Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/15/1999 J (w/Naples City Council and Marco Island City Council)Septer0ber 15, 1999 TPd%NSCRIPT OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CITY OF NAPLES COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND COUNCIL Naples, Florida, September 15, 1999 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: Pamela S. Mac'Kie, Chairwoman Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James Do Carter CITY OF NAPLES COUNCIL: Fred Barnett, Mayor Bonnie MacKenzie, Vice Mayor Joseph Herms Fred Tarrant Fred Coyle Peter Van Arsdale John Nocera ALSO PRESENT: CITY OF MARCO ISLAND: David Brandt, Chairman John Soldenwagner Ed R. Day Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney A. William Moss, Marco Island City Manager Dr. Jim Woodruff, City of Naples Manager Page 1 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. SPEAKEI~ MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR P. RIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRE.~qED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYIS'I~ SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO TIlE 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 TilERETO, 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 i$ TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (~) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME LS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRWOMAN. IF YOU ARE A PER~ON WITll 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 TAMIAM! TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN TitE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. Pledge of Allegiance. Discussion of proposed changes to flood insurance rate maps (FIRM'S). Adjourn. I September 15, 1999 September 15, 1999 Item #2 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (FIRM'S) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good afternoon, everybody. I'm loud enough anyway. Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome everybody here to the County Commission chamber. It's not our usual layout here for how we all are usually arranged for seating, but we thought it was important -- excuse me, could you guys come to order back there so we could talk to each other? I just want to welcome everybody here and to thank you for coming to participate. And I'll go ahead and tell you if you haven't heard the bad news, there's nobody here from FEMA. FEMA can't be here because of the hurricane. Our staffs, however, have had some meetings that were productive and provided information that was important enough for us to hear about it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We do have good news. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We do have some really good news that's worth showing up for. So if you'll stand, we'll have the pledge of allegiance and then we'll start our meeting. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I wonder if at least for the purpose of the court reporter who's not familiar with all of us -- some of the five of us she knows better than she wishes she did; she has to listen to our voices on a weekly basis most of the time -- but if we could just go around the table and introduce ourselves. And she had asked even as we speak, until she gets a little more familiar with everybody, if you would say, I'm Pam Mac'Kie -- you don't have to say that, but identify yourself as you make a statement so she can get it right for the official record. And I am Pam Mac'Kie, County Commissioner from the 4th District and the Chairwoman of the board this year. MAYOR BARNETT: I'm Bill Barnett, Mayor of the City of Naples. COMMISSIONER BERRY: VICE MAYOR MacKENZIE: Naples. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: COMMISSIONER CARTER: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Barbara Berry, Commissioner, District 5. I'm Barb MacKenzie, Vice Mayor, City of Fred Coyle, Naples City Council. Jim Carter, Commissioner, District 2. John Norris, Commissioner, District 1. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hi, I'm Tim Constantine, the commissioner from the heart of Collier County, District 3. DR. WOODRUFF: Jim Woodruff, City Manager. MR. FERNANDEZ: Bob Fernandez, Collier County Administrator. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: Joe Herms, Naples City Council. COUNCIL MEMBER TARRANT: Fred Tarrant, Naples City Council. MR. MOSS: I'm Bill Moss, City Manager of Marco Island. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: John Nocero, City Council. COUNCILMAN DAY: Ed Day, Marco City Council. COUNCILMAN BRANDT: David Brandt, Marco City Council. COUNCIL MEMBER SOLDENWAGNER: John Soldenwagner, Marco City Council. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, everybody. And I'll turn the meeting over at this point to Bob Fernandez who will get us started on Page 2 September 15, 1999 our agenda. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Our agenda today is to discuss the new FEMA maps that have been submitted for comment. We -- I think we have some good news to report today. We have been pretty prolific in our comments. In fact, staff has made a trip to Atlanta to visit with the FEMA officials, explained to them some of the concerns that we have. And I will now call on Bob Devlin, who's our flood plain management coordinator, jointly funded by the City of Naples and Collier County, to give us a report on where we stand with that process and what the next steps are. Mr. Devlin? MR. DEVLIN: Thank you very much. I'd like to welcome everybody here this afternoon. And I'd like to thank Chairwoman Pam Mac'Kie, Board of County Commissioners, City of Naples, Marco Island City and Everglades City for attending this meeting today. We -- what I'd like to do is go into more detail about the maps. Today's meeting will be an overview of FEMA's proposed changes to the flood maps. And I'll get into more detail about that. We first -- there's three main issues that we're going to be dealing with today. The first issue is the area out in Golden Gate Estates which FEMA has changed the flood maps. Their proposed flood maps are from a D zone to an A zone. The second major issue is the area of the flood study that was -- was done by FEMA's consultant that will have a tremendous impact on our community with regard to elevations of -- changes in the flood zones and how it will impact folks who pay for insurance and the elevations that they have to build their houses to. The third main issue is the change from -- FEMA was proposing to change the vertical datum 1929 NGVD to North American Vertical Datum NAVD. We received the flood maps in December of '98, and when we start -- when we got the maps out, we were looking at them, we saw that there were a lot of inaccuracies with regard to street names and the city/county borders and so forth. And as we began looking at them, we found more and more mistakes. We had a lot of concerns about how we got to the new elevations that they were proposing to bring into this community. And that was -- so we -- at that time, we had a meeting between the city and the county's -- all the cities in the county. And at that meeting, we decided to form a committee to review the maps. And from there on, we began reviewing the maps and we began finding a lot of inaccuracies with regard to the information that we thought went into the maps. From that point, there was a lot of concerns with regard to insurance. So in April we convinced FEMA officials to fly down and discuss our concerns. Prior to them coming, we put a -- we basically put a lot of questions together that we would ask them. So we thought we would be prepared, and at the same time we didn't want to blind-side them. So after the meeting, we had a lot of questions answered with regard to insurance and grandfathering and so forth, and how they come up with the elevations that they have. At the same time, we listened to what they said and we reviewed Page 3 September 15, 1999 the minutes of the meeting and we found out -- we were scratching our head with some of the changes that they made in the elevations, and we thought that we really needed a second opinion on this. We felt that we needed to get a study contractor to come in and review the flood maps and use information that was local to the community. At this time, I have a power-point presentation. I'd like to go into that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Members of the group can -- there's a television monitor behind you. You'll have to turn around on this row, but I guess that's probably our best option. MR. DEVLIN: This is an overview of FEMA's proposed changes to the flood insurance rate maps. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bob, if I could interrupt you for a second for the court reporter to know who is here. And we have Councilman Peter Van Arsdale from the City of Naples. We're so glad you joined us. Hold your applause, that's right. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I couldn't find a place to park. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, Bob. Sorry to interrupt you. Go ahead. MR. DEVLIN: Okay, this is for unincorporated Collier County, City of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City. The purpose of today's workshop is to discuss the impact of FEMA's proposed flood insurance rate map changes will have on residents of our community with regard to insurance, real estate, construction and the change in the vertical datum. Today's agenda, I'll be discussing the National Flood Insurance Program, the flood insurance rate maps and flood zones, and talk a little it about the FEMA map review committee accomplishments and the impact the map changes will have on our community. Also, we'll talk about the FEMA's timetable for development of the new flood maps, recent coordination with FEMA, and your questions. When we formed our committee, we decided that we needed to come up with a mission statement, and we wanted to make sure that we would help FEMA produce the best possible information and that it would be used in the development of the flood insurance rate maps. From the onset of our review, the opinion of the committee was that the maps were incomplete with regard to the basic information such as street names and city/county borders. We also believe that the information that we used to develop the flood maps, there was -- with the flood models was suspect in the following areas. We were concerned about the -- we thought that the zone changes may be too rigorous compared to physical reality of this community. Also, we thought that more local historical data needed to be included in the maps. We also believe that the technical data used in the models may be incomplete. At this time, I'd like to talk a little bit about the -- give an overview of the National Flood Insurance Program. It was established in 1968, and the Act was in response to Congress finding that flood disasters require unforeseen disaster relief and place an increased burden on our nation's resources. The purpose of the program was to provide a reasonable method of slowing risk of flood losses through a flood program of flood insurance which would complement and encourage Page 4 September 15, 1999 preventive and protective measures for our community. Passing that act authorized an insurance program which over a period of time would be available nationwide through a cooperative effort of private industry and government. In 1979, the Federal Emergency Management Agency established a single point of contact with the federal government for emergency management activities. Talk a little bit about the NFIP and FEMA. Soon thereafter, the Federal Insurance Administration, which directly administers the NFIP became part of FEMA. The National Flood Insurance Program contracts with FEMA to provide a program in which communities formally agree, as evidenced by their adoption of codes and ordinance, to regulate flood prone lands. The City of Naples and Collier County both have a flood ordinance. The city organized a flood ordinance in 1980, and Collier County adopted an ordinance in 1979. I have some statistics that I think may enlighten you on the kind of funding that we have sent to the National Flood Insurance Program. In 1998, property owners in Collier County and Marco Island paid 18.9 million for 6.7 billion dollars of flood insurance coverage. If you look at that dollar figure, it kind of gives you an idea of how much money or how much the unincorporated part of Collier County is impacted with -- that -- folks who live in the flood zones. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bob, that doesn't include anything from the City of Naples, just --MR. DEVLIN: The next one up would be property owners in the City of Naples. They paid -- in 1998, they paid 5.2 million, or about 1.5 billion for flood insurance coverage. Property owners in Everglades City paid 108,500 for almost 18 million dollars of flood insurance coverage. Total premiums paid throughout Collier County in 1998 was 24.3 million for 8.3 billion dollars of flood insurance coverage. Since 1979, the total number of claims were 760, which equaled out to 2.7 million, with an average claim of $3,640. Since 1979, Collier County property owners have paid more than 200 million dollars to the National Flood Insurance Program. At this time I'd like to talk a little bit about the flood insurance rate maps and flood zones. The flood insurance rate maps are used for determining zones and elevations throughout Collier County. I'm sure you've all seen these maps. I'll hold one up in the air so if you'd like to -- we could all use them. They're used by residents of the community. Typically residents come into the city building and zoning office the county -- and over at the county, the development services. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That would be John Norris pouring a glass of water. MR. DEVLIN: With the primary reason of finding out where they're located in the flood zone, if they're planning on building a house, they need to know what elevation they'd like to build to. Typically surveyors use the flood maps daily when they're making their decision on the elevation certificates as to what flood zone they're in, and they use the flood maps as a guidance for that. With regard to the insurance industry, underwriters use the flood maps daily to make their decision as to how much you and I will be Page 5 September 15, 1999 paying for flood insurance. The maps are used by developers, contractors, architects and engineers. Realtors call and ask me all the time what -- about a particular -- they'll ask me about a particular location, and they'll say can you tell me what flood zone or what the elevation is, and I pass that information on to them. And some refer to the flood maps, some call me, and then they pass it on to their customers. And last, city and county officials use the flood maps. We use them in the building departments at both the city and the county. Talk a little bit about flood zone vocabulary. Talk about the VE zone. If you refer to the larger map over here, the VE zone is the green area. Referring to the map of the City of Naples, if you'll look at this green area, this is the VE zone. This is the area that FEMA is proposing to increase that in size. Initially, if you'll look at the 1996 map, which is a map we're currently using, you'll see that little green line that runs up and down the coast there. That represents about 50 properties. With the new flood maps, you'll see that the green area has increased significantly. That will eventually impact more than 600 properties. Talk a little bit about the A zone, the X zone, the D zone and the unnumbered A zone. The VE zone is a velocity zone, which is subject to high velocity waters and wave action; also called the coastal high hazard area. VE zone usually -- is usually determined by areas subject to wave heights of three feet or more. Flood insurance is required in the VE zone. Typically VE zone insurance premiums could cost from $1,200 for post-firm to $2,300 for pre-firm. Post-firm is billed in accordance with the flood map, the elevation in a flood map. So if a particular zone says AE or VE 10 or 12, it's built -- it conforms -- the building conforms to that. If it's pre-firm, it means that typically a house along the beach area that was not built -- say it was built say back in the late '60s or up to the mid '70s, that would be considered pre-firm and that's why the increased cost for flood insurance. At this time I'd like to talk a little bit about the AE zone. When you look at AE zones, they're likely to be inundated by one percent over 100 years flood, and not subject to wave action. This area, however, may be subject to residual forward momentum of breaking waves. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could you tell us on the map what color is the AE zone? MR. DEVLIN: If you look at the map for 1999, it's like a dark pink, and then it's a lighter pink that comes out here and then it's purple. So one would be 11, 10 -- it could be -- well, let me see here. This is -- the dark pink is an AE 12. Then the lighter pink is an AE 11. And further back, purple is -- like a light purple is an AE 10. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. DEVLIN: AE flood zone insurance premiums range from 1,000 to $1,500 a year. Talk a little bit about the X zones. X zones are areas of 500-year flood and areas of 100-year flood, with average depths of less than one foot. When you refer to the map, you'll look at the X zone as the gray area there. Initially, the current map that we're Page 6 September 15, 1999 using, you'll see that the X zone is -- the gray area is fairly large, and with -- as a result of the new study, it has significantly been reduced. We estimate that that X zone has been reduced approximately 300 properties. X zone is areas outside the 500-year flood plain. Flood insurance is not required by the NFIP and lenders, but can be purchased. Typically you can buy insurance in the flood zone for two or $300 a year. Talk a little bit about the D zone, which is currently the area out in the Golden Gate area. It's identified as undetermined. Flood insurance is not required by the NFIP; however, flood insurance can be purchased. For a structure valued at 150,000, typically it would cost you about $650 a year for flood insurance. The A zone. As you all know, that area out in Golden Gate Estates, east of 9th Street, they're -- FEMA was proposing to make -- change it from D to A. And there's no -- which A is no base flood elevation has been determined. Based on local insurance carriers, premiums could cost up to $2,200 per year for flood insurance. Talk a little bit about the grandfathering rules for FEMA. Part of grandfathering is to prevent existing property owners from being harmed by changes in the flood insurance rate maps. And that would be for property owners and for businesses. If you've purchased flood insurance in a particular zone and the zone changes, you would be grandfathered in, and the insurance rating would stay the same. As long as -- now, that's as long as the purchaser maintains continuous coverage, and the homeowner will not be affected or harmed by the change in the zone. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that even if the ownership of the home changes? MR. DEVLIN: That's correct. As long as the insurance is continuous, then it would remain the same. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's good news. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Bob, excuse me, what would happen if you were in one of the higher zones and you had one of the older homes, which, if I understood you correctly, you would have a higher rate of insurance, what if you built to the new standard? What happens to that insurance rate? Does it change? MR. DEVLIN: For example, if you built -- say you were in the -- say this area along this part of the coast was an AE 11, and then with the increase in the VE zone in that same area, they -- say it was adopted by this community, they said okay, that's fine, we'll accept the VE zone, you would build to that VE zone elevation, the one that was required. You build to the new elevation, so you would in fact be compliant with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You'd have to go to the more expensive -- to the VE insurance, but it would be at the lower rate because you'd -- MR. DEVLIN: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- be in a compliance. MR. DEVLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You'd be complying. MR. DEVLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. MR. DEVLIN: One exception to the rule is, if you live in the X zone, as is currently set up in the City of Naples, and the proposed Page 7 September 15, 1999 -- this proposal goes through and we end up accepting that change in the X zone, which will become an AE zone, you will be grandfathered in on the X zone. However, if you have a loan, then in order to protect the loan from the banks, what they would do is request you to buy flood insurance. So you'd have to get the AE zone -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Request being an interesting euphemism. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So all of those people that paid cash for their house would be safe. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They don't have anything to worry about. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. MR. DEVLIN: So that was the exception to the rule. The point I'd like to make today for folks who are viewing this would be to keep your flood insurance current, obtain an elevation certificate, because that's good for the life of the property, and obtain one of those flood insurance rate maps. Because here we are, we're going to a -- we had these maps, we've been using those since 1986, we're going to go to a new map in a year or so. What they need to do is keep that map that's relevant to where their house is built at this time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Where would they get that? MR. DEVLIN: They're available if they -- there's a number I can -- I don't have it handy right now, but I can -- to FEMA. You can apply direct from FEMA. They're like 75 cents a panel. They're available at the City of Naples Building and Zoning Department. I'm sure Marco Island and Everglades City has them, and we have them over at the county development. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. DEVLIN: I'd like to talk a little bit about the FEMA map review committee accomplishments. FEMA has on -- we met with them, like I'd mentioned, in April, and they agreed to accept the GIS, and that was information to correct the inaccuracies with regard to the street names and the county/city borders. They agreed to include the South Florida Water Management study, which is currently underway, and expect it to be complete in December. And they answered our grandfathering questions with regard to insurance. Major issues, as I mentioned earlier, was a zone change from D to unnumbered A zone in Golden Gate Estates. The updated models increase the VE zone and decrease the AE zone and X zone in the City of Naples; change in the vertical datum used for determining elevations. At this time I'd like to talk a little bit about the Golden Gate Estates and the impact that the proposed maps will have on them. As I mentioned earlier, they were proposing to change that zone from D to an unnumbered A. And that would have a significant impact on folks who are either trying to buy property, or if they already have property they may not be able to afford their house under that zone, the A zone. The areas in question are non-Golden Gate Estates east of County Road 951, and south of 846 and north and west of Golden Gate Estates. If you look at the map, it has -- those areas are identified, those four areas. That was area number one. Number two is Golden Gate Estates east of County Road 951, north of 1-75, and south and west of Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Basically the North Belle Meade we were Page 8 September 15, 1999 talking about yesterday? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Area two is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Area two is? Thanks. MR. DEVLIN: The TwinEagles area. And of course, Golden Gate north of 1-75, east of TwinEagles. If you'll look at Ninth Street on the map, it's everything east of Ninth Street northwest and southwest. It includes Orangetree, Big Corkscrew Island, the Corkscrew Road area and portions of Immokalee. It does not affect Immokalee proper; however, it does the surrounding areas of Immokalee. The area from 25th Street west will be rezoned from D to X. Flood zone insurance is not required in X zones, as I had mentioned. Residents who live within those areas of the proposed changes will experience the most significant impact because the A zone rating does not provide a numbered base elevation. And that's why we'd like to incorporate that South Florida Water Management study to do that. As it stands now, of course the maps have not been adopted, but this is what they were proposing to do. The next issue is the City of Naples. I went over that in brief. Talked about the increase in the VE zone and decrease in the X zones. If those changes are adopted, the greatest impact will be where the VE zone is expanded along the entire coastline, from Port Royal north to Seagate Drive. At present, as I mentioned before, there's 50 properties in that zone, if you'll look at the 1996 map. FEMA's proposed firms will -- the number of properties will increase to more than 600 in that VE zone, which is the green area over here. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: There's two different green areas. MR. DEVLIN: Right. Basically the two areas, one is a higher elevation. The largest green area is a VE 12. The smaller area, that thin line that goes just west of that is a VE 13. But it may increase to up to 16 up in this area, up to 15 or 16. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For our court reporter, that's Naples City Councilman Joe Herms. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: And the present requirements in there are 11 feet, if I'm not mistaken? MR. DEVLIN: Correct. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: So it's going to 12 or 13 from 11. MR. DEVLIN: Correct. VE zone construction costs will increase from six to $8,000 for a 2,000 square foot home. Changing from an AE zone to VE zone would increase premiums by 60 percent. Increasing the VE zone would diminish the ambience in relation to the existing homes that were built at current or previous required elevations. At this time I'd like to go to the visualizer and give you an example of some properties. First of all, I'd like to show a property that was built back in the '70s. Very nice property. That's on 21st Avenue. That will be impacted with the new VE zone. CHAIRWOMAi~ MAC'KIE: We need you to back that camera back there, Katie. Can you back it up somehow, please? There we go, we're getting there. More and more, please. Now we are there. MR. DEVLIN: There's the house. So that's on 21st Street. That was built to 1970 requirements. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You could have used my house. Page 9 September 15, 1999 MR. DEVLIN: This house is on the same street, was built to the new elevation. What they did was they brought fill in and -- so that's at the current -- that's compliant with the current flood map. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you have a photo of the house next door to this one? Because that's where what the real issue is, is how they look. MR. DEVLIN: Well, I think the one next door to that was pretty close to that same height. But the other one was down the street a few houses. This is a typical house in the VE zone area. As you can see, it's built on pilings. It's probably not a good example, but it gives you an idea of what could happen if that area is changed to a VE zone along the coastal area. And part of when you build under VE zone guidelines, you can't bring fill in as far as FEMA guidelines say you can't bring fill in. Or you can do one of two things: You can either build your house with stem wall or you can use piling. So that creates a situation where if people do build on piling, they build a little bit above flood, say they go a couple feet higher, then they would have the option of parking their car underneath there. So here you have a situation in the city that you would have a house that was built in the '70s, then you have another house that was built compliant, then you have the change in the VE zone, so you have a big up and down situation in the city. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: I'm a bit confused there. Joe Herms, Naples City Council. This particular home is along the beach. MR. DEVLIN: That's correct, in a VE zone. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: And it's probably 19 to 21 feet in height. And the state required it to go to that particular height because it was forward of the Coastal Construction -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Control line. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: -- control line. And in effect, and what you're talking about in the green zone, we're only talking about elevations of difference from 11 feet to 12 or 13 feet which won't look like this at all. It would be probably seven or eight feet lower than this. MR. DEVLIN: It could be -- no, I don't think that is exactly what I meant. What I gave was an example of what could possibly happen. I said that it probably would not be that high. But in reality, if you have a house -- if say if you go -- if you want to switch off to the -- back to the power-point presentation, please? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Apparently the answer is no. MR. DEVLIN: Okay. An example of that would be -- now, this isn't the same area, but a home on Gulf Shore Boulevard built at AE 11 feet NGVD in accordance with the proposed maps, as that middle picture we talked about, and then the home would be required to be built at 13.3 NGVD plus 18 inches. Whenever you go into a VE zone, you have to go an additional 18 inches from the first horizontal -- the highest horizontal member of the structure. So you get additional foot, 18 inches there. So I guess the example I used was probably -- was a bit extreme. But at the same time, folks who decide to build in this VE zone, that could -- that situation could very well occur, if they decide to build on pier columns. It certainly would not be as high, but it would have Page 10 September 15, 1999 an impact on that community. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because they can't bring in fill? MR. DEVLIN: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the fundamental issue. DR. WOODRUFF: That's the key. MR. DEVLIN: Right. DR. WOODRUFF: Richard Woodruff, for the record. I think, Bob, that's the key. It's not the change in elevation, it's the fact that when you change the zones, you're then mandated. If I understood what you said correctly, you're mandated to go to a pier construction rather than bringing in fill material. Do we understand that? MR. DEVLIN: Yes, some of that is true. DR. WOODRUFF: Which part of that? MR. DEVLIN: We could also go with the breakaway walls type construction. They could go that way. But certainly you're going to have a lot more height added to that by not being able to bring fill in there. MR. FERNANDEZ: By breakaway walls, you mean no living area on the ground? MR. DEVLIN: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. MR. FERNANDEZ: No living area on the ground floor. You can't have a bedroom, you can't have a kitchen. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A stilt house. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Stilt house, right. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: No, I think that's -- MR. FERNANDEZ: You can have recreation area, but you can't have bedrooms on the ground floor. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: Well, if you had a stilt house like was shown in the picture up there, you're correct. But what I hear you saying is that you're going to go to 13 feet plus 18 inches, so you're going to go to 14 feet -- 14 and a half feet above the ground, and those homes right now are being built at 11 feet above the ground, so it's going to be a three and a half foot differential. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But it can't be made up with fill, so it's going to be three and a half foot sticks. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: Yes, correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: At a minimum. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Fred Coyle, for the record. There is an alternative. The breakaway walls essentially means stem walls with portions of the wall vented so that stormwater can enter those walls and equalize the pressure on both sides so that the walls are not blown out by the storm surge. So you can have something other than stilts but none of it is acceptable, in my opinion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: Well, and you could also have a lattice work structure which you have on certain homes with landscaping, as well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Also a negative, you know, as far as the ambiance of the city. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: I haven't heard the good news yet. Are we going to get to that, or is this pretty much it? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's mostly good for Golden Gate. MR. DEVLIN: I'll be happy to speed this up, if you want me to. Page 11 September 15, 1999 COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Oh, no, I'm not trying to speed you up, but I just wanted to ask a question. Are we obligated to accept all of this stuff? Do we have any recourse? MR. DEVLIN: The intent of today's meeting is probably one of the second issue or one of the most major issues was for -- is for -- we would like you all to make a decision, if you would. We have a study contractor who is proposing to review the models, number one. First of all, review them and rerun the models, if necessary. To review the models would cost approximately $30,000. To rerun the models would cost $70,000. So that's what that was coming into. I was going to get into that as we go -- as we move on in the presentation. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Not to belabor the point, I'll let you get on with your presentation but it seems to me that things -- that this grandfathering provision is really a subterfuge. It's a way to force everyone out of the grandfathering position over time, because there's so many reasons why your coverage could lapse. Even the selling of the property could result in a lapse of coverage. And I don't quite understand why if we're going to have a grandfathering provision, that we not have a permanent grandfathering provision. These are the people that put their money into these homes, and if it's going to be grandfathered, it should be grandfathered. They shouldn't be obligated to maintain some technical requirement to achieve the grandfathering in the future. MR. DEVLIN: Excuse me, I'm sorry. Go ahead. VICE MAYOR MacKENZIE: You might want to address Mr. Coyle's -- MR. DEVLIN: That particular role is something that the insurance industry follows. They're very strict about that. And I don't know that FEMA will make any changes at this point. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Well, I understand why they want to follow that rule. There's no doubt about that. COUNCILMAN BRANDT: Bob -- this is David Brandt of Marco Island. How does this approach, which affects Collier County and the municipalities within it, compare with Lee County and Charlotte County, and what are they doing about this same issue? MR. DEVLIN: Lee County has someone on board. They hired somebody that's in their natural resources department. He's dealt with FEMA and the flood maps for years and years. He's been all over the country. They have the luxury of having that person work for them who can -- he knows the science involved in the flood maps, and he's -- they're dealing with that. So when I spoke with -- his name is Brad Vance. And he seemed to agree with what FEMA was doing. They didn't have too many changes in that, in the flood zones. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I talked with three of the Lee County commissioners last week about it, David, and it's not an issue to them. They're not having a problem. CHAIRWOM3~N MAC'KIE: Ms. MacKenzie? VICE MAYOR MacKENZIE: For the record, Bonnie MacKenzie. Clearly, what's driving this is the claims that have been made, not particularly in our area, but in other areas. So obviously the historical data is going to be very critical. What are you proposing to bolster our position that it may be risky to live along coastal areas, but some coastal areas are less risky than others. And perhaps Page 12 September 15, 1999 give us a little wiggle room. MR. DEVLIN: I think that our concern as far as when we talked about this, we felt that -- we're very concerned about if we do get hit, we have a hurricane, and if that hits our area, that we want to be as safe as possible. And homes may well should be maybe elevated somewhat. Our concern was from the onset of this -- of the flood maps, we found that the street names were incorrect, the borders were incorrect with the city and the county. We found -- we found the issue out in Golden Gate Estates where they arbitrarily took a D zone and made it an A zone. We just don't feel that FEMA did a proper job or their consultants did a proper job of reviewing the maps and so forth. VICE MAYOR MacKENZIE: But what you're asking for today is going to hinge also on the documentation from the past 100 years or so. Will that be included in what you're proposing? MR. DEVLIN: That's what I would propose, that historical data be included. And that we also feel that FEMA's information was very stringent as far as I think they're taking a posture is they want to increase the zones as much as possible, especially along the coastal area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Day? COUNCILMAN DAY: Yeah, Ed Day, Marco Island. Bob, one of the things that I wanted to share is you haven't talked about the impact on Marco Island. And we've examined that. We want to cooperate with the other government legislative agencies, but the facts are that 40 percent of our constituents will get a 40 percent reduction in flood plain insurance rates due to the maps that have been proposed by FEMA. There is a small area of the -- in Caxambas where the elevations are moderately increased and where they can afford the insurance. And the velocity zone is increased slightly in the Caxambas area, where it should have been to begin with. So not speaking for our council, I would say that we sympathize with Naples and Collier County's problem, and we will cooperate with you, I think. But we don't have a problem with the FEMA data. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sounds as though they've been remarkably accurate on Marco Island if there's a 40 percent decrease. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: One other question. Joe Herms from City of Naples. What happens when you add two or 300 feet to the beach? MR. DEVLIN: For renourishment? COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: If you renourish the beach, right, let's say 300 feet out, what happens to the maps? MR. DEVLIN: That could very well change the transepts along the coastal area, and that may in fact change the elevations that would -- that houses would be proposed. Under the proposed maps, if we -- with this renourishment job project that was just completed, that could very well change the transepts. In other words, those particular properties, that zone may change significantly. It may shrink significantly, the VE zone. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Was the study done before the completion of the renourishment project? Page 13 September 15, 1999 MR. DEVLIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, Bob, now take us back to the presentation then. MR. DEVLIN: At this time I'd like to talk a little bit about the AE zone elevation. Cost of construction in the -- would be -- for a 2,000 square foot home with an 18-inch rise would be approximately .82 to a $1.60 per square foot, or 3 or $4,000. And that would not include profit and overhead. As I said earlier, the proposed study eliminates more than 300 properties in the city's X zone. And we talked about what X zones are. And I talked about the -- if you lived in an X zone and you would -- and you would be grandfathered into that for making substantial improvement into that X zone. So if you lived in an X zone in the City of Naples, and they made it an AE zone, you would still be able to -- that substantial improvement would not apply to your property, to your house. Also, FEMA was proposing to make a change in the vertical datum along with that. I mentioned that earlier. What they're proposing to do is convert the national flood -- what they were going to do is change the vertical datum from 1929 NGVD to 1988 NAVD. And based upon the analysis of the committee, the following changes would occur: The datum change would necessitate surveyors and government to create a backup filing system for NAVD. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's that sign out there say about turning your radio -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Cell phones off. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: I thought it was the Skunk Man coming after me. MR. DEVLIN: By changing from NGVD to NAVD would increase the cost for city and county contracts due to the limited number of control stations. City and county government would have additional administrative costs for changing land development codes to NAVD and would be required to maintain as-built records. The FEMA map review committee unanimously agreed. City and county officials requested a continued use of NGVD vertical datum in Collier County, and this request centers on the fact that the City of Naples is probably 96, 97 percent built out. Unincorporated Collier County is probably 30 to 35 percent built out. Marco Island is 70 percent built out. And I don't have any data on Everglades City. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to be clear, Bob, if they did institute that change, we would still have to maintain the old, so in essence, we would have duplication? MR. DEVLIN: Right. In fact, we would have to maintain the NGVD and the NAVD, so we would have two systems. The concern there is that if the wrong information gets out, there's a possibility that some houses could get built to the wrong elevation and that would cause hate and dissension in the community. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: Joe Herms, again, Naples City Council. What is the difference? MR. DEVLIN: The difference is -- actually NGVD and NAVD, there's little difference. But when they -- the way that it is explained is that there's 1.3 feet difference. In other words, if you had a house that was built at AE 11 NGVD, it would be 12 -- it would be AE 12.3 NAVD. NGVD to NAVD. Page 14 September 15, 1999 COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: And was that what you were speaking of earlier, the 18-inch difference? MR. DEVLIN: No, that was different from that. That 18-inch difference is a requirement by FEMA to build in a VE zone. It's the first horizontal structure 18-inches above that for the first finished floor. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: Okay, then going back to an area that's ll-foot right now, we were up to 14 and a half feet. What you're saying now is by changing NGVD to NAVD that we're going to be up to 16 feet, if I -- or just under 16 feet. MR. DEVLIN: That would be very close to that, yes. DR. WOODRUFF: Richard Woodruff. Let me just clarify that for you. By going to the NAVD, you're going to be at the same point in height as NGVD. The difference, though, is your measuring point where you begin that measurement is different. And what Bob is saying and what we're concerned as mutual staffs is that if you have a dual system of NGVD and NAVD and you say to someone 11, it's -- you have to be careful that someone doesn't misinterpret which scale you're working on. I mean, I'm certainly not an expert in metrics, but if you say, for example, one meter versus one yard, there is a difference there. And that's the point we're making, is that we want to the keep the old scale, because that's what so much of the community has been rebuilt to over the last 20 years. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: Well, and if I understand your point, 11 foot NGVD would be 12 feet -- 12.3 feet NAVD. MR. DEVLIN: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Other way around, I think. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The surveyors in the room have advised us that it's the other way around. MR. DEVLIN: We have six surveyors here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But the point is, is that the measuring is just -- the meters versus yards is probably the best analogy for us lay folks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Equally important -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me give a different analogy. This tabletop has a certain level. You can measure it. You can measure it from the floor to the top of the table or you can measure it from the top of my shoe to the top of the table. That's all we're saying. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: And I understand that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But the top of the table is still right here. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: Right. But what I'm trying to get a better feeling for is if they change the number from -- measuring from NAVD to NG -- or NGVD to NAVD, it sounds like it's either going up or down. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. MR. FERNANDEZ: It stays the same. COUNCIL MEMBER HERMS: It's still the same? DR. WOODRUFF: Richard Woodruff. Once again, Commissioner Norris is correct. The final finished grade is not changing, but the difference and the important difference Page 15 September 15, 1999 is that the construction industry here and the engineers, surveyors, general contractors, they've been set up to do it a certain way. All of our records are set up to do it that same way. So forget all the other issues. Although it sounds like a petty issue, believe me, it's a very important issue that we keep NGVD. Now, as Mr. Norris correctly said, the final elevation that the house is going to be built to is going to be in reality the same elevation as far as how high above your neighbor's property. You're just -- your reference point, your benchmark, is a different point for measuring. And that's why the surveyors especially -- and are there surveyors in the room? Raise your hand. Now, do you agree we want to stay with NGVD? That's what we've been hearing from the engineers and contractors. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For the record, heads were nodding in the affirmative. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The issue isn't only measurement, Joe, it's just efficiency. Government would have to maintain two sets of data. We could potentially have to change the Land Development Code, go through that whole process. It's just more bureaucracy without any benefit at all; literally with no benefit at all. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Van Arsdale? MR. VAN ARSDALE: I guess, Bob, I'm not clear on that issue from the standpoint that at a previous meeting we were told that besides the elevation numbers changing, that the reference point would also be changing so that the change was more than just the numbers you see on the chart. And that was -- and that was discussed in depth, I think, both at the City Council meeting and at that meeting with the fellow from FEMA that was down here. So I guess I'm a little surprised and certainly confused to see -- or to hear this now. So I think it would be very helpful, frankly, to take this information and kind of dumb it down to at least my level or a layperson's term -- standpoint where we -- in other words, we're at this elevation right now. This is the new elevation that we're talking about. And even placing that -- you know, what's the difference? What can we, by looking at these maps, expect the new building height, the new floor height to be at? I think to try and compare these two, and then when you throw in a new reference point besides, I think it's very hard for anybody other than a student of this issue to understand. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess, Bob, he's making the point if you would get us back to where -- the reason we're here. And you may have some other information you want to share about Golden Gate or some others, but I think what I'm sensing anyway is frustration about what do we do about this. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Exactly right. MR. VAN ARSDALE: The big question, how much higher do our houses have to go? That's one question. Because that disrupts the status of the community. And then there's the Golden Gate issue besides. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd really like to get to what our objectives are going to be coming out of this workshop so that we can -- and Commissioner -- or Councilman Coyle related just a few minutes ago, I really want to know what can we do? Can we request a restudy so that we go to NGVD? Can we formulate exactly what we want to go Page 16 September 15, 1999 back to FEMA with? Because I don't think anyone in the room is happy with the maps that they're proposing to us. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Except Marco. MR. DEVLIN: I'm leading to that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: With the exclusion of Marco. MAYOR BARNETT: And could you maybe answer one more question along that? Bill Barnett. Who is FEMA? How do they get their jobs? Who appoints them? Where do they -- I mean -- MR. DEVLIN: FEMA is the Federal Emergency Management Agency. They're typically -- their appointments come from the president. That may have something to do with all of this. MAYOR BARNETT: That's scary, okay. MR. DEVLIN: They have a huge building in Atlanta. They more or less -- they oversee the National Flood Insurance Program. MAYOR BARNETT: But they're appointments, period, right? I mean, they get appointed? MR. DEVLIN: No, I think it's a -- the top management gets appointed and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then they hire their staff. MR. DEVLIN: Then they hire their staff. MAYOR BARNETT: Okay, thanks. MR. DEVLIN: Let me move along, and hopefully I can -- we have that -- it's a moot point on the NGVD at this -- we made some -- we would like to talk about some recent coordination with FEMA. On August 31st, Bill Overstreet, Stan Chrzanowski, Ed Perico, and Ken Pineau and myself, we flew to Atlanta to discuss our concerns with FEMA. We talked about the Golden Gate Estates issue, we talked about the coastal flood study, our concerns about the study, we talked about the change in the vertical datum, and we've established a new time line for the flood maps. And I'd like to -- with regard to Golden Gate Estates, we explained to them that we thought there was no scientific data to back up their zone change from D to A. As a task team, we made the recommendation that we remain a D zone or change that to an X zone out in Golden Gate Estates, that area that will be impacted. And by doing that, they've agreed to use the South Florida Water Management study that will be completed in December. And we expect to have an answer from them probably no later than February on to what zone -- at any rate, we'll have a base elevation to go with out in Golden Gate Estates. And I think we can establish that since 1979 that the county was part of the flood insurance program. They were compliant at that time. We think there's many, many properties out there that will be compliant. Typically the county asked that properties be built 18 inches above the crown of the road. They've complied. You add additional fill for septic systems and then the house is up. So we feel that many, many houses out in Golden Gate Estates are at least three feet above the crown of the road. So we feel that it's a very positive -- would be positive for those folks out there who would not been able to -- formally would not be able to afford flood insurance. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And FEMA accepted the staff's recommendation or agreed to work with you? What's the status? Page 17 September 15, 1999 MR. DEVLIN: They've agreed to work with us. They've accepted our recommendation. And we expect to have an answer from them by the end of February as to what the zone will be and the elevation will be out there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine and then Mr. Fernandez. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Key components to that are one, that they're actually going to use scientific data. And if we find there are some places that have to pay in and it's based on something, I don't think we object to that. It was just having nothing to have it based on before. And they also said they'll take whatever time frame that takes, and we've heard the February time line. But they told me as recently as Monday that, I mean, if it takes six months to make sure they get it right, it will take six months. Their goal in this is to get accurate numbers and accurate measurements out there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the good news. Did you have something to add to that, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's essentially what I was going to say. The good news is that they agreed to reconsider and reformulate their analysis based upon more accurate data, and that the maps that they've put out with respect to Golden Gate will not stand. They will change. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And basically the crisis has passed for the moment, anyway -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For that part of the county. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- for that part of the county. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For Golden Gate. COUNCILMAN BRANDT: Chairwoman Mac'Kie? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Brandt and then Mr. Coyle. COUNCILMAN BRANDT: David Brandt of Marco Island. Once they do their thing, you get a study redone and they come back and make sure that they get all of the data right, what option do we as a community have, as a county and municipal governments have, to say FEMA, we still don't agree with you? Now, what then? MR. DEVLIN: Well, then you would create a -- then we would go to arbitration on that. We would ask county attorneys, and as a community, county and city attorneys to work with them on that. I'd like to make this perfectly clear, that they're willing to work with us. And I think that even if -- even if -- the information that comes out in February may not be what we want to hear, but we feel that based on our committees -- we've all agreed on the committee that whatever they come up with, we have to agree to that. Because this study was done by -- was done locally, and we feel that it is very accurate. So -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a question for you. Jim Carter, Commissioner. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Jim, then I promised Mr. Coyle and Mr. Tarrant. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wait a minute, he comes late and leaves early? (Councilman Van Arsdale exits the boardroom.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bye, Peter. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What a great schedule he's got. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Jim Carter, District 2. In this study, are they going to restudy also the VE zone? I Page 18 September 15, 1999 mean, we made a big change in that. MR. DEVLIN: That's correct. That's right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I really want to see a scientific study versus what I suspect went on. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Coyle? COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Fred Coyle, City of Naples. If we're going to ask them to do a study based upon different scientific principles, I think we need to reach an understanding as to what that should be. If they are making the assumption, in devising these flood maps, that our coast is going to be struck by a Category V storm approaching from the west, I'm certain that they can justify the changes in this map. The fact is that to the best of my knowledge, no such occurrence has ever happened. We -- Donna, as far as I know, was the most powerful storm to hit Naples in our city's recorded history, and it certainly wasn't of that intensity. And furthermore, there are still homes on the beach and in Old Naples that were there when Hurricane Donna struck, and they were not destroyed. So I -- we don't engineer anything for the ultimate disaster. We don't engineer our homes to withstand 250 mile per hour tornadoes, we don't engineer airplanes to withstand forces, wind speeds of two and a half times their maximum capability. There -- most things we don't engineer to a 100 percent probability. So it seems to me that when we talk about this scientific study, we need to have some understanding as to what the assumptions are in developing these models. Does that make sense, or do you know what they're doing with respect to that, Bob? MR. DEVLIN: Well, what they are doing? COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Yeah. MR. DEVLIN: What FEMA's consultant had already done? COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Yes. MR. DEVLIN: As I said earlier, we think that they did not include historical data in the study. We feel that they used the most stringent information. They bring a contractor in from Jacksonville, Florida, who is not familiar with this area. We would like the study contractor to have -- that was familiar with this area would be able to gather local data and just review it. And we think that maybe some -- I'm going to get to that. I have more information on that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Tarrant had a question. COUNCIL MEMBER TARRANT: Yeah, thank you. Fred Tarrant, Naples City Council. Madam Chairman, I'd like to thank Mr. Devlin who I think does everything he can in his power to address the needs of the people. But I -- you know, I have rather libertarian views, and I deeply resent the entire organization known as NAFTA. I'm convinced that the country and the people of this country, including Collier County and Naples, would be far better off if this federal agency would just go away, get out of our lives, get off of our back, get out of here. When you stop and think of over 200 million dollars in about nine or 10 years paid out in premiums with a claim -- with claims paid out of less than three million dollars, that is a fairly outrageous number. Then you talk about this other issue, which hasn't been mentioned, which is these -- these -- what do you call them, Bob, Page 19 September 15, 1999 these flood barriers or -- MR. DEVLIN: The Barrier Islands? COUNCIL MEMBER TARRAi~T: No, I'm talking about these -- MR. DEVLIN: Flood panels? COUNCIL MEMBER TARRANT: Flood panels. -- that are required by certain commercial properties to have these flood panels designed and put in place. Otherwise, if they are damaged by a flood, they can't collect any money on their flood insurance. And these flood panels are like -- you have to go to an architect and have them designed. They cost thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. Maybe up to 50, $70,000 for a building. You put them in place. Do they keep the water out? No. It's just -- you know, this whole thing is like a cash cow for the insurance companies. It's a cash cow for all of these bureaucrats that work in this massive federal organization. I really think that it behooves all elected officials to do everything within their power -- and I understand their powers are limited -- do everything within our power to limit the authority of FEMA, and if possible put them straight out of business. We'd all be better off. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Mr. Nocero had a comment, Mr. Constantine. And then we're going to let Bob, if you don't mind, finish his presentation. Because I don't think they're going to dismantle FEMA, even if we do hate it. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: I mean, I have something I just can't understand. The City of Naples, we're -- some of our residents are facing something like 60 percent increase. And yet Marco Island has gone down. I mean, if there was a Hurricane IV, Category IV coming, and it was coming directly towards Marco Island, City of Naples, I would definitely want to move to the City of Naples, at least get out of Marco Island. So I just don't understand that at all. MR. DEVLIN: Well, that adds more to this. If they in fact have their elevations lowered and ours are higher, I would certainly -- that would make this study suspect alone. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Constantine. And then get us on track, Bob, after that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's go back on track. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Back on track is good. Thanks. Get us back to the presentation where -- what can we do? MR. DEVLIN: I'd like to go back one more. With regard to the Golden Gate issue, this gentleman in the back mentioned if in fact we aren't happy with that study that comes out in February on Golden Gate, I think we have -- we would have an option to challenge that. I think FEMA would work with us on that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, tell us where we are now. MR. DEVLIN: Okay. With regard to Golden Gate, we'll continue to monitor that and report our findings. So it's not that it's going to hit in February. As we get information from FEMA, we'll be passing that along to the media, of course the County Commissioners and everyone involved in that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Bob, the information they're going to plug in there is from the Water Management District, so at least we have some folks with some local knowledge and some understanding, it's not somebody out of Atlanta or Jacksonville. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's in December. Page 20 September 15, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Councilman Day had something. COUNCILMAN DAY: Yeah, Ed Day. You know, you can negotiate. About 18 years ago when the elevations were established for Marco Island -- and a part of the answer to your question, Johnny, is that you are welcome to evacuate to Marco Island if you have to. But the real truth is -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: You can stay in Ed's house, if you want. COUNCILMAN DAY: -- our elevations were set quite high by the last FEMA study. And the reason they're being reduced is because they found they were set too high. However, about 18 years ago when we renegotiated with FEMA, they were very easy to deal with, I felt. And we got the elevations reduced, or a major portion of the island from 13 feet to 11 feet. And now they're reducing them more. We really got hit by the last FEMA study down there to a greater extent than the rest of the county did, which explains some of it. The other thing that I want to throw in is that the entire hurricane threat business, emergency management business, is overdone in Collier County. Before I made the decision to move to Collier County, I got a study from the director of the Naval Weather Service on the historic track of hurricanes, and the finding was that if you take that county or that community in all of coastal Florida least likely to be struck by a hurricane, it's Collier County and specifically Marco Island. And we spent an awful lot of money wringing our hands about where the next hurricane is going to go, and it's been eight years since we had one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Bob, get us -- MR. DEVLIN: We'd like to make it -- as far as the committee's concerned that reviewed the maps, we'd like to make it clear that our concerns are what we'd like to have done if we -- if a study contractor was retained to review the maps. We'd like to have them verify the calculations, include local historical data, and verify the transepts along the coast, which would just be one of many things that we'd like to have them to do. Possibly -- first of all, we'd like to have them review the model and then report their findings, and then if they found that the information was correct, then so be it. However, if the information did not -- he felt that it was incorrect, we would like to have that consultant rerun the models using local data and so forth. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So is that proposal for retaining -- I heard you say $30,000 followed by potentially $70,000 that's going to be coming to the respective governmental agencies here? MR. DEVLIN: Right. And not to exceed $100,000. That would be all of Collier County and City of Naples and Everglades City, and apparently not Marco Island. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, I'd like to ask Mr. Devlin, what is the expectation that if the numbers are rerun by our consultant that they will be accepted by FEMA? MR. DEVLIN: FEMA said that if we could provide information that would be better technical data, and if we could refine their data, that they would accept it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it can't -- frankly, it doesn't sound like a hard decision to me whether or not to spend $30,000 on this question. Whether or not we spend 70,000 will be determined by what Page 21 September 15, 1999 information we get from the 30,000. Is there more to this? MR. FERNANDEZ: We do know that Pinellas County has followed this route. Last word that I got from Mr. Devlin was that they had spent considerably more than this, because they have a higher population, of course, and more dwelling units to consider. But I'm wondering, do we know any more about whether they've been successful with your approach, Mr. Devlin? MR. DEVLIN: Not to my knowledge. Last time I spoke with Pinellas County, they had spent in excess of $850,000. They had retained a consultant that would change the way the models were done, and they were going to go into a -- there was a possibility that they would do a joint study with FEMA, and their portion of that study would be approximately two million dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think we should send Mr. Day to go talk to them since he worked it out 18 years ago. Do it again. COUNCILMAN DAY: I don't think you have to spend that much money. MR. DEVLIN: So in Pinellas County, there's become -- the situation has arisen with the county spending all this money to rebut FEMA. All the little municipalities along the coastal area now want their piece of the pie. And Pinellas County has been criticized in the papers for spending that kind of money and not getting anything in return for that, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, because they have been unsuccessful to date is what you're telling us. MR. DEVLIN: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Coyle? COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Fred Coyle, City of Naples. Do we know the assumptions upon which their scientific analysis was based the last time, the current one? COUNCILMAN BRANDT: The old. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: The existing map development, do we know the assumptions they (sic) were made -- that they made in the development of their model? MR. DEVLIN: We have -- I don't know if the information is available at the county or not. We asked about that information. As you probably remember, in '85 the county and the cities rebutted FEMA at that time. And the study contractor had worked for South Florida Water Management, and it was funded entirely by South Florida Water Management. We had asked them for the -- what records that they had, and I don't think that they have anything available at this time. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Madam Chairwoman, if I could suggest that one of the first steps would be to find out the basis for these projections from FEMA and why they feel they should change so dramatically from their last projections, what has happened with respect to actual experience with storms, and ask them to justify this. You know, the government does work for us, and rather than us having to spend the money to go out and rebut something they did, I think we should put them in the position of justifying their position, and that process then would give us sufficient information to decide then if we want to spend the money rebutting those decisions. COUNCILMAN BRANDT: Amen. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess there's two tracks here. One is with regard to the Golden Gate issue, they have moved toward the Page 22 September 15, 1999 scientific basis that we're willing to accept, and that's not going to require a consultant. It sounds like it's more to do with the coastal areas, that we're going to have to either provide better data or convince them that their data is incorrect. Mr. Fernandez, do you have advice for us about -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I was just going to say, we have reason to believe their data is incorrect because of things that are readily recognizable, such as the street names are mislabeled. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you can take that even a step further. In the Golden Gate Estates area they didn't take into consideration the canal system or estuary system. 165 miles worth of canals, didn't take that into account at all for how it might impact water flow. I mean, it's just disgraceful the way it's come down. I will point out, you -- Pam just said they are going to go ahead and reconsider out there, which is true, but they're using the data provided by the Water Management District. They are not going back. We've asked, I've asked, that very specific question, is, okay, on what are you basing this? And there really has been no answer forthcoming. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Perhaps as a governmental body, if we could do that, and so that we don't interfere with Marco's situation, we carve out those areas that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: -- we specifically want to deal with. And I would appreciate Marco's support in doing that, even though it might now address your area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, certainly it's a good idea to ask the question first. I think so far the experience has been that staffs have asked the question and gotten nothing in response. It certainly couldn't hurt if we sent joint letters from all of our municipalities and county government saying please give us this information. The second -- I think what I'm hearing from the staff is that they already know enough about the data that they've used to know that it's flawed. And they already know that they're not going to redo the data. We're going to have to replace it with something better. We're lucky in the Estates that there was the Water Management District study. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just wanted to make sure that even though we're talking about in the Golden Gate area, that we're pretty confident with the South Florida Water Management District information, that we don't become complacent and assume that that's going to become the cure-all. I think we still need to monitor that area to make sure, you know, because there were some radical things that just were kind of crazy. So -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My understanding, and Clarence can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but is that the work that they're doing is actually going to be accurate within six inches as far as topography and all. So we should have very, very good information to work with. But you're right, we need to follow up to make sure they actually apply it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: One other question that I have. Did they actually come into the area to take a look at -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- the area? Page 23 September 15, 1999 COUNCILMAN NOCERA: They didn't even see the canals. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, that's exactly my point. What were they -- how did they go about conducting their study? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sounds like they had some people from Jacksonville come to Atlanta and tell them about Naples. MR. TEARS: Clarence Tears, Director of Big Cypress Basin, for the record. The study the Basin is doing right now is composed of a lot of information gathering over three years, and improving a model that we hired a consultant to develop the model and we fine-tuned that model to the point that we're comfortable with the results. And by December, we'll have flood profiles for all the primary canals in Collier County. And FEMA -- the discussions with Collier County staff and district staff in Atlanta per our telephone conversation, FEMA said that they would accept those results. But one important thing that Commissioner Constantine stated is that whatever the results are, they may not make everybody happy. Because our initial results, some areas will flood during a 100-year storm event. But it will be based on good science and the best available information at this time. The other concern you have is the coastal areas. Our study only considers the river rain portion, which is the majority of the system is on the east and north side of 41. But we're not dealing with the coastal issue. And the coastal issue deals a lot with statistical information. What they do is look at the historical, how many storms have passed. Recently you've had Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Hugo, and now you have Floyd. So what they did is they took the worst case scenario and did some statistical analysis and they made some assumptions and said this is what you're stuck with. And that's what's changed the coastal areas and you see more flooding. But it's the worst case scenario. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry and then Mr. Coyle. COMMISSIONER BERRY: If I could, please. Back in '95 when they had -- when we had a little water standing around out in the Estates, many folks that I've heard from at that time, they -- when this issue came up in regard to the maps, talked about their yards were flooded for a period of time. But they never had -- in most cases, never had any water in their houses. What does FEMA consider? Do they consider the standing water for a period of time, or do they consider damage to a home or whatever? MR. TEARS: Well, they look at 100-year storm event, the backwater profiles, and just how water impacts certain areas. One thing FEMA did do is the maps they utilized I think were a vintage of 1988. Collier County hasn't changed since 1988. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, not a bit. MR. TEARS: Most of our development has occurred since 1988. So you have a lot of areas in Collier County that are probably five to six feet higher than they were in 1988. And these are subtle changes that when we reviewed the aerials we saw, and we were really concerned with that. The Basin has put a lot of money and effort into this study, and it will provide some excellent information if FEMA accepts it. And they stated they would. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Coyle? Page 24 September 15, 1999 COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Yeah, Clarence, you said they utilized the worst possible scenario. That to me is not a sound scientific way of doing something. MR. TEARS: It's not. As part of this committee that reviewed this, that was some of the information we got from -- I think even staff of Marco Island had concerns, and they talked about the statistics, and they really had some concerns the way FEMA came up with the outcome. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Well, I would hope that we would continue to pursue this, because the amount of flooding that occurs from a storm is dependent, as you know, upon the intensity of the storm, the direction of the storm, which quadrant of the storm hits the coast, what is the situation with tide levels, does it hit at high tide or low tide. All of those variables determine the amount of flooding -- MR. TEARS: Yes. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: -- resulting from the storm. And I'm not at all comfortable that those issues have been adequately addressed in this study. MR. TEARS: And the committee or task force, ad hoc committee, that was brought together felt the same. And they really had some major concerns. And that's why the issues before you today is that maybe 30,000 isn't too much to consider to have somebody really look at their data and give us a point of view other than county and district staff, to look at the coastal area, look at the statistical analysis, and take a close broad overview and say well, we agree with them or we don't. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: But first we've got to get the basis for their analysis. MR. TEARS: Exactly. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: If they refused to give us that information, I think that we need to take action again -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, and there again -- MR. TEARS: I think it could be -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- have our consultant who's going to be looking at their data, they're going to have to give it to us to have the consultant look at it. MR. TEARS: And I think maybe your recommendation would be before you hired a consultant just to review the coastal issues, is to request from them some information for him to review -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's exactly right. MR. TEARS: -- but I would try to, as much as possible, move forward. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A little thing called the Freedom of Information Act. MR. TEARS: Because there is a time frame. And I think FEMA's given us a window, but I don't see that window staying open. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine and then Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other real reason for us to go ahead with this is in the event we end up in arbitration six months down the road, we want to have some statistics that have been generated by our own folks. I agree with Councilman Coyle completely, we have to have a baseline; where is it they're working from, how would they start it. Page 25 September 15, 1999 We can get that if we through Freedom of Information request that. They're required to give it to us. And because we haven't been lucky to date doesn't mean it won't happen. But I do think we need to go ahead on our own and do this so that we have that information. Hopefully we don't ever have to get into arbitration or litigation, but if we do, we need to have our own facts in order. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that a motion? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, Commissioner Carter -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I totally agree with Commissioner Constantine. I'm really suspect about the coastal data. I want to know what it is for Southwest Florida coastal data. That's what is important to me. And I don't know what their data base is. We need to see that. And I think as Commissioner Constantine has said, we need to get our consultants to look at it so that we're prepared for arbitration. And yes, I think, Commissioner Norris, we need a motion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, can we take a motion in this forum, Mr. Fernandez? MR. TEARS: One thing to get the comfort level -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me, Clarence, just one second. Mr. Fernandez, can -- is this the forum for us to make decisions, or are we going to take this back to our respective bodies? MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe we've advertised this as a meeting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At the very least you could poll each perspective body. MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student is here, and what -- I have a concern -- assistant county attorney. I don't know if we're exactly meeting as -- you know, the Board of County Commissioners are here and the City Council is here and the other City Council is here and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, I think it's a workshop. MS. STUDENT: It's more of a workshop, it should be probably taken back to your respective councils. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair, maybe we could -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Marjorie. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- just poll each body today and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course we can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- get some idea of what direction we CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course we can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- are heading. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a suggestion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the City of Naples probably has some interest in joining with us on the study, since they seem to be dramatically affected as well. So what I would suggest is that each body come back as soon as possible at the next meeting that's available with some statement of whether or not they want to participate. And I think City of Marco -- COUNCILMAN BRANDT: We can do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- you'll probably say you don't want to participate. In that case, we'll -- Page 26 September 15, 1999 COUNCILMAN BRANDT: Don't jump to that conclusion, please. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But anyway, what we need at this point, I think we've all seen the information here. What we need to do is go ahead and decide our action plan and that should be to, as far as I'm concerned, to go ahead and get the ball rolling on developing the information. Because Commissioner Constantine is exactly right, we're going to need it when we go to arbitration, if we have to go there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the last question that I had, and it sounds like everybody's ready to wrap up is, Bob, are you going to tell us what is the -- I was talking to Mr. Devlin. MR. DEVLIN: When we met with FEMA in Atlanta, they agreed to send us their information for a -- in the event that we retained a study contractor to rerun their models. First of all, review and then rerun the models. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then the -- MR. DEVLIN: So that information is readily available -- excuse me. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The process continues how? We will get that information from them, the -- MR. DEVLIN: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- respective bodies will decide if they want to spend the money to have someone independently review it. Based on that, we'll decide whether or not we need to acquire our own data, which is another expensive -- is the $70,000 issue. My question is, when we get through arguing with FEMA staff, arbitration is the next step? MR. DEVLIN: That would be the next step if they did not accept the study. But I think if we use local information and we strongly agree as a community, that they will adopt whatever we submit to them. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final thought, and I should have said this sooner. There's a local engineering firm who has some of this information readily available already, just from the nature of their work, who has volunteered to offer that to us, to assist in this. I have no idea to what extent that covers, but if we can get some of that work already done, then we'll be that far ahead of the game. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Woodruff -- Dr. Woodruff? DR. WOODRUFF: Thank you. Richard Woodruff for the record. I think that there may be one other thing. The tact that you're taking is certainly a good one, but there is also the old philosophy that if it isn't broken, why fix it. I think what you may want to do is authorize a joint delegation of appropriate people, certainly the chairperson and the mayor of each city, or however you refer to your chairperson in Marco, to meet with Porter Goss and his folks. And when you look at the historical data, you have to ask the question, you know, we have sent up there -- Bob, what was the figure again, 200 million dollars in insurance premiums in the last 20 years? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We've gotten back two million. DR. WOODRUFF: We got back -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 2.6. DR. WOODRUFF: -- 2.6. Page 27 September 15, 1999 You have to look at the storm history. And we have to make sure that we don't fall prey to the magician's game. We need to be keeping our eye on the target that we need to be watching, not the target that FEMA wants you to watch. And what FEMA want us to do is play this numbers game where we all feel warm and cozy by finishing the process and saying well, we got NGVD instead of NAVD, we got Golden Gate out, we did this, we did that. What I am still waiting to see, and I know that the staffs of all the agencies have the same feeling, where's the problem? What is it that they're fixing? I could understand that if we are talking again about major events. I mean, fortunately we are sitting here today and other people are dealing with Floyd. And hopefully this time next week we won't be dealing with Gert. But the reality is, it's been almost, you know, 37 years since we had to deal with this. Where is it broken? And that's why, what I recommend you do is take a two-fold approach. One is political, one is technical. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that's a very good recommendation, that we would meet with our congressman and do that from a political perspective, and then likewise, our boards will take up the question of whether or not to hire this consultant. Coyle and then Constantine. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: I couldn't agree more, Richard. I think that's very important. There are some fundamental problems with FEMA itself, as far as I'm concerned. And the only way they can be addressed is through the political process. And I would strongly encourage us to deal with our elected representatives in order to deal with those issues. Because if we don't start speaking out, these problems are going to get worse and worse as time goes by. They will nibble away a little bit every few years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The federal government? COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Yes, they will. Take my word for it. And we simply must begin to speak out about the kinds of things they're doing. And I would strongly encourage us to take the action. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have been in contact with Congressman Goss on this and Christy Hahn in his office is actually very, very well up to date on it and is plugging away and they are working from their end. I would not discourage -- if we wanted a delegation to speak with him, he'll be in Washington pretty much all of this month as they take care of the budget and some other issues. We can do a couple of things. I'm going to have to be there on some other business at the end of the month, anyway. If we want to between now and September 29th develop something in particular we want to hand deliver, I'll be happy to do that. But he should be back down here early in October anyway, and we probably want to corner him with you and the Mayor and Chair from Marco and do exactly what you've laid out. COUNCIL MEMBER TARRANT: Madam Chairman, I agree very much with Mr. Coyle's remarks and Dr. Woodruff's remarks. I think they're right on target. I wonder if I could ask Marjorie Student or somebody that's in the legal-eagle division to tell me, what would be the effect if the people who are concerned here -- I mean, we talk about all of these things, but what we're really talking about is how these regulations Page 28 September 15, 1999 affect the people who are caught in this mindless flypaper stickum here of this bureaucracy. What would be the effect if, for example, the people in Collier County did file a class action suit against FEMA? How would that affect the ability of FEMA to go ahead and enforce these regulations? Wouldn't it more or less put it on hold or slow it up? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Marjorie, if you're going to try to answer, come on up. Brave woman to try to take on that question. MS. STUDENT: I'm going to hazard a guess, because I haven't done research on this. And I'm the land use attorney for the county, although I am on our Post-Disaster Recovery Task Force. And this would what I would think. I would think that first of all, if there was some litigation pending, they could still enforce the regulation until the court told them that there was something wrong with it. We may be able to ask the court to impose some sort of stay, I don't know if they would, on the enforcement of the regulation until such time as the matter was finally resolved. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And again, that's telling us what is our very last resort. Because we're going to be much more -- I am, anyway, I'm going to be optimistic that between the political and the scientific process, we can solve our problems. If we can't, then we have arbitration. If we can't, then we have litigation, is the way I hear it being laid out here. Mr. Fernan -- I'm sorry. MS. STUDENT: A concern that I have is -- and again, not having gone through the history of how this has all developed. But if there's any federal law or rule involved, certainly the citizens, I would think, would have the ability to challenge the constitutionality of that. Because in order to avoid a substantive due process claim, that being that the regulation doesn't bear rational relationship to the public health, safety and welfare and such, that being it's not based on any study but is arbitrarily done, that that might be one of the avenues to be investigated. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sort of the process we find ourselves in now, which argues for gathering our own data in the event, you know, we can't convince them that theirs is wrong. VICE MAYOR MacKENZIE: Well, and I like Mr. Coyle's point about going on the offensive as well and challenging them to define the problem. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that's a great idea. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think it's important that we not forget the two prongs of Dr. Woodruff's suggestion. Because the technical response, I think, is going to be important to keep our options open. There's a deadline prescribed by the federal government. They put these things out for a comment period. And I think we have to be sure that we're complying with that part of it and respond on the technical side, as well as pursuing the other options that he suggested. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Coyle? COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Yeah, Dr. Johnny made a comment earlier that we don't really meet for several more weeks. Is it possible that we could jointly instruct our staffs to prepare these appropriate requests for the information so that we don't have to delay it until we formally meet again? Page 29 September 15, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: As the Mayor was leaving, what he whispered in my ear is I'll be happy to participate in a joint letter, because I sense that that's something that our council is going to want to support. So certainly we could give instruction to our staffs today. Whether we can vote to spend money I guess is the other question. VICE MAYOR MacKENZIE: Is there a possibility that we could tag on to what Clarence Tears has been doing and use their consultant without going through the prescribed process, since they clearly have some credibility with FEMA and certainly some familiarity with the issue already? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good question for our staffs as we decide -- as you bring to us the question of the $30,000, is to please consider carefully the benefits of using the same consultant that the Water Management District of Big Cypress has been using. MR. DEVLIN: South Florida Water Management in fact used their own personnel to conduct the study. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know that they're going to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. But that's good information. It's certainly something you should consider. To wrap up, which I guess is where we are -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Speakers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We do have speakers? DR. WOODRUFF: Could I -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, Dr. Woodruff. DR. WOODRUFF: -- ask a clarification on one thing? So that we can move forward, the City Council of Naples should be aware that the charter does give the manager the ability to declare something as an emergency. I'm certainly prepared to state that this is an emergency based upon time lines and we can go ahead and I can over -- I can spend more than the normal charter limits of $12,500. What I would recommend to the City Council is that since Marco finds themselves in a different posture than the other two agencies, and since we're dealing with $30,000, it has been the historic practice of both bodies to cooperate, not based upon population or square miles on these things, but 30 divided by two is pretty simple. So unless the council here, City Council, feels differently, I'll proceed under my emergency powers to authorize up to $15,000 of city money. I will then put that on your October agenda for you to confer in that emergency designation. Does any council member have an opposition to that? VICE MAYOR MacKENZIE: Not me. