILEY: But at least it shows it initially going in that that was an issue at the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But don't you think -- I mean, this could be -- maybe we should stop doing that then for the reasons we're going to learn. MR. WILEY: It helps people understand where they're buying so they know if they're going to need flood insurance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you look at a plat that's changed. I mean, what if get -- I buy something, I look at the plat, it says I'm in a type X and this map has become -- you know, it has been promulgated. Then I'm making a mistake, aren't I? MR. WILEY: If you, at the point that you see within the plat that there is a flood zone line and that plat is a few years old, it should trigger your thought -- again, the word is should -- should trigger your thought to well, has that line been moved? But there appears to be a line within the area. Let me verify where it is. But we are recording that line already on plat, so that is simply a documentation method for us to show what we're already doing on that point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I think the computer Page 143 August 25, 2009 gives us nowadays a better way to do it, a flexible way, too. But anyway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the first two items, and specifically in the second where it says, to the best of their knowledge and belief, what's the force of law there? All right, we get credits, okay. But what is the ultimate purpose? What is it that we really achieve there? Let's say I came to Florida, I fell in love with a lovely house, I bought it, I'm here three years. I haven't got a clue whether it ever flooded there before. You said go to the flood maps. I don't know, it will tell you you're in a flood zone. It will never tell you whether it ever flooded there before. So I'm going to sell my property now, and I say to the best of my belief, and you could go to the flood map and see that it's in the flood zone, but that's not the question it's posing. So what is it all that we're really achieving by that? MR. WILEY: I can tell you from personal experience that when you get a phone call as county staff in August from somebody who bought a property in February, they've never seen a cypress tree before in their life. They don't have a clue that cypress lives in standing water. And then you get the phone call and you're holding the phone out from your head because they're yelling and screaming, saying that they're flooded, they're flooded, they're flooded. And you go out and you explain that over and over and over again to people moving into the area, this is designed to have water. This declaration would tell them you're going to have water standing on your property during certain times of the year. That's what that will be doing for them. That is just one example. The other example is from the standpoint of a realtor. And this really gets to effect more the old veterans around here than the person Page 144 August 25, 2009 who just moved in and has started working in a realty office. For someone who has been around for years. And if they were to for instance be listing and selling, whether they list it -- you know, but they're involved in this sales transaction of a piece of property that we know has a history of flooding, such as within the gateway triangle area, just pick a particular point, that we know goes under water quite often. We want them to tell that person, you can expect that -- yeah, I've seen flooding through here. I personally have seen it. Now, are we wanting them to lie about it and say oh, no, it never floods. No, we're trying to get the best information out to the buyers so they can know what to expect by this declaration. I am not asking them to certify that they know it flooded on such and such a day. But have you ever seen flooding? And just say yes or no. If they say no, okay, now the question comes up that was asked, what if someone goes back and they pull up a newspaper article and here's a picture of the realtor standing there and his sign was on it from a previous time. Obviously he does know it. If he has signed a piece of paper which says no, it has never flooded, well, that's his liability insurance and subjection to a lawsuit at that point. He has declared something false. I'll let him resolve that one through the court system, should it go that way. But I don't want people buying property known to have flooding issues without being informed of it. Now, from FEMA's perspective, what they want the people to know upfront, is there going to be the potential requirement for the mandatory purchase of flood insurance. So this disclosure goes beyond that bare minimum. And in the CRS, remember, they ask you to consider things that go beyond the minimum. That's why we have it in here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Was a discussion ever held that you might obtain the same result just by requiring that part of the package be a flood zone map for the area that the parcel Page 145 August 25, 2009 geographically sits in? MR. WILEY: That's a perfect way to disclose it, right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, because the rest of it is questionable as to what it gains. You know, words are fine, but they do nothing. I mean, there's more escape clauses in that. It's all well and good to think that, but if you want to get to the bite on that thing it would seem to me you'd require a document that shows hey, Joe, even the dumbest person, look at that, that's a flood zone. Hey, that's my house. I think that tells a story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see where any of this, though, is going to help you with this lady that you have to hold the phone away from your head for because she sees standing water in her house, because it doesn't require a realtor to divulge that information. What it requires, and I'll