Loading...
Floodplain Management Committee Minutes 04/04/2011 R 1~~~~Wl~J Floodplain Management Planning Committee BY: ....................... Ray Smith, Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Jim Turner Carolina Valera Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) John Torre, Vice-Chairman Jack McKenna Jerry Kurtz Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Meeting Minutes for 4-4-11Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 10:37 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Carolina Valera, Rick Zyvoloski (alternate for Dan Summers), Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, Mac Hatcher, Jack McKenna, Travis Gossard, Ananta Nath (alternate for Clarence Tears), Duke Vasey, Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham, Lew Schmidt, Chuck Mohlke and Robert Wiley. Absent: John Torre, Brooke Hollander (Excused), Christine Sutherland (Excused), Pierre Bruno (Excused), Bob Devlin, and Christa Carrera. / Fiala 1) ~ There were three (3) members of the public or additional staff in attendance. Hiller Hennin!i; ~ Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. Coyle _______ Coletta OLD BUSINESS: 1. Approval of minutes for the 1-10-11 Regular Meeting - Ray Smith asked if there were any needed changes to the minutes and if not, then a motion for approval. Duke Vasey motioned for approval and the motion passed unanimously. 2. FMPC membership vacancy/replacement (Bill Lorenz) - Bill Lorenz reminded everyone that at the last FMPC meeting he had discussed the reorganization of the CDES and Transportation divisions into the Growth Management Division and the concepts being put together for a new composition of the Floodplain Management Planning Committee (FMPC). He had provided a draft executive summary that staff proposed to take to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) because the BCC had adopted Resolution 2006-200 that constituted and enabled the FMPC. The proposal is to reduce staff membership participation from the current 10 members to 4 members. The 3 municipal members would remain, and to balance the committee, the public member participation would be reduced from the current 10 to 7. That would reconstitute the FMPC to a total of 14 members. The FMPC meetings would continue to be quarterly. The FMPC's scope of responsibility, as outlined in Resolution 06-200 to develop and at least annually evaluate the Collier County Floodplain Management Plan, would remain. Nick Casalanguiga may have additional responsibilities he wishes to discuss with the Committee later in the meeting, but he is in _~~~eting at the moment. Date: Q\\ -0\ \ \ Item #: \ 15l::I:' ~ '2... \ "';;) Page 1 of 13 .~ '-;~3:J: Phil Brougham asked if this is going to go forward to the BCC as currently drafted, or would there be additional changes. Bill Lorenz responded that Nick wanted to attend the meeting, but has a scheduling conflict with a budget meeting right now. Phil suggested that the item be tabled until Nick could attend and make his presentation later in the meeting. Ray Smith agreed to that request. Bill Lorenz also informed the FMPC that he had a 10:00 meeting commitment and would have to leave at that time. Phil Brougham stated that the issue had to be resolved today since the FMPC would not be meeting for another 3 months. Ray Smith agreed and temporarily halted discussion on this item. Upon completion of New Business Item 3, the Committee returned to this item for further discussion. Nick Casalanguida had still not arrived, so Bill Lorenz asked if the Committee would like to discuss the draft document that you have seen and discuss recommendations for purpose of membership. Also, if there is discussion regarding scope, perhaps staff could bring it back. Ray Smith motioned for approval of the draft. Duke Vasey commented on the fiscal impact on page 3, and he had the impression that the investment of staff hours was onerous and costing a lot of money. He wouldn't want this to be hampered by someone saying the Committee only meets quarterly and they meet for 2 hours. There is a lot more than that. It talks to the research staff must do, correlation with the budget process, getting approval from supervisors, it is a lot of money to approve this. He didn't know if it was customary to list a cost estimate, but it couldn't be that the first sentence reads right that we are reducing the size of the Committee because of the cost of copies. We're reducing the size of the Committee because it costs a fortune to have those staff hours invested, including benefits. Perhaps someone will want to know just what that value is. Ray Smith asked if this would be necessary to place in the executive summary. He asked if the Board had to adopt a resolution to. make the change to the Committee. Robert Wiley confirmed that this will require the adoption of a resolution by the Board. Ray then agreed that the fiscal impact of the executive summary would need to address the issue, but not in the body of the resolution. Duke agreed with the fiscal information not being in the resolution, but as a manager he would want to know why he should cut back on the Committee and lose 8 CRS points if it is just for copies. Phil Brougham asked if that would be a modification to the executive summary. Duke Vasey motioned that the fiscal impact be the actual fiscal impact and not the cost of copies. Lew Schmidt asked Duke for a clarification, which he provided. Phil commented that even if it is an estimated cost amount for staff time, there must be something to justify a change like this, not just the cost for copies. Ray Smith then read from the Fiscal Impact section on page 3 of