Loading...
Agenda 09/15/1999 S COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MARCO ISLAND COUNCIL AND THE CITY NAPLES COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, September 15, 1999 2 p.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TllERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL !$ TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRWOMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITlt A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Discussion of proposed changes to flood insurance rate maps (FIRM'S). 2. Adjourn. I September 15, 1999 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (FIRM's) OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to County and City Officials on proposed changes to Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM's). CONSIDERATIONS: In December, 1998, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's consultant, Dewberry and Davis, submitted preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM's) to Collier County, and the Cities of Naples, Marco Island, and Everglades City. Over the past few months, representatives from each of these governmental agencies have met to analyze the proposed FEMA map changes. A FEMA Map Review Committee was selected. A copy of their findings is attached. In addition, a subcommittee of the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee reviewed these proposed changes. A copy of their findings is also attached. There are three major areas of concern: 1) A change from "D" to "A" Zone for Golden Gate Estates and surrounding areas will cause a significant impact in that lenders will require property owners to obtain flood insurance; 2) An increase in the VE Zone and decrease of the X Zones in the City of Naples which will cause an increase in construction costs, an increase in insurance premiums, and a diminishing in the ambiance in relation to existing homes that were built at current or previous required elevations; and a 3) Change in the Vertical Datam which would necessitate surveyors and government to create backup filing systems; increase cost for county and city contractors for capital projects; and cause additional administrative costs for changing land development codes. It was a recommendation of the entire County's Development Services Advisory Committee that a consuitant be hired to review the models used by FEMA to determine the new flood zones. 'On August 31, 1999, a contingent of representatives from Collier County and the City of Naples traveled to Atlanta and met with FEMA representatives to discuss the three main areas of concern. At that meeting, it was requested that FEMA have representatives attend this workshop to answer questions and concerns and to tour areas of the County which are being impacted by these proposed changes. AGENDA~ ITEM No. SiP 15 1999 The results of the meeting are attached (summary minutes). Essentially FEMA representatives have agreed to the following: 1) Redelineation of the previous Zone D area to Zone A - FEMA staff has agreed to work with South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) staff to determine if SFWMD's Florida flood event study data is acceptable. If so, FEMA will incorporate it into the FIRM's. 2) Coastal modeling - FEMA welcomes new data. 3) NAVD 88 v. NGVD 29 - FEMA agreed to show data in NGVD 29, if possible, and also the NAVD on the FIRM's. The County wishes to maintain the use of NGVD due to the extensive amount of data already maintained. If FEMA is able to make adjustments that the municipalities and County find acceptable, hiring a consultant would not be necessary. However, each jurisdiction will need to make that judgment at the workshop. FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of these flood maps, as proposed, will cause a significant impact to the citizens of Collier County in costs of construction and flood insurance. It has been estimated that the hiring of a consultant to review the models used in preparation of these flood maps would be approximately $30,000 to $100,000. The Development Services Advisory Committee recommended that this amount be paid by Fund 113, the Community Development Fund, or, in the alternative, that it be paid from ad valorem taxes. It was further recommended that each jurisdiction pay their pro-rata share of these costs. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The adoption of these maps, as proposed, could potentially affect growth in certain areas because of the increased costs of construction as well as the increase in flood insurance premiums. RECOMMENDATION: That the elected officials of each of the Cities in Collier County and the Collier County Commissioners accept this update and if the proposed changes to the FIRM,s are not acceptable to any of these local governments, that that local government hire a consultant to review the models used to determine the new flood zones proposed by FEMA. cB ~ oD~l~pl Fesl/O~ehin ~ g t. rcl~n~tor Edward S. Pdrico, Director Building Review and Permittin~,~ Communit~ D~velopment ~nd Environmental Servi~e~ Div~ion ' SEi 1 5 1999 L. l:,g.~ c~.. D.C. 2o 72 DEO 0 91998 COMkiuNITY oEV ELOPN',E?T ~. Robc~ Fcm~dcz Co~~: Collier Co~, Florida Collier Co~ A~inistrator ~nco~oratcd 3301 E~t T~i~i Trail Co~~ No.: 120067 Co~W A~inis~ative Building, 2~d Floor Naples, Florida 34112 De~ Mr. Fe~dez: Ple~e find enclosed ~o copies of~e Flood Im~ce Study ~IS) repoa ~d accomp~ying Flood Ins~ce ~te Map (FI~ for Collier Co,W, Flofid~ ~d Inco~omted ~e~. Plebe note ~t ~s FIS ~d FI~ have been prepped ~ ~e co~de fo~ah whereby ~e flood h~d info~afion for ri j~sdicfions ~ Collier Co~W h~ been comb~ed ~to one FIS ~d FI~. Also, for ~e co~ities ~at had a Flood Bo~d~ ~d Flood~y Map ffBF~ addition to a FI~, all info~ation fo~erly sho~ on ~c FBFM ~d FI~ ~ been comb~ed to be sho~ on ~e FI~ only. Users of t~s FI~ should be aw~e ~at ~ese maps have been compmer generated. Once FIS ~d FI~ ~e published in finfl lo,at, ~e digi~ files con~ng ~c flood h~d da~ c~ be provided to yo~ co~W for use in a computer mapping system. ~ese files conj~ction ~ o~er ~ematic data for floodpl~n m~agement p~oses, ins~ce dete~inations, ~d m~y o~er pl~ng applications. In addition, yo~ co~ may be eligible for additional credi~ under ~e Co~i~ ~ting System if you ~plcment yo~ activities using digital mapping files~ ~e p~ose offs le~er is to ~smit copies of~e FIS rcpo~ ~d FI~ ~d ~o~ yo~ co~ about ~e coordination ~ong ~terested p~es reg~ding ~e res~dy of flood h~ds, b~e mapping ~d elevation da~ used to prep~e ~e co~de FI~, how ~c flood h~ds were ~alyzed, ~e ch~ges in flood h~ds ~at have been sho~ on ~e prel~ co~de FIS ~d FI~, ~e potential effecB ~ese ch~ges ~11 have on flood ~ce premims ~d floodpl~n m~gement in yo~ co~, ~d how previously issued Le~e~ of Map Ch~ge ~e h~dled. Coordination of Restudy of Flood Hazards Previous coordination on this study with Collier County and the incorporated communities therein includes the initial Consultation and Coordination Officer's meeting held with community officials, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and our study contractor, Engineering Methods & Applications, on August 4, 1993. In addition, we published ' "Announcement of Intent to Perform Flood Elevation Study" in the ,Naples Daily News on January 30, 1994. The most recent coordination concerning this restudy was through letters, all dated July 30, 1998, to the affected communities requesting any pertinent data they felt could be of use in processing the restudy. .... AGENDA ITEM S£P 15 1999 In the near future, a member of our Regional Office staff will arrange a meeting witl, county and community officials and interested parties from the county and the incorporated communities therein. The purpose of the meeting will be to officially present the findings contained in the FIS and FIRM and to solicit comments. Base Map Information The base map is the source mapping used to establish road networks, streamlines, and other planimetric features on which the flood hazard information is added to produce the FIRM. The digital base mapping for this study was obtained from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Line Graphs at a scale of 1:24,000. If there are any changes to the corporate limits for your county, please make corrections on one of the enclosed copies of the FIRM and return it to us. Datum Conversion In addition to restudying all of the coastal flood hazards for your county, the reference elevation datum used on the preliminary countywide FIRM was converted from National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) to National Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD) to be consistent with the standard used by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS). The majority of FIRMs, including the effective FIRMs for the unincorporated areas of Collier County and the incorporated communities therein, have elevations referenced to NGVD; however, NAVD is more reliable than NGVD, based on the re-leveling of approximately 708,000 benchmarks across North America. The conversion factor from NGVD to NAVD for your county is approximately -1.3 feet. This factor was calculated using the NGS's VERTCON computer program. This does not imply that the water-surface elevations are