read what it says: Credit for disclosure of a flood hazard is entirely based upon the real estate agent's informing people whether a property is in an SFHA, regardless of whether they asked. A law or policy to disclose hazard information only after an inquiry is made does not earn credit. All they got to do is tell these people there in a SFHA. That's it. And if they do that on a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Routine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- property purchase agreement or form, it's done. So I'm not sure it gets to the problem that you think it's getting to by the lady that's calling you up and complaining about standing water on her property. I don't think anybody's saying that they should know that or disclose that. I mean, a lot of this is buyer's got to have some smarts to know if they buy in a swamp it's going to be wet. MR. WILEY: I thought so too, but apparently it doesn't work that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, doesn't a realtor have to or Page 146 August 25, 2009 an owner have to disclose that anyway? If my house was flood and I tried to sell it, it's a known defect. I mean, I have to disclose that. I mean, there's laws someplace else requiring me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the best of your knowledge and belief. You know that amnesia you had? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I might disclose it as a feature, you can fish in your kitchen twice a year, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to pick up 15 points from three of the items under B. You're looking at all five. I'm not sure we need to go to all five. Maybe if you would consider which ones are the most -- least problematic, that would be a better way to approach. MR. WILEY : Well, obviously the one that is the most problematic from the realtor's standpoint is to the best of your knowledge and belief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would agree. Why put anybody in that position. It's too ambiguous. And Brad, is that plat -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that bothers me. Because, you know, I look at a plat, I see a flood zone. I mean, plats don't tell you what numbers to trust, what numbers not to. So that's something that's dangerous, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number three can be taken care of simply on the renters agreement. Number one is again a seller's agreement, which is a standard form someone would have to buy to sell their home anyway, whether they do it through a realtor or on their own. Number five is just something that's added to the survey where it simply says on the bottom with all the other small print they just throw in there that it's in a flood hazard area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think that's good, because that's a current document. A surveyor I think would be an excellent Page 147 August 25, 2009 person to expose that. But what about number four? Should we -- the county's doing that now. I guess we should -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if we leave in numbers 1,3 and 4, we still get the 15 points and we've taken out two of them that could be problematic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll go with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, we leave out -- take out two and four. One, three and five. Take out two and four. I think that would simplify some of the stuff expressed here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, I think what you should do is hopefully come up with some wording that you would put on a plat that sends people to the right direction to get that information, since it is changeable information. I'm sure in the beginning you never thought the FIRM lines were going to change, but they're flexible, correct? MR. WILEY : Well, I'll agree with the last half of your statement, they are flexible. I won't agree that I never thought they would ever change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the point is that if I'm showing a FIRM line as per this date, could that not confuse somebody if it's no longer the line? MR. WILEY: Yes, it could. As I said, since we're already doing that, that's why I left it in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, you know, when you go to a subdivision for information, you really trust that information. So I guess Joe will -- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, we currently have on the website, you can type in your address and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- get your flood map. Page 148 August 25, 2009 When we go to the new flood maps we'll also provide a feature that will tell you the existing versus the future. But that will be available for anybody to just to type in their address and they'll tell them if they're in a floodplain or not. You can go on -- like I said, you can go on the website today and do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern, Joe, is if I go to the subdivision plans and get a copy of that and it shows a line on it that's a flood zone, which is the number four here, and that line is no longer the valid line, it's probably what's it telling us, it's not a good idea to put that information on the subdivision. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Joe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's take as an example the triangle, which we know has flooded, flooded, flooded. Mitigation was not too long ago completed, or I think completed anyway, it certainly looks like it. And it looks like they -- I haven't seen any flooding. You know, maybe it will. But in the new map now, the fact that it had flooded is recorded. MR. SCHMITT: The new map is based off of elevations. Almost every structure in the triangle is -- it's in a bowl. That's basically physically or geologically or geography-wise, it's a bowl. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But so is the mitigation. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. You only can dig so many holes and fill up the hole with water till it overflows. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I'm trying to qualify in my mind, and certainly as it applies here, is that if we make a statement that we reveal that this place has been flooded but now it's 20 years later and it has not seen a flood and it's seen 25-year storms and all the other kind of stuff, what does that do for us? What's the other side of that in the law? Is there any relief associated with that when mitigation is effective? MR. SCHMITT: I don't know. Page 149 - '(lq lUll'. ".. ..._"...'..",.....~..".. August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I mean, it can't be all negative, can it? MR. WILEY: It's not intended to be negative at all. It's intended to reveal what is the situation where it has flooded in the past and you know about it. But corrective actions have been taken. That's what you would state. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's all recorded to that flood map? MR. WILEY : You can state whatever you want to. I mean, you can type up a multi-page document if you feel free to do so. But we're just saying if you know you've seen flooding there, we want you to state what you saw. And that's all that was intended to be. If -- corrective actions, you know that's taken place, fine, so state that as subsequent to flooding, you haven't seen flooding since. You can clarify this however you wish so that you're making it real clear that you're telling the person what they're buying. COMMISSIONERMURRA Y: All of this to get a few credits that we can't certify anybody. Never mind. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, let's move on to C -- have you utilized C's 10 points? MR. WILEY: And yes, sir, we are proposing to utilize these 10 points. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Have you -- and as far as the realtors go, when you spoke with them did they understand what this means? Did you guys get into discussions on how the brochure -- who -- what it entails? MR. WILEY: Yes, we did. We showed them the example right out of the CRS manual. It's pretty straightforward. Just a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just out of curi -- who provides the realtors with the brochure? MR. WILEY: What we would do is put a copy of it in Word format on the web page -- Page 150 August 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can print it. MR. WILEY: -- and they can take it and tweak it to fit their parameters, however they wish to tweak it. Just as long as they provide the minimum basic information right off of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, ItemD, disclosure of other hazards. What have we done with that, anything? MR. WILEY: Nothing. That deals with things such as mudslides, ice jams, tsunamis, things like that that we don't really have big issues with, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it also talks about -- well, let me read it. If the notification to perspective buyers credited in Section 341.A includes disclosure of other flood related hazards, such as coastal A zone -- which we've decided not to do, I think -- erosion, subsidence or wetlands. This credit is available only if the community also receives credit for the DFH. So we already are doing the DFH. So if there's wetlands on properties, we wouldn't -- wouldn't they be notified already? MR. WILEY: I did not want to place a realtor or a seller in a responsible position to declare whether it has jurisdictional wetland or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I -- MR. WILEY: So I just felt like that's beyond what the typical person would know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that gets us back to your bullet points. We've gone through the activities that involve the bullet points presented. Now, there's 17, and we've gone through two. There's another 15, one of which certainly doesn't apply to this part of the country, so that's gone away. But the rest of them might have some application like we learned about today. I think today's exercise is beneficial, because we may find, and as Robert has acknowledged, even he wasn't aware of some of the Page 151 August 25, 2009 potential points that we've now suggested that he look into. And that means the committee wasn't aware of it. We might be able to find through this exercise an ample number of points to take out some of the more controversial items that are in this ordinance and deal with them at a future date, if we want to. But it's going to be a lengthy exercise. I'm going to leave it up to this board. I have no problem doing it, I have no problem scheduling the time in getting it done and it will just have to work out. I'm not sure that the BCC is better served if we don't do that, but the opportunity to have a better program with less controversial things that we have shown here might be well done. What do you think? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we started, let's finish it. But to get the coordinators, Bob, the disc we have, the CD, is that what's on the disc? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. WILEY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WILEY: No, sir. You can actually go to FEMA's website. You can -- after you traverse through the website, you can find this CRS page. It has a whole series of tabs where you can bring up all of these points. The particular book he has there, you basically order it. It's better to do that and they'll ship it to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you send us both those sites? One is to order the book and one is to review it on line. MR. WILEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It works on-line. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You got it already in an e-mail -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he says we don't. MR. WILEY: You should have had it-- Page 152 August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You do, though. MR. WILEY: -- from what the county attorney gave you already. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, the website? MR. WILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay. MR. WILEY: You should have had it, but I can send it again if you -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I downloaded the whole thing. MR. WILEY: -- need it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's important that if you guys can get this -- I'd suggest you just order it. From the time we were notified of the website, that's how I got it. I went there pursuant to notification from the county attorney's office. And I filled out the form on-line, and then I got it last Wednesday. So I can't tell you how many days transpired, but it's probably two or three weeks. And I would suggest if we -- for us to have this, we can go through these activities. And if we go through them with everybody having a briefing ahead of time from their own review, it might expedite the process a not. Plus there's a lot of positive questions I think will come out of this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that mean you wish to extend our next meeting until several weeks? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we need to extend it to a point in time where you guys may have the document. Robert can get back to us on the activity example we already set today, which was 430 section. I'd just sure like to see after you do further research with staff what we can come up with on those alternatives under Section 430. And then it would also give us more time to digest the balance of the information. How does the rest of the panel feel about that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's do it. Page 153 August 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, with that in mind, I need to ask the county attorney's office, this has been a continued meeting to begin with. We're going to need to continue it at least for four weeks. Is that a problem advertising-wise, or do we have a -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that in mind, did staff-- Robert, did you pick up some dates? And I guess we probably are looking toward the end of September or -- October is pretty much of a mess. So what did you come up with available dates for this room or someplace to meet? MR. WILEY: Well, I went next door and asked them and I haven't seen them deliver the schedule yet. But they were supposed to print out a schedule of available rooms. If you'll give a moment, I'll walk around the corner and see if they have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's just take a break for four minutes and 2: 15 we'll kick back in. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back. And what we found out is it's a little more complicated to get dates for room availability that quickly. So what I suggested we do is that when we go to continue, we'll continue this meeting until September 3rd after our regular meeting, at which time during -- we'll discuss a continuance to a firmer date. We won't discuss the issues on September, really, it will just continue to then so we can keep the continuity of the continuance. Then we'll recontinue it at that date to another date. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Continue the continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we'll-- yeah, we'll continue the continuance. Now, with that in mind, I'd like to talk about two things before Page 154 August 25, 2009 we break. One is when we schedule these new meetings, I don't think it matters if we're here or over in CDES. This is more comfortable, but I'm concerned about setup for video and all that. And that's the only thing I'd like to suggest we not do that for. So let's first look at trying to use this room when it's empty so we don't have to have the cost of resetting up over at CDES for this Issue. And the second thing is, we've got two AUIR dates in September, and we've got two GMP dates in October, which makes October a real difficult month, because the GMP dates will take a ton of reading and we'll need most of the month for that. But the two AUIR dates in September, I'm not sure we're going to need both days. There's a possibility we could use one of those days if -- the AUIR should not be too complicated this year. And if we can get through it in one day, that would leave a potential for the second day. We can't do anything, we have no money unless they raise taxes . agaIn. So with that, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: What are the AUIR dates in September? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here, I'll tell you in a minute. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't have my calendar, so -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's the 21st and 23rd, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 21st and 23rd. Yes, they're both at CDES. So I'm not -- hopefully the AUIR is less complicated this year than in the past. MR. KLA TZKOW: Nick is filling potholes these days and I think that's about the end of transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only other time consuming one was EMS, because they -- we just had so many issues there. But hopefully they'll have a better report this year. Page 155 August 25, 2009 So with that in mind, do we have anything else we want to discuss at today's meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to continue this to after our regular meeting on September 3rd? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. That passed 5-0. We are adjourned and we are continued until September 3rd after our regular meeting. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:22 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 156