the draft executive summary, "Reducing the total number of committee members will proportionally reduce costs of providing hard copies of documents to the committee members." Duke's explanation is there are additional costs involved, and we should identify those and provide these to the Board in the executive summary. It is not just the cost in providing hard copies. The major cost is manpower costs. Lew asked if we are saying that somebody has to come up with additional words to clarify the fact that we don't know how many man-hours we need. Ray responded that we discussed the savings associated with this, how much will the County tax payer save regarding dollars. Ray thought that was where Duke was leading this. This begins with how many employees are involved and the hours they spend on Committee work during and outside of Committee meetings. Lew then commented that we are not prepared to go the Board with this item. Phil Brougham asked when this item is proposed to go to the Board. Robert Wiley responded that he didn't know "-since this wlIsbeing totally handled by Bill Lorenz and Nick Casalanguida. Page 2 of 13 Phil Brougham commented that they would be back next month on 5-2-11. Ray Smith brought back the motion on the table as the item for discussion. Rick Zyvoloski discussed considering the generic cost figure used by FEMA for every hourly employee. He suggested that since we know we would be losing, go to their rate, develop generalized hours, and develop a cost estimate. Phil Brougham withdrew his second of the motion, and Ray Smith withdrew his motion. Ray Smith then submitted a new motion for the Committee to recommend that language be placed in the executive summary to show the actual costs and cost savings associated with this proposal. Travis Gossard asked if there were other areas in the executive summary needing change, should they be discussed now. The decision was to deal with the particular motion and then address the other areas. Ray Smith called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously. Travis then discussed on the second page regarding members of the public, we aren't reducing the number of public members because of staff, these positions haven't been able to be filled. Robert Wiley responded that the current public membership is 8 and is proposed to go to 7. There are two vacancies, and one application has been submitted and on hold for review since August 2010 for one position. We have not advertised for the second vacancy since the passing of Mr. Luntz. It appears that if the Board approves this resolution we will be notifying the one applicant that we will not be filling the position. Phil Brougham then commented that if staff is reduced to 4, then we must reduce the public to 7 or 5 to keep an odd number of members on the Committee. Robert commented that there are 3 members from the cities, so 7 members of the public would produce an even-numbered committee. Ray Smith asked what would be needed for a quorum. Robert responded that for a 14 member committee, the quorum number would be 7 to have 50%. Phil suggested reducing the public members to 5, Robert suggested leaving it at the current 8 which would create an odd number of Committee members. Chuck Mohlke commented that the quorum would be 8. Ray Smith commented that the 4 staff members would be mandated to attend, and if there are difficulties filling vacant positions now and any current public members leave the Committee, would we be able to fill those slots to achieve a quorum. Under this proposal, a quorum may be difficult to obtain as we move on. Robert Wiley commented that if the Committee wants to provide statements to staff regarding this issue, they need to do so today. Chuck Mohlke commented that whatever is the length of term of service, it could be extended by an additional year. Phil Brougham commented there are not lengths of term for the members of the public. There are currently 8 public members, 3 municipality members, and proposed 4 staff members. Leaving the public members at 8 precludes someone having to decide who to remove to reduce down to 7, and gives a better chance of making quorum. He felt the key motivator for this resolution is to reduce the number of County staff, let them become more productive behind the scenes by allowing them to communicate with each other and the members of the Committee. Ray Smith agreed with leaving the public members at 8. Phil commented that on 5-2-11 the Committee can review the modifications to this resolution, including the estimated dollar savings to staff time, the revised language to leave the current public members at 8, and we can approve it on 5-2-11. Perhaps, on 5-2-11 both Bill and Nick can be here in person. Phil Brougham made that into a motion. Chuck Mohlke informed the Committee that the correct motion would be to continue the item. Phil agreed to continue the item. Ray Smith called for the vote and it passed unanimously. The item is to be discussed at the 5-2-11 meeting. Page 3 of 13 3. Status Report on New Floodplain Mapping (Preliminary DPIRM) - Robert Wiley provided a brief update on the project. The County did file an appeal of the Preliminary DPIRM. PEMA and their consultant, Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Baker) participated in a conference call with the County and issued a letter requesting additional information dealing with the background details of the changes made in the modeling. They want to see the impacts to calibration of only changing the LiDAR without making other adjustments to bring the calibration into an acceptable range. They also need to know everything that Tomasello changed to recalibrate. Changes