lower. Instead, the reference point for the elevations is different. For example, an elevation of 10.0 feet NGVD is the same elevation as 8.7 feet NAVD 88. We have enclosed a document entitled Converting the National Flood Insurance Prom to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, which fully explains the conversion process. Updated Coastal Analyses and Mapping Procedures This revision is based on updated flood hazard information for the coastal areas of Collier County, developed by Engineering Methods & Applications under contract with FEMA. This updated information includes the addition of a wave setup component of approximately 1.4 feet to the storm surge elevation to account for the effects of waves pumping water onshore during a coastal storm. Note that the wave setup component of the surge elevation is not included for areas further inland of the immediate shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico. The updated flood hazard information also considers storm-induced erosion of the primary frontal dune. Wave crest elevations were computed for 40 transects using the Wave Height Analysis for Flood Insurance Studies (WHAFIS) computer program, Version 3.0. As an example, the previously mentioned analyses result in Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevation (BFE) increases (not considering the datum conversion) along the Gulf of Mexico as follows: A~tEND..~ ITEM No,., ~ S E.P 1 5 1999 Location Effective BFE Proposed BFE Change in BFE (NAVD 88 (NAVD 88 (in feet) in feet) in feet) 300 feet west of interSection 14 18 + 4 of Commerce Street and Gulf Shore Drive InterSection of Seagull Ave.10 13 + 3 and Vanderbilt Drive The updated analyses also include redelineafion of the V-Zonebased on new criteria used to establish the inland limit of that zone. These criteria have changed since your county was last studied. The inland limit of the V-Zone shown on the preliminary FIRM is the most landward of' the following three points: · where a 3-foot or greater wave could occur, · where the eroded ground elevation is 3 feet or more below the calculated wave runup elevation, or · the inland limit of the primary frontal dune, as defined in Section 65.11 of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations (copy enclosed). The floodplain boundaries for the aforementioned revised coastal flooding sources were delineated using the results from the aforementioned storm surge, wave set-up, storm-induced erosion, and wave height analyses. Topographic information used to delineate the floodplain boundaries was obtained from the State of Florida Coastal Construction Control Line maps at a scale of 1:1,200 with a contour interval of 2 feet, South Florida Water Management District aerial photography with contours, at a scale of 1:2,400 with a contour interval of 1 foot, and USGS Digital Line Graphs at a scale of 1:24,000 with n contour interval of 5 feet. The enclosed publication, "Coastal Hazards Technical Enclosure," provides more information about coastal flood ba?ard analyses. Impacts of Revised Flood Hazards on Insurance Rates Several factors determine the premium rates for rio'od insurance coverage. Major factorS include the amount of coverage purchased, the deductible, and the location, age, occupancy, and design of the building. For buildings in floodplains, the elevation of the lowest floor relative to the BFE can be used in rating the policy. This latter factor means that in areas where BFEs have increased, flood insurance rates may increase; however, policies in place are "grandfathered," meaning that the flood zone and BFE used to rate the policy when it was initially written will continue to be used to rate the policy, as long as the policy remains in force and does not lapse. Therefore, in areas where BFEs are likely to increase, residents should make certain that their flood insurance policies do not lapse so that they can continue to use the zone and BFE for rating their policy that was used when it was issued. However, the NFIP "grandfathering' rules apply only to those structures built in compliance with the NFIP building code criteria in effect at the time the structure was built. In general terms, the following four scenarios can occur when the new FIRM is finalized. · A property's flood zone designation can change from a C or X zone to an A or V zone. · A property's flood zone designation can remain the same, but the BFEs can increase. · A property's flood zone designation can remain the same, but the BFEs can decrease. · A property's flood zone designation can change from an A or V zone to a C or X zone. In the first two scenarios, premiums for a new policy (i.e., not a "grandfathered" policy) will likely increase. In the latter two scenarios, premiums for a new policy will likely decrease. Furthermore, when the changes take effect, lenders should review their loan portfolios to ensure enforcement of the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements for structures in the first scenario. Impacts of Revised Flood Hazards on the Application of Building Codes The application of state or community building codes in flood bg?