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: Not me. COUNCIL MEMBER TARRANT: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. You have four here, So that's a great start. MR. FERNANDEZ: On our side -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- Madam Chairwoman, what we can do is put on the agenda for the final budget public hearing that you're going to have on the 22nd our share of that. And I think that would complete that first phase of this study to get the information. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And meanwhile, the staffs will be preparing the request, if it has to be Freedom of Information Act, if that's how Page 30 September 15, 1999 we have to get it, but it sounds like, Mr. Devlin, that they are willing at this point to send us the data. MR. DEVLIN: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you could be pursuing that on the staff level. COUNCILMAN BRANDT: Excuse me -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN BRANDT: -- Madam Chairwoman. While we can't confer in this environment, one of the things I would ask our city manager to do is, if there's no problem with this, is put this item on our agenda. I know we're late in the week, but we have a meeting on Monday night. And we'll determine whether Marco Island would participate in this cost study in some way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I also -- I appreciate that. And I know we don't have elected officials from the City of Everglades, but Chuck Mohlke is here as a consultant to Everglades City, and I would hope he would take that request to them. Because it sounds like on the political side, at least, the unified voice from all of the municipalities and the county is an important part of the puzzle. COUNCILMAN DAY: I think you could count on Marco Island, not speaking for my colleagues, to support the political dimension of what Dr. Woodruff mentioned. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: It's almost a shame that we have to spend taxpayer's money to save taxpayer's money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Isn't it? It's a little unusual that in a workshop format we take speakers. If this group desires to have the speakers, I'll certainly defer to the will of the majority. It is normal, however, not to. COUNCIL MEMBER COYLE: How many do we have? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have two speakers registered. COUNCIL MEMBER TARRANT: It's very normal in the city, Madam. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Chair chick will do, you know that. Would you -- does the group want to hear from speakers? COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's fine, sure. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure. Okay, call them, please. There are two . MR. FERNANDEZ: Two speakers are Jim Coletta and Doug Rankin. Mr. Coletta? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And if you'd come to the staff's microphone there, it's probably our best chance of getting you and hearing you well. MR. COLETTA: For the record, I'm Jim Coletta, president of the Golden Gate State Civic Association. And I have here today to present to you petitions from the residents of Golden Gate Estates, about 2,000-plus homeowners out there that have great concerns. And I'd like to tell you people that I'm very pleased with what I heard here today. I have all the confidence in the world that you're going to do the right thing. And what I've heard today from Clarence Tears and Bob Devlin, I've got all the faith in the world they're going to do the right. But I'd like to remind you about the human issue that's involved in this. We're talking numbers, we're talking elevations, but it's human beings we're basically talking about. And out in Golden Gate Page 31 September 15, 1999 Estates, it's probably the last place in Collier County where homeowners, people of average income, the working people of this county, can afford a home. And if this thing was to happen and the increase was to be about $2,000 on top of everything else that people are doing, you're looking at about six to seven percent of their spendable income. I've heard from a number of people out there in the Estates that said they'll no longer be able to afford to live there. And we're going to be losing some of our human resources that we need to make this all work. We're out there not to fight you but to work with you. We've got faith that you're going to do the right thing. And I'd like to remind you that this evening we're going to be holding our association meeting at the Golden Gate Community Center at 7:00, and we're very thankful to the fact you're going to let Bob Fernandez make a presentation and explain what happened at this meeting. Burt Saunders will be there and Tim Constantine, for sure. And I understand that Barbara Berry is also going to be there, and we appreciate that. And we're looking very much forward to it and I'd like to invite everyone else that has an interest in this. Also, I'd like to add that we realize that this is not just a problem for Golden Gate but for the whole county. And I urge you to consider that $30,000 for the consultant as soon as possible so this thing can get underway. Also, I'd like to share with you that I have done some research through the Internet, like everybody else today does, and this very same situation has taken place in Pinellas County. And if someone would like it, I have a copy of the different news reports. They're about six months ahead of us. And you might be able to see the same stereo -- or the same events taking place that are taking place similarly six months in the future. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, we hope not, because they've spent $85o,00o. MR. COLETTA: They've made some serious mistakes, but I'll be happy to share these news articles I have with whoever would like them. Thank you very much for your time and good work. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. Mr. Rankin. MR. RANKIN: Yes, thank you. I'm here representing myself and Habitat For Humanity, on whose board I sit. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This is Doug Rankin. MR. RANKIN: Yes, Doug Rankin. And I'm not -- I always learned when I was practicing -- as I practiced law that when the judge is agreeing with you, you shut up and sit down, so I'm going to make this quick, because it sounds like you're all on the same page I am. And this is not only a Golden Gate issue, and an Immokalee issue, I want to stress, but it's also a county issue, because the people that perform the services throughout this county live in these areas, and if they can't afford to live there, you've got a problem. And the other area I'm concerned about where people can even less afford this is Immokalee. One and a half of our four subdivisions the Habitat For Humanity has built in Immokalee is included in these new flood zones. And if Page 32 September 15, 1999 what I just had faxed to me this afternoon is correct, the elevation of the streets of one of them is about 32 feet, which is insane. In fact, I've been told off the record by the Water Management District people that in an emergency hurricane, that's where they go to set up shop. In fact, also the area of Golden Gate Estates, while this doesn't affect me personally, the weir -- the area they're wanting to declare a flood zone is protected by two sets of canals. The inner set has one of the highest weirs out there that they, in their public speeches, used to kid they had to send people out there with oxygen because it was so high compared to the rest of the elevation of Collier County. And how sheet flow is going to elevate itself over 100-foot wide canals is beyond me. I've lived in this county for 17 years. I've lived in the Estates for 14. And there are only twice has the water even been out of the main canal and then only for a few hours. The only thing I'm concerned, and I think staff sort of answered is they were not only going to be considering the natural elevation but the elevation of required building. Because as you indicated, it's 18 inches above the crown of a paved road or 24 inches above the crown of an unpaved road. And with a small exception, and I'll go on in a minute, there has never been a flooding I've observed in Golden Gate Estates. And the only flooding I've observed in Golden Gate Estates has been right along Golden Gate Boulevard. And you all are in the process right now of four-laning Golden Gate Boulevard. And when they do the drainage for that, they're going to punch through the little hips that exist on those side streets, that's going to do away with that problem. And I would suggest that data might also be helpful in that situation, because I'm sure you have all of that elevation data. Quite frankly, and this is a little against my own self-interest and I thought -- something I thought was really funny, when I was going over these flood maps out at the county, my office building, which you can see the Gulf from my balcony, is now in an X zone. And that's insane, compared to putting Immokalee and Golden Gate Estates in an A zone. Basically whoever did these, I don't think you're ever going to see any data from, because I don't think they had any. I think I've heard some comments made that they didn't have enough money to do it right, so they just did it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Again, the federal government? MR. RANKIN: The only thing that concerns -- well, since I was kidding the head of the democratic party and as you all know I'm vice-chairman of the republican party, that's how the democratic federal government does it. Anyway, but my concern is, is a lot of these agencies that I've dealt with over my career as an attorney, basically are not really too concerned about the facts as long as they have the power. So I'm glad to hear you're behind us and you're going to do it. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Doug. Is there anything else to come before the group? MR. MARCH: Could I have two minutes? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Yes, sir. One gentleman who -- we'll need to you fill out a form -- MR. MARCH: Okay. Page 33 September 15, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- before you go so we can -- MR. MARCH: Fill out the paperwork, she says. Get it right for the bureaucratic society. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's right. MR. MARCH: I need to interject something here -- I'm Darryl March. I actually in this matter represent the Florida Engineering Society, as well as my own interest in business in this area. I've been involved in flood matters probably longer than anyone else in this room. In 1978, they first proposed these flood matters to the County of Collier. And I was involved in it then. The Collier County staff, the main person in that staff that really fought against it was Tom -- I can't even think of his last name now. But Tom and I dealt a lot with FEMA. And I want to tell you, Mr. Coyle, that they won't give you any information -- they'll give you a lot of information, but it's all useless. You've got to start from scratch. There is a method in their own rules by which you can appeal anything. And that's the only way that you're going to get them to sit down and listen to you. In 1985, they proposed to even increase the bad maps that we had in Collier County, much like they're doing now. And when they did that, South Florida Water Management, with their own funds, did a study and managed to come up with a study that was reliable and considered such things as historical data, which they had not considered. It went before an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator told us at that time that the FEMA maps were totally incorrect, scientifically, and they were not to use those, but they were to develop new maps from the study that was made by South Florida Water Management District. And that's what we got in 1985 and '86. And that's held very well. It really makes a fairly good assumption of historical data, but it's still, every elevation in the county is above the highest elevation that has ever been recorded. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate that. MR. MARCH: So I want to encourage you to go ahead and have this study made, because I don't think even if you -- if the consultant comes in and says that's it, you're in good shape with this study, that's fine. I just want to make sure it's right. And I'm tired, like you are, Fred, of being pushed around by the federal government. I wish we could get rid of FEMA, too. But I don't think that's realistic right now. So what we've got to do is beat them again like we did in '85. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. Appreciate that perspective. Anything else to come before this group? If not, thank you for coming and we're adjourned. Page 34 September 15, 1999 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:55 p.m. ATTEST/ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS .o~ o~ zo~N~ o~c~o ~OV~N~ .O~ISl O~ SPE~I/~L DISTRICTS UNDER ~TS C~TROL PAMELA S~ ~C'KIE, c~IRwo~ These minutes approved by the Board presented / or as corrected on ~, as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 35