come about to recalibrate the models with the new LiDAR and include factors such as land surface roughness factors. Tomasello also changed some of the weir configurations since two new weirs (Golden Gate #2 and Golden Gate #3) have been constructed during this time of the study. Baker also sent an external hard drive to the County so the new LiDAR could be loaded onto it for their evaluation. Baker is seriously looking at the appeal. So far there have not been any questions asked about any of the protests submitted by various land owners demonstrating changed ground elevations. Staff assumes the review of the protests is going forward at the same time as the review of the County's appeal. The County's appeal demonstrated a rise in some base flood elevations which is opposite of the typical appeal application that tries to show a lowering of base flood elevations. Staff still expects to finalize this DFIRM by August. NEW BUSINESS 1. Annual Report on Beach, Dune, and Coastal Pass Maintenance - Gary McAlpin did not attend the meeting and give his scheduled presentation. Upon completion of discussion on New Business Item 4 (FMPC Action Item 6(e) Sub-Committee Deliverables) Ray Smith asked about this item. Robert Wiley reported that he had placed a telephone call to Gary and was told that Gary would not be attending the meeting to give the presentation. Phil Brougham commented that Mr. McAlpin should be informed that since he did not present, the Committee rejects his report. Robert also reported that Gary said he would not be able to attend and present the program at the May meeting, but he would prepare a report for distribution to the Committee. 2. Annual Report on Best Management Practices Outreach Program - Steve Preston distributed 2 handouts to Committee members but he only had 10 copies, so not everyone received one. [Note: The 4 staff members who did not receive the handouts were subsequently provided with copies by Robert Wiley.] The County has an NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit for operating and maintaining the public storm sewer system under an NPDES MS4 permit. There is an education component that we have to do both internal education and public education, with it more geared toward water quality rather than flooding. We do have an overlap in the education outreach to the public that deals with flooding, mainly centered on the Greenscape Alliance. This is several local government and municipal entities and a couple of interest groups that have joined the Greenscape Alliance. It has to do with certifying and training landscape architects and maintenance contractors to improve water quality by watching what they do in the landscape. The fIrst handout is a tally of the training classes given to landscapers, with breakdowns on type of class and hours. During the classes, the landscapers are educated about their impact to the local homeowner association stormwater systems, which are basically small scale watersheds. Basically, no one takes care of the stormwater system but them. The training is also open to Homeowner Associations, but very few attend. The Greenscape Alliance does a series of articles in the Page 4 of 13 Naples Daily News. The second handout is one article to help homeowners to understand their stormwater system, their yard, their neighborhood, what their and its roles are in reducing flooding at the most local level (their yards and streets), and how it fits into the bigger system. We do other education outreach, but most of the rest of it is strictly toward water pollution prevention. 3. Presentation and Review of the 2010 Floodplain Management Plan Progress Report - Robert Wiley stated that every year this report must be prepared to identify what was accomplished in the previous calendar year. This reflects accomplished during calendar year 2010. The report is taken to the BCC for their review and approval and ultimately it gets submitted to ISO in the annual recertification process. The purpose of the report is to work towards the recertification to show we are still addressing floodplain issues, and we are still conducting programs as we planned. A lot of the report is the standard language used every year with updates on dates and certain items. We do address some of the major issues, and then there is a grading of the action plan from last year from our action items within the Floodplain Management Plan. Last year we had a group of category A items that we must accomplish each year to meet our mandatory commitments. Category B was our top five that we wanted to get accomplished in 2010. Category C items were there to accomplish if we could, but they were not in our top five. In reviewing the listing, it can be seen that we accomplished the category A items. We also accomplished the category B items, but for some of them it was decided to not proceed with them after review of the issues. In particular, the one item was installation of cross drains in Golden Gate Estates. Stan Chrzanowski had discussed the issue regarding timing and issues of not going forward. Robert asked the Committee to look at the report and provide comments and discussion on things needing adjustment before going forward to the Board. That is one of the major purposes of the Committee. Also, there is a proposed Action Plan for 2011 at the back of the report using the same action items. Those items which have been completed from the top five are now going to be listed as category D. Within the 5-year time frame we have before updating the Floodplain Management Plan, we should be taking all of the category C items and work them up through the category B and ultimately to