~rd areas is dependent on both the zone designation and the BFE. The required design and construction techniques will vary depending on the zone designation and the BFE. For example, V-Zone requirements are much more restrictive than A-Zone requirements. It is not uncommon in restudies to see both zone designation changes and changes in the BFE. The NFIP building standards are discussed in Section 60.3 of the enclosed regulations. Any new construction or substantial improvements would have to comply with the requirements for the zone designation and BFE for the structure's location on the newly effective FIRM. Existing structures built in compliance with the requirements for the zone and BFE on the map that was effective at the start of construction would continue to be considered compliant. How Letters of Map'Change Are Processed in this Revision Previously issued Letters of Map Change, which include Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs), Letters of Map Amendment (LOMAs), and Letters of Map Revision - based on Fill (LOMR-Fs), ' are reviewed and sorted into three categories: (1) those that have been incorporated into the countywide FIS and FIRM, (2) those that have not been incorporated into the countywide FIS and FIRM because of scale limitations or "out-as-shown" determinations, and (3) those that have been superseded by revised flood hazard information when the new maps become effective. (An out-as-shown determination means that the lots or structures reviewed in the LOMA or LOMR-F were not shown in a floodplain.) All Letters of Map Change in category 1 are incorporated into the FIS and FIRM. All those in category 2 are automatically revalidated, without any action from the county, through the issuance of a letter to the chief executive officer of the county listing the subject LOMAs and LOMR-Fs and indicating that the determinations made in them are still valid. All those in category 3 are superseded and are no longer valid. I would like to thank you in advance for your review of the enclosed information. The county's comments are an important part of' our review process and will be carefully considered before the FIS and FIRM are published in final form. Your distribution of this report and maps to the appropriate county officials so that they may have ample time to prepare questions and comments would be greatly appreciated. If authority for the performance of duties related to this correspondence has been delegated to another official of the county, please forward this AGEN~ ITEM No. $ 1 5 1999 PG document to him or her and advise us in writing as to whom future correspondence regarding NFIP matters should be addressed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Director, Mitigation Division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Atlanta, (3eorgia, at (770) 220-5400, or me at our Headquarters Office in Washington, D.C., at (202) 646-2752, or by facsimile at (202) 646-4596. Sincerely, M~~~ J~~ajak, P.E. For: Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief Project Officer I-l~rds Study Branch Hazards Study Branch Mitigation Directorate Mitigation Directorate Enclosures cc: Mr. Clarence Tears, Director, South Florida Water Management District Mr. Brace McNall, Collier County Storm Water Management Mr. Ken Pineau, Collier County Director of Emergency Management State Coordinator FEMA Region IV AGEND,~ ITEM S E.P 1 5 1999 PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF MAP ACTIONS Community: Collier County, Florida (Unincorporated Areas) Community No.: 120067 Revised Map Panels: All Date Issued: Page No.: 1 of 4 To assist your community in maintaining the Flo.od Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), we have summarized below the previous Letter of Map Change (LOMC) actions (i.e., Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs) and Letters of Map Amendment (LOMAs)) that will be affected by the preparation ofthe enclosed revised FIRM panels. 1. LOMRs and LOMAs Incomorated The LOMRs and LOMAs listed below have been incorporated into and are reflected on the prelimina~ FIRM. However, until the revised FIRM becomes effective, the LOMRs and LOMAs will remain in effect. New LOMC .~ase No. lEffective Date Proiect Identifier New Panel Zon~ None 2. LOMRs and LOMAs Not Incorporated The LOMRs and LOMAs listed below have not been reflected on the preliminary FIRM. This is either due to scale limitations of the FIRM, or because the LOMR or LOMA issued determined that the lots or structures involved are out of the Special Flood Hazard Area, as shown on the FIRM. These LOlVlRs and LOMAs will be revalidated free of charge the day after the revised map panels become effective. New LOMC Case No. Effective Date Proiect Identifier New Panel Zone LOMR-F 98-04-854A March 13, 1998 Trail Acres, Unit 2, Block 1, 0603 G Lot 1-3, 108 6~ Street LOMR-F 98-04-856A March 13, 1998 Naples Manor Addition, Lot 25, 0603 G Block 9, :5361 Martin Street LOMR-F 98-04-728A March 18, 1998 Naples Manor Lakes, Block 3, 0603 G Lot 11, :5242 Trammel Street LOMR-.F 98-04-732A March 18, 1998 Southampton Unit One, Tracts A, E-G and Siena at Southampton 0195 G LOMR-F 98-04-272A December 10, 1997 Queens Park at Lago Verde, Lot 9 Phase 5, 4821 Oahu Drive 0601 F LOMR-F 98-04-252A December 17, 1997 Naples Manor S. Addition, Lot 13 Block 8, 5350 Martin Street 0603 F LOMR-F 97-04-1468A June 12, 1997 Trail Acres, Lots 18 & 19, Block 2 _ A(3~END.~ iTEM s E.P 1 5 1999 Unit 2,171 6th Street 0603 F LOMR-F 97-04o1310A June 12, 1997 Seinna at Southhampton, Middleburg ~ Stonebridge Building 1-5 and · 10-14 Track B 0195 F LOMR-F 97-04-502A February 20, 1997 Naples Manor, Lot 14, Block 7, Unit 1, 5255 Confederate Drive 0603 F LOMR-F 97-04-450A January 9, 1997 Naples Manor Annex, Lot 1, Block 5, 5250 Floriclian Avenue 0603 F LOMR-F 97-04-454A January 21, 1997 .N. al?es Manor, Lot 8, Block 9, Unit 1, 5230 Confederate Drive 0603 F LOMR-F 97-04-296A December 18, 1996 Trail bcres, Lot 22, Block 3, Unit 2 187 7~' Street 0603 F LOlVlR-F 97-04-1326A September 17, 1996 Section 16, Township 51 South, 11572 Laakso & 11523 Labrador Ln 0650 F LOMR-F 95-04-998A September 26, 1995 Trail Acres, Lot 49, Block 2 286 Porter Street 0603 F 3. LOMRs and LOMAs Superseded The LOMRs and LOMAs listed below have not been reflected on the preliminary FIRM because they have been superseded by new detailed flooding data. When the revised FIRM becomes effective, these LOMRs and LOMAs will no longer be in force. New LOMC Case No. JEffecfive Date Pro_iect Identifier New Panel Zone, LOMR-F 98-04-992A March 31, 1998 Marco Beach, Unit 25, Replat, Lot 4, Block 784, 120 Delbrook Way 0812 F LOMA R4-982-139 March 4, 1998 Marco Beach, Unit 13, Lot 3, Block 401, 1901 Kirk Terrace 0812 F LOMR-F 98-04-074A November 4, 1997 Trail Acres, Lot 14, Block 2 171 1" Street 0603 F LOMR-F 98-04-018A December 23, 1997 Naples Manor Extension, Lot 2 Block 2, 5333 Warren Street 0603 F LOMA R4-974-238 September 24, 1997 Naples Park, Lot 8, Block 71 Unit 5, 773 North 101 Avenue 0193 LOMR-F 97-04-2066A September 4, 1997 Naples Manor Annex, Lot 3 Block 3, 5309 Warren Street 0603 F LOMR-F 97-04-1116A August 29, 1997 Naples Villas, Lot 8,9, Block C SE? 1 5 I999 3352 Poinsettia Avenue 0394 F LOMA 97-04-1640A July 1, 1997 Foxfire Condos H, Building 4-7, Track 7, Foxtail Court 0394 F LOMR-F 97-04-1434A September 30, 1997 Naples Winterpark N, Buildings 47-55, 3400, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, & 80 Frosty Way 0394 F LOMR-F 97-04-820A March 6, 1997 Avalon Estates, Lot 13, Block 5, Unit 1, 4151 1V[incli Avenue 0582 F LOMR-F 97-04-522A January 24, 1997 Naples Manor Lakes, Lot 7, Block 5, 5226 Bwward Street 0603 F LOMR-F 97-04-518A February 5, 1997 Pine View Villas, Lot 12, Block C, 4151 Mindi Avenue 0582 F LOMR-F 97-04-160A February 7, 1997 Parcel 17, Section 16 11280 Laakso Lane 0650 F LOMR-F 96-04-1594A October 7, 1996 Naples Manor Annex, Lot 2, Block 3, 5305 Warren Street 0601 F LOMR-F 964-295 October 21, 1996 Naples Manor, Lot 21, 5221 McCarty Street 0603 F LOMR-F 964-296 October 21, 1996 Naples Manor Annex, Lot 2, 5205 Warren Street 0603 F LOMR-F 964-297 October 21, 1996 Naples Manor Annex, Lot 25, 5365 Broward Street 0603 F LOMR-F 964-151 September 5, 1996 Sunrise Villas, Lot 17 898 San Remo Avenue 0394 F LOMR-F 964-152 November 6, 1996 Naples Manor Lakes, Lot 19, Block 4, 5229 Broward Street 0603 F LOMR-F 96-04-1272A September 6, 1996 Naples Manor Annex, Lot 14, Block 4, 5309 Caldwell Street 0603 F LOMR-F 963-325 July 24, 1996 Naples Manor, Lot 13, Block 3, 5331 Dixie Drive 0601 F LOMR-F 963-291 August 16, 1996 Naples Manor, Lot 14, Block 6, 5330 Dixie Drive 0601 F LOMR-F 96-04-1152A September 9, 1996 Turner Oak Estate, Lot 39 40 Constitution Drive 0582 F LOMR-F 963-277 July 10, 1996 Naples Manor Annex, Lot 22 5217 Caldwell Street 0603 F A{3ENQ~~ ITEM No~ ~ S .P 1 5 1999 Po.., jO , LOMR-F 96-04-1120A July 22, 1996 Hallendale Subdivision, Lots 17 and 18, 3141 and 3153 Mitchell Street 0582 F LOMR-F 963-156 June 6, 1996 -Naples Manor Lakes, Lot 35 Block 7, 5230 Mitchell Street 0603 F LOMR-F 963-157 June 6, 1996 Naples Manor Addition, Lot 11 Block 2 0603 F LOMA 963-158 June 7, 1996 Naples Manor, Lot 7, Block 9 Unit 1, 5226 Collins Street 0603 F LOMA 963-131 May 24, 1996 Riviera Colony CoffEstates, Lot 55 Unit 1, 93 Lemans Drive 0603 F LOMR-F 963-032 May 9, 1996 Naples Manor, Lot 17, Block 6 5329 Confederate Drive 0603 F LOMR.