completed category D. This year we now have 4 category D items. The one category B item, dealing with the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, did get approved, but it is still shown as category B because we have to take the ordinance back to the Board for amendment to adopt the new DFIRMs since the Board removed the automatic adoption provision. Ray Smith asked if there were any comments pertaining to the portion of the report that discusses what we have accomplished to date for 2010. Duke Vasey asked if that included the Action Plan portion of the Progress Report. Ray Smith confirmed that. Duke then asked for an explanation on the meaning of the category A, B and C. Robert Wiley explained that category A items are the ones we have to do each year, they will always be category A. Category B was the top five items to complete in 2010. Category C was for all ofthe other actions items to get accomplished that were not in the top five. Duke requested that a note be added to the Action Plan spreadsheet to explain the terms. Robert agreed to put that into the footer. Ray Smith asked a question regarding the Proposed 2011 Action Plan, although it was also stated in the 2010 Action Plan. On page 2, the last sentence of the second paragraph says, "Staff anticipates reactivating efforts to amend the Floodplain Management Plan and Page 5 of 13 bringing it to the Board for approval and adoption in late 2011." Ray asked if there was going to be enough time to do all of that. There are major changes that need to be made based upon the last Committee discussion, and to do all that and bring it before the Board for adoption in 2011 will be very tight. Robert stated he anticipated bringing it to the Committee in October, if not even in July. This is the work that Mike DeRuntz did, and the Committee voted to proceed, but we continued to have a lot of comments about the large size. Robert anticipates taking Mike's work and concise it down so the document isn't hundreds and hundreds of pages thick. He intends to put a lot of the information in appendices which will make it easier to update in the future, similar to what Rick Zyvoloski did with the Local Mitigation Strategy. This is not really changing what Mike did, but moving it around and reducing the size. Ray recommended extending the time frame to mid-2012, and if it happens in 20 11, that is good. Duke Vasey commented that at one time there was a discussion about an Administrative Code where most of the generalities could be placed. Is there any effort to do something like that? Robert stated that the County is in the process of coming up with an Administrative Code, but he didn't know what was going into it. Fred Reischl is the planner working on the Administrative Code. Duke stated an advantage of an Administrative Code is that each task basically has a separate page and the page can be updated and simply show the revision date on that page. Bill Lorenz informed the Committee that the Administrative Code referenced by Robert is specific only to the Land Development Code. Phil Brougham commented that the Committee is falling into the same traps that we always do, and unless Robert can supply specific tasks with estimated work hours to perform this update, then he thought it erroneous to throw out a date and say you are going to try to do something. How many hours will it take, what is going to be done, and are the hours allocated in the work scheduled signed off on by your manager? Then we can lock in on a good solid date. But to say we are going to try to do this in 2011, or even 2012, he felt goes against the direction of this Committee in the past on work tasks. He advised to not commit to any date until staff can estimate how many hours it is going to take to do the work, and have the boss sign off on it. Phil asked if that work appears in the tasks for 2011, to which Robert responded that they were in his work plan. Ray Smith then moved discussion to the second portion of the document that states what is proposed for accomplishment in 2011. Phil Brougham asked if there would be a change in the document on Page 2 to show a mid-2012 completion time, to which Ray responded that was his recommendation. Ray Smith then motioned to change the Floodplain Management Plan (FMP) revision completion date to mid-2012. Duke Vasey asked how long ago was the current FMP approved. Robert Wiley responded that the current FMP was approved in 2008. Ananta Nath asked if the County hoped to get all of the FEMA issues resolved before that. Robert responded that the County hopes to get the FEMA DFIRM finalized by approximately August of this year (2011). The motion passed unanimously. Ray Smith asked for any discussion of the proposed Action Plan for 2011, starting on page 7. Ray questioned if the proposed dates were achievable. He asked Robert Wiley which items must be completed in 2011. Robert responded that all of the category A items must be done each year. Robert then selected five items to be the category B "top 5" items, starting with the proposed revision to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to adopt the finalized DFIRM. That item is easy to get before the Board, but there is no certainty on getting Board approval. The ordinance revision must occur within 6 months of the DFIRM being finalized Page 6 of 13 by FEMA. Whether that occurs within calendar year 2011 depends upon when the DFIRM is finalized and how soon the Board will want to adopt the new map. If the DFIRM is fmalized by August 2011, that gives 4 months to have the Board adopt it before the end of the year. Robert thinks it will be late 2011 before the Board updates the ordinance as a summary agenda item. Ray expressed concern, similar to Phil, about Robert's use ofthe term "hope" when addressing completion of tasks. It is difficult to establish a plan when you are not sure if you can achieve the plan. The proposed achievement dates may be admirable, but he didn't feel comfortable approving dates if we aren't sure we can accomplishment them. Ray asked if there is a problem with pushing things out to 2012 but achieving them earlier. Robert said he doesn't have a problem with it, but he wants to get things done as quickly as possible, and as soon as FEMA finalizes the DFIRM he wants to go to the BOARD. However, he doesn't know what position they will take, whether they will want to quickly adopt or wait the full 6 months. Ray Smith then asked that since we have identified what he must do, can we then identify what we can achieve regarding these items, the quick achievement, low-hanging fruit items. Phil Brougham discussed that in 2010 the Committee developed the 2010 Action Plan Ranking document which was a 2-page spreadsheet that assigned points and evaluation scoring which led to a ranking to what we should be doing (the category A, B and C ranking). He though the Committee should go through that same exercise with the additional input that we should take notice of any of these activities that result in increased points for the CRS scoring. He didn't know if there were any left or not, but thought it almost a necessary planning exercise that staff should go through before the Committee can endorse the 2011 work plan. Going along with previous discussions, and Nick Casalanguida's commitment 3 months ago, then once we identify what needs to be done, we also need to identify what staffhours are going to be necessary to achieve it and get the appropriate sign- off from Nick or the appropriate department management before we commit to do it. In his opinion was there was still a lot of homework to be done on the 2011 work plan, and if we have to meet again in a month to review that in more detail, then he would submit that we do that. Duke Vasey stated that it looks like we have some sensitivity issues, some concurrent, and some that are contingent. A lot of these items in this document are contingent upon something else happening, which suggests that possibly we need to do a sensitivity analysis on what we are committing ourselves to do. We need to list all of the tasks that need to be accomplished, but Phil is correct in needing to be realistic in what staff emphasis you can put on this and what you can really do without relying on somebody else. Phil Brougham noted that the last 3 months of 20 11 are a new fiscal year with perhaps new staffing. Ray Smith envisioned the Committee sitting here a year from now looking at what we have accomplished and the report that is going before the Board and FEMA. He wants it to be a successful report and show that we made some achievements. He doesn't want to show that we made some achievements, but failed a lot. He wants to make sure the plan is realistic. Duke commented we need to address what things we are doing that we can take credit for, and are there things that we received credits previously that we won't be able to get credit for now due to the reorganization. Carolina Valera suggested adding statements for items that are contingent upon Board approval, to show the progress that has been done. Robert said those type of contingent clarification statements can be added. Ray Smith directed the Committee's attention to action plan item l(d)(ii) which is described as "Prepare proposed revisions to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance for adoption by the Board." Perhaps Page 7 of 13 that could be changed to say "for presentation to the Board". By modifying the language, if the Board decides not to adopt, we still have accomplished the task of presenting it to them. Robert Wiley advised that he was trying to not change the description of the action plan items from the previous year, but could make the change if that was the Committee's direction. The description is not necessarily verbatim with the adopted action items in the FMP by the Board, but is a short representation, so minor changes are not a problem. Duke Vasey felt that Phil Brougham's position was that if the Board has authorized the County Manager to spend employee hours on this, they don't want a "maybe". There shouldn't be any reason why the Board wouldn't approve the items. Phil Brougham stated that perhaps there is a distinction that can be made here between the proposed Action Plan document that will go before the Board and the subordinate work plan for staff which is the real detail. He didn't think we needed to present the detail to the Board, and if we want to break down one deliverable here into two or three tasks on a work-plan, that is completely appropriate. That doesn't need to go into the document going to the Board for approval. The work plan is the substance to getting things accomplished, and that should break down into an individual task to an individual person, and the number of hours and a delivery date. The Board wouldn't want to see that, but the Committee would want to see it and the department's supervisor would want to see it. Ray Smith asked for a motion on the item. Phil Brougham motioned to table the adoption or approval of the Progress Report until one month from today or the next meeting, which he hopes is in May, where the Committee could review a detailed work plan with sign-off by supervision. During discussion on the motion, Lew Schmidt stated the Committee hasn't even talked about the items, so why would we want to stop. Is there