-F 963-033 May 9, 1996 Naples Manor, Lot 15, Block 3, Unit 1, 5339 Dixie Drive 0601 F .~SS.~BLEo THE LATEST INFORMATION WILL ASSIST IN PROPER NOTIFICATION OF YOUR COMMUNITY'S CITIZENS. PLEASE TELEPHONE M~ZE NATHIS, DE~BERRY & DAVIS, AT (703) 849-0330 ZF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. CO~RITY I~%ME: CHIEF ~CUTIVE OFFICER: (name, ~itle, and ad,i~eee) TF/~PHONE: , PRINCIPAL NFIP CONTACT: and addremm) M~P REPOSITORY: e~orod ~d e~ be vi~ed. LOCAL NEWSPAPER: (add.reef and telephone n-~er-loc&11~ distributed, where eo~uni~y ma~ ARE MAPS ACCEPTABLE? YES NO (please circle one) IF MAPsARENOT ACCEPTABLE, PLEASE PROVIDE COM~TTS UNDER SEPAHATE COVER TO: Project Engineer Hazards Study Branch Mitigation Directorate Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20472 S£? 1 5 1999 :' UNIVERSAL LIFE M_ATCERST . 11983 Tamiami Trail lq., Suite 150 Naples, FL 134110 Tel: 941-513-9907 Fax: 941-513-0088 E-mail: ulmi~gate.net doyceanna J. RautJo President & Publisher Karla M. Wheeler ExecuUve V/ce ~ & Edilor August 28, 1999 ,lan Carlton Do~tm:h V/ce Premifent & Clinical Editor The Honorable Pamela S. Mac'Kie, Chairman Collier County Board of Commissioners 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Re: Recommendation to Hire a Consultant to Review Proposed FEM~ Flood Maps Dear Chairman Mac'Kie: On August 4, 1999, your Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) voted to recommend that the Commission hire a consultant to conduct a scientific review of the preliminary Flood Insurance R~te Maps (FIR~S) as proposed for Collier County by FEMA in December 1998. Identified funding options were either Fund 113 for the county's proportionate share or perhaps the General Fund since other impacted governmental entities have contributed to this source. As those laboring with this issue have discovered over the last nine months, it a very technical and highly specialized field. It is estimated that a consultant's scientific review may range in cost from $30,000 to $100,000 depending on the degree of challenge necessary. I am attaching a copy of the July 16, 1999 FEMA Map Review Committee Update Memorandum prepared by Dino J. Longo, DSAC Codes and Construction Subcommittee Chairman for you reference. Both the historical review and the identified areas of concern are useful. The joint governmental FE~/L4~ Map Update Workshop scheduled for Wednesday, September 15, 1999 at 2 PM in the Commission Chambers promises to be an eye- opener for both elected officials and the public. Since a proposed July FEMA public hearing on the maps was delayed, there is still time to develop a scientific and technically accurate set of maps. A scientific review by a specialized firr, Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc. of Jupiter, Florida would be in th; b~GEN~A ITEM interests of all Collier County property owners. - SEP 1 5 1999 A publishing house dech'cated to ~ the qual[~, oFlife far ALL thro~ shared ideas, kno v/eage, aha Commission Chairman Mac'Kie Letter August 28, 1999 Page 2. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. I look forward to the September 15th workshop. Sincerely yours, Joyceanna J. Rautio, Chairman Development Services Advisory Committee JJR/ja Enclosure 1. Copy Distribution: Congressman Porter Goss, 14m District, Florida Commissioner Barbara B. Berry Commissioner Jim Carter, Ph.D. Commissioner Timothy J. Constantine Commissioner John C. Norris Vincent Cautero, AICP, Administrator, Community Development & ' En~i~6ii~hental Services Division ~" DSCA Members: (without enclosure) Charles Morgan Abbot IL Bruce Anderson, Esq. Clifford B. Barksdale, PE David Correa Kris A. Dane, PE Dalas D. Disney, AIA Robert L. Duane, AICP Sally Lam Dino J. Longo Thomas Masters, PE Brian P. Nelson Thomas IL Peek, PE C. Perry Peeples, Esq. Herbert R. Savage, AIA AGENDA iTEM No..=-..~ SF.? 1 5 1999 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE To: Joyceanna J. Rautio, DSAC Chairman From: Dino J. Longo, DSAC Codes & Construction Subcommittee Chairman Date: July 16, 1999 Subject: FE~ Map Review Committee Update In late De~:,ember 1998, the, Federal Emergency Management Agency's consultant, Dewberry and Davis submitted preliminary Flood Maps ~S) to Collier County, the City of Naples, Marco Island, and Everglades City. A meeting was conducted in late January with representatives from the county and it's municipalities to discuss the proposed maps. Due to significant changes in the flood maps and many apparent inconsistencies, a City/Count Flood Map Review Committee Task Force was formed, including representatives from various sectors of the community. The Task Force mission is to ensure that the best possible data, technical, and historical inform{ttion was used in the data and calculations used in the models for the restudy and FIRM Map revisions submitted by FEMA 's consultant, Dewberry and Davis. On April 12, 1999, Brad Loar, Mitigation Director for the FEMA Region Iv Office (Atlanta), Cheryl Johnson, and David Divochy representing Engineering Methods and Applications, Inc. Met with the FEMA Map Review Committee. After careful review of the minutes of the April 12t~ meeting, the committee's findings have raised the following concerns: · That the research methodology used by FEMA's consultant (Engineering Methods and Applications, Inc.) in gathering and accessing the data used to establish the base map zones and elevations may possible be flawed. · There are questions as to the use and application of the computer model used to generate the FIRM map elevations. · FEMA did not incorporate the South Florida Water Management District's Riverine Study as part of the data. · Some topographic transepts may contain inaccurate measurements. · · FEMA's proposed flood insurance rate maps produce measurable impacts to real property in the coastal area. -. Historically, FEMA updates the FIRM maps every 10 to 12 years. The last map revisions were made in 1985. Flood Insurance Rate Maps are used as follows: calculating insurance for existing and new residential structures, making determinations for new construction by contractors and architects and by governments for verifying elevations and answering questions and providing guidance in the use of flood insurance rate maps. ~ AGENDa. ITEM ' These maps' define the boundaries of the various flood zones and set the finis]l flo~''--'"~'--- elevations within those zones. The preliminary FIRM maps as submitted byFM~£P ,~.~ Longo Memo to Rautio July 16, 1999 Page 2. .. will have a profound impact on the community. Flood zone boundaries have changed and elevation requirements may increase between +1.33 feet and +3.0 feet in some areas. The new requirements, as proposed, will affect new construction, future improvements to existing properties, re-categorize some existing properties from conforming to non-conforming and in the event of a disaster, force reconstruc, tion. It is the OPINION of this Task Force that the data used in developing the proposed FIRM maps is possibly flawed and does not accurately and fairly set flood zone boundaries and elevations and will unfairly penalize parts of the community with arbitrarily higher flood insurance rates and requirements. It is also the RECOMMENDATION of this Task Force and the DSAC Subcommittee that Collier County, the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island, and Everglades City jointly retain a consultant to do a scientific review of the data used by FEMA in establishing their computer model used to generate the proposed new FIRM maps. AGEND& ITEM SEP 1 5 1999 8um~ mvbad ~-~.~ [GGE north of 1-75 and east of Twin Ea~les/gth Street.. NW & Bi§ Corkscrew Island; Corkscrew Road area; portions of lmmokalee IAprll 1,1999 Population Estimate: 15,,50,2 IApril,1, 1099 Dwelling Unit Estimate: 5,010 Odor Io revised boundary:. 15,053} Coder Io revised boundary:. 5,t06} (Revised Area if4 affects fewer dwelling units but a larger pbpulatlon. This Is because Ihe persons per DU figure.la higher In the added areas, especially In vicinity of Immokalee. Ihan Ihe ames deleted). - AGENDa, ITEM Minutes from Meeting: Collier County, and City of Naples, FL Date: August 31, 1999 Time: 10:25 am Parti=ipants: Bel Marquez FEMA Laura Kennelly FEMA Prasad Inmula FEMA Todd Davi$on FEI~4A Allen Groover Dewberry &Davis (D&D) Bob Devlin City/Co FP Administrator Stan Chrzanowski County Ken Pineau County Ed Perico County Bill Overstreet City of Naples Recorder: Bel Marquez A meeting was held in the Atlanta FEMA Regional cffice with the above refers;riced participants. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Preliminary FIRMs for Collier County. Them were three main areas of concem that were discussed. 