any reason why we can't review what has been presented? Chuck Mohlke agreed with the question and indicated that discussion could occur before acting on the motion. Technically a motion to table is not discussable, but for information purposes, the discussion could be held. Phil Brougham commented that his intent is not to cut off discussion, but looking at the list of items does not give him enough information as to why those items even appear on the list. Do these move us toward additional CRS points, for example? We can talk about the items on the list, or about other items that perhaps should be on the list but aren't on the list. We don't have sufficient information here today to have a substantive discussion on it. Duke Vasey commented that possibly one of the missing components of the worksheet is the set of CRS guidelines. They have the task des~ription. We should just reference it. Ray Smith didn't think that was the discussion of the Committee. He felt the Committee's discussion was about making a decision we all feel comfortable with so next year when we are putting together the performance appraisal on what we've done based upon what we said we could accomplish, and he wants it to be very positive and show progress. Travis Gossard commented that what he is hearing is very confusing, because by the end of April he is done with his budget, along with all other staff. That information will be in the hearings with the Board. He questioned how he was to budget for things in 2011 at this time frame. If he is given a task to do, it is not going to get done unless he is given special funding or is directed to do it. He read item 1 (f)(i) "Complete the annual budget and maintenance schedule for stormwater maintenance programs." He will have that done, and the next Committee meeting is 3 months from now. He wasn't sure how that will correlate since basically he is already done with the budget. Phil Brougham commented that is exactly part ofthe problem. There is a disconnect between the activities of this Committee in Page 8 of 13 approving or not approving an action plan and the annual budgeting process of the staff departments that are responsible for executing the action plan. If this Committee and this plan is going to be effective, we need to get into a work flow process, that we developed two years ago, where things are sequenced and result in budgets, and everything flows as it should be because you know what you're going to be asked to do from all different directions, you decide in conjunction with management what the priority of that work is versus the hours it takes and the staff available, decisions are made, and that should flow into the action plan. It should almost be a "no-brainer" for this Committee to say, "We've got sign off, we know the impact on the FMP, we know how it will benefit the CRS rating, and with full confidence we can move it forward to the Board." Weare being asked to approve something that is going to be presented to the Board out of this Committee, and we have no idea whether there will be staff time available or not. What Travis is saying is he has already determined his budget, and Phil felt that Travis not alone. Ray Smith then brought back the motion on the table, and asked Phil to repeat it. Phil motioned for the Committee take no action on approving the 2011 work plan as presented here, until we get more definitive action plan task plans, manpower assignments and supervisory sign-offs at the next meeting which I would submit should be a month from now. Ray Smith asked if that would be an achievable time line. Chuck Mohlke indicated that was the motion that he had seconded. Robert Wiley checked on the date of the May meeting and Phil commented that it doesn't have to literally be 30 days from now, but in early May. Chuck commented that he was hopeful that everyone would benefit the process by submitting their comments in writing or bye-mail, because at some point in time oral communications are going to be burdensome to those who have to make revisions in these schedules. He knows from prior experience, despite everyone's best intentions, they will rely on oral reporting and assume that its beneficial to all concerned, and somehow or other, their oral comments will be translated into a readable document that everybody can use for purposes of future discussion. Ray Smith commented that oral discussion does go into the meeting minutes, but if he is referring to telephone conversations, he agreed that those should be documented. Robert confirmed the room has a standing reservation for the Committee on 5-2-11. Ray directed Robert to schedule the room for 5-2-11. Phil Brougham asked Robert to redistribute the flow chart for development of the FMP to all members of the Committee. It shows the overall process for the FMP, and specifically in the center, it shows how the process should work, so tasks and priorities are assigned prior to budget, go to the departments to get prioritized and approved, flow back and enter into the report going to the Board. All we have to do is either amend the flow chart or endorse it and follow it, and then we have a process. Ray Smith called for the vote on the motion. The motion passed 13-1. Ray Smith then directed the Committee back to a completion of Old Business Item 2. 