1. Re~lelineaflng the previous Zone D area to Zone A. Apparently this is , problematic for the County. The County does not feel the Unnumbered A zone should be shown or should be smaller than what is shown. They believe so because them is no detailed data {o show this floodplain, and the PFIRMs should either leave it how it was or show it a shaded. Zone X. This change in zone designation has also caused a lot of confusion with homeowners and their flood insurance. They am being quoted as .having to pey upwards of $2200. This area is known as the Golden Gatt'Estates, It has been determined that the South Florida Water Management Di.~trict (SFWMD) is In the process of studyin[I this area for the one percent chance flooding event. It covers - t6;~ canal miles and would enc. ompase this subdivision. The SFWMD wa'.~ called (Ananta Nath) and they said they have 0.5-foot digital topographic maps and that the flood study would not be completed until December 1999. We agreed to work with the SFWMD to determine if their data will be acceptable and, if it will be, Incorporate that along with their topography into the FIRMs. The CitvICounty agreed with this. The County Is t¢, coordinate with the SFWMD to obtain the topographic data so O&D can star~ reviewing for co~'erage. The SFWMD indicated that they are only studying the p ..... -~o0EN~ I~TEM. . SEP ! 5 '1999 i pg.__ I ~"' ,. canals and not the secondary canals and their subsystems, We will have to review the information to determine the impacts of having data for only the primary canals. The County is to also provide D&D with a r, nap showing the primary and secondary canals on It. Prasad discussed the Insurance Implications and the grandfather rules. The homeowners have been given mlsinfornlation concerning flood insurance. 2. 'l'he coastal modeling. They don't refute the model used; they feel they can add more specific information to it. They want to have the backup data to give to a consultant they plan to hire to review this data and make r;~commendationsto the City/County. The City f~els the VE Zone is too far inland though the BFEs only went up by 2 t'eet. They anticipate having s~;meone on board by October 1, 1999, and complete the review nb later than February 2000. Todd explained the Underestimation of coastal high hazard areas, and v,/the possibility that the changes to the propo:ted encroachment of the V- z[me further into Inland could only be chnng~:d by providing better technical data or refining the data. The best possible FIRM should be able to accurately reflect the risk associated with flooding, rather than misleading the public as to showing them as less risky areas. We e):plalned the how coastal models are preformed and will provide the backup data for their use. Send it directly to Bob Devlin, We welcome any new data, such as the updated and new transects or improvements to the Input data used by FEMA. They undemtood they may not see any changes to the BFEs even with additional data and will accept EIFEs ba,4ed the best available data. 3. Tire use of the NAVD 88 vs. NGVD 29. They dc not want to use the NAVD a.~ the County does not want to convert to this b~;cause of the extensive data they maintain for the City and County, and the c~nfusion it creates not only among the surveyors but also the citizens. They requested ti'i~i we use NGVD on the maps and if possible, have the NAVD shown in parentheses- .... urder the BFE. However, they understood that ~ve need to coordinate with FEMA HQ office. We agreed at a minimum to show the data In HGVD 29 and if possible, th;; NAVD also on the FIRMs. We will have to get concurrence from our FEMA HQ. The data submitted by the Study Conti=actor is in NGVD and so are the topographic maps. Any profiles will be shown In NGVD 29, or as may be required by FEMA HQ. The CJty/County agreed with approach. Ful'dler discussion included the following: - - _AGEND~ITEM StP 1 5 1999 pg.__ I~ ,,. 4. There is a City/County Council Workshop meeting schedule for 2:00 PM on ~eptember 15, 1999 to discuss the FIRMs. They would like to have FEMA representation at this meeting. We agreed to have someone from FEMA at this meeting. Bob Devlin is 133 provide the specifics on this meeting. I arid Prasad will probably attend this meeting. 't'odd brought up the possibility of doing a jo, iht news release before this nleeflng stating our commitment to work together and to eliminate some misinformation about flood Insurance. The City/County thought this w=uld be very beneficial for them. We will coordinate with our PlO and thslm to acoompllsh this. The meeting concluded at 11:50 AM.