4. Presentation ofFMPC Action Item 6(e) Sub-Committee Deliverables for Action Item 6(e)- Ray Smith started the discussion by identifying the sub-committee members (Ray Smith, Stan Chrzanowski, Christine Sutherland, Mac Hatcher, and Travis Gossard). The action item, as stated on the Project Management Plan (handout) was to "Provide a single point of contact at the CDES division for all floodplain management assistance, as well as the development of a web page for that contact point. That point of contact will follow protocols for distribution of inquiries, a log of all inquiries, as well as actions taken." Page 9 of 13 - Ray Smith discussed how this task was broken out into 6 objectives. Discussion will move forward for each of the objectives which had handouts. Objective 1 - Establish a single point of contact that will address allfloodplain management questions. Looking at the handout for this Objective 1 identifies there will be a single point of contact through the Road Maintenance Department, with telephone number 252-2984, where all residents can in to the centralized location and if they have any questions, inquiries or complaints pertaining to flooding and drainage. There is a database kept at that location that tracts the calls and at that point either a Road Maintenance team will receive a task to address the complaint or inquiry, or they have a listing of other departments within the County that also handle issues that would report back to Road Maintenance and that information would be placed in the data base. The example Ray gave would be for a complaint concerning pollution, where Road Maintenance would contact Ray, he would address the issue, and forward back to them what Ray had achieved and they would enter that into the data base. Travis Gossard clarified Ray's discussion by explaining that Road Maintenance wouldn't necessarily enter a pollution complaint into the floodplain data base unless it also included a flooding issue. Depending upon what is called in, Road Maintenance may actually investigate it, but they receive lots of complaints throughout the year not related to flooding, so only the flood-related issues would go into the floodplain data base. Phil Brougham asked for an explanation of the difference between protocol 1 and 2. Both items seem to be the same with the exception of the first word or two. Travis Gossard clarified that the job was to identify a central point of contact. This tells the public which contact number to call. Robert Wiley further clarified that even though the public may be informed about the central number to call, other departments can still expect to receive drainage telephone calls as they have in the past. When these other departments receive the calls, they are to take down the information and forward it to Road Maintenance so it gets entered into the data base and then Road Maintenance takes the information and directs it in the correct sequence for resolution. That is the difference between points 1 and 2. Phil commented that if this handout is just a reporting back to the Committee, the important thing is that all staff have been advised of the procedure to follow. As long as the staff understands what is to happen is the important thing. Robert suggested that perhaps this can be clarified in the document and revise the wording. Ray agreed with that. Phil asked if this procedure has been put into place with County staff. Rick Zyvoloski asked about including a contact number for the Immokalee area. Travis responded that all calls to Road Maintenance, including Immokalee, now come to the one central number. There is a satellite office in Immokalee, but the telephone number was discontinued there, and all calls come to the one centralized number. Objective 2 - To provide site-specific flood and flood related data, such as floor elevations, data on historical flooding in the neighborhood or similar information so inquiries can relate the flood threat to their property. Ray Smith asked everyone to look at the High Water Mark team document. It goes through the process of identifying and developing a team, considering safety measures to perform the job safely, and has detail in identifying the importance of the effort without overstepping the responsibilities for hurricane responses. It contains data reporting along with the necessary form and safety protocols. Rick Zyvoloski felt this was an excellent document, but he didn't consider this type of work as non-essential. Page 10 of 13 He felt it was an essential type of work to be performed and complements Emergency Management, it just needs to be looked at from another perspective. This is another reporting agency providing information on the status of infrastructure (roadways) to help prioritize where resources need to be committed. He would like to recommend that this team be considered as essential and go ahead and take them out of the hurricane mix for other jobs. He recommended considering a pre-disaster component such as knowing where road flooding is likely to occur and installing appropriate roadway markers before the sheetflow covers the road. Ray Smith asked if it would be appropriate for Dan Summers to identify the team members as essential after an event. Rick responded that by having a pre-disaster component, this could help with financial reimbursement if we are declared (a federal disaster area). Robert Wiley discussed that the use of the term "essential" was heavily discussed by the sub- committee and the term comes from the County's procedures and policies during emergency declaration times. The "essential" personnel drop their normal work load and report to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) during declared emergency status. It isn't saying that the work of the High Water Mark team is not essential, but the sub-committee decided to keep the term in the meaning of the County Manager's policies. The available staffing for the High Water Mark teams would be chosen from staffing not listed on the "essential personnel" roster. Rick suggested calling this work an essential function so it could be completed from the uncommitted pool of available staffing. Ray Smith recommended the language remain as proposed. Carolina Valera commented that staff was recently required to take certain FEMA training (National Incident Management System training) so we all know that if we get called from the EOC we have to respond. Duke Vasey asked Travis Gossard ifhe would he evaluating Cartegraph software, or evaluating this component of the work plan before January 2012. Robert Wiley explained that the work plan evaluation is intended to be an annual report on how well the effort worked when implemented, if it was implemented over the previous year. This is a similar effort to Steve Preston's annual report on the Best Management Practices or Gary McAlpin's annual report on the beach and dune restoration work. (Note that Robert provided comment that he had just stepped out to call Gary to determine if he was going to make it to the meeting for his presentation, and Gary said no.) Objective 3 - Provide material on how to select a qualified contractor and on what recourse people have if they are dissatisfied with a contractor's performance. Ray Smith mentioned that this is already covered by a brochure available at Contractor Licensing. Robert Wiley agreed with Ray and described how it was Travis Gossard who picked up the information from Contractor Licensing for the sub-committee's review. We can now document this on the CRS reporting form. Objective 4 - Make site visits to review flooding and drainage, and provide one-on-one advice to the property owner. Ray Smith commented this is done through Road Maintenance. Robert Wiley commented there was no separate document prepared for this objective since it is being done as the drainage complaint is handed by Road Maintenance, Engineering and Stormwater Management. Depending upon the situation, as to whether it is in a private development or a County right-of-way, different departments respond to go and look at the situation. Page 11 of 13 ~ Objective 5 - Provide advice and assistance on retrofitting techniques discussed in Activity 530 (Flood Protection). Jim Turner prepared a document, "Meeting FEMA Regulations to Retrofit Buildings", to describe what is being done by the Building Department as calls come in. Jim Turner discussed his recent attendance at the Florida Floodplain Management Association annual meeting. There are some proposed changes coming to the CRS program and the Florida Building Code. The 2010 Florida Building Code, which is supposed to go into effect in January 2010, will incorporate all of the NFIP requirements, so that will change things a bit. The CRS reporting requirement is currently on a 5-year cycle, and that will be changing to a 3-year cycle. He also reported we will receive less credits for the information that we put in the Libraries and there will be more credits for web site information. The number of elevation certificates included with the annual CRS recertification will change from the current 5 to 10 and they must be 90% correct in order to receive the credit points. Hopefully the NFIP changes in the Florida Building Code will make things easier for everyone. That would not include all the FEMA requirements, but it will be all of the NFIP requirements. Objective 6 - The person providing advice on retrofitting techniques has graduated from the Emergency Management Institute course on retrofitting. Jim Turner commented that the County needs to send someone to the upcoming course in Emmitsburg, MD in either September or October of this year. Rick Zyvoloski commented that the training at Emmitsburg is mostly of no cost to the attendees, except for the meal ticket. Room is provided on campus, and travel costs are reimbursed. Ray Smith then thanked Robert Wiley for his assistance and Stan Chrzanowski, Christine Sutherland, Mac Hatcher, and Travis Gossard for their work. He also thanked Jack McKenna for stepping in as Stan's replacement and helping with the process when Stan retired. 5. Public Comments - None. Chuck Mohlke asked Chairman Ray Smith ifhe was open to a suggestion on something to add to the May agenda, if we have time. He would like to discuss some ofthe legislative consequences of some of what is being proposed and the impact it will have on the municipalities and other jurisdictions represented on this Committee. The Water Management Districts, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts will all be impacted in some way. If we could hear the impressions of those represented here as to what to anticipate, assuming the actions of the Legislature will be signed by the Governor and put into effect. Some will affect us directly at the beginning of the state's fiscal year. Ray Smith asked the Committee members for their thoughts, and felt that the next meeting would already be pretty busy. Chuck reminded the Chairman that this was just a suggestion. Phil Brougham commented that he felt it was critical for Nick Casalanguida and Bill Lorenz to attend the May 2, 2011, meeting, or reschedule it to when they can attend. The substance of the meeting will be the executive summary and the work plan. Robert Wiley asked the Committee if they had a preference for scheduling the July 2011 meeting to Tuesday, 7-5-11 or Wednesday 7-6-11. There was no opposition to the Tuesday, 7-5-11 meeting date. Next Meeting: Monday, May 2, 2011, starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 610 of the GMD-P&R building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. Page 12 of 13 uke Vasey passed unanimously at 10:37 a.m. 5'""-10-1 oordinator ./ Page 13 of 13 '"""-