Loading...
Floodplain Management Committee Minutes 01/09/2012 Ro 30297 Floodplaln Management Planning Committee FEB 2 r A1i1 Ray Smith, Chairman John Torre, ViceWtirman .............. Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Joseph Gagnier Brooke Hollander Lew Schmidt Christine Sutherland Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Jerry Kurtz Dan Summers Christa Carrera (Na lames) Bob Mahar (Marco I.) Ten Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 1 -9 -12 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 10:36 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, John Torre, Phillip Brougham, Joseph Gagnier, Brooke Hollander, Lew Schmidt, Christine Sutherland, Ananta Nath (alternate for Clarence Tears), Duke Vasey, Jerry Kurtz, Rick Zyvoloski (alternate for Dan Summers), Raquel Pines (alternate for Terry Smallwood) and Robert Wiley. Absent: Pierre Bruno (Excused), Christa Carrera, and Bob Mahar. There were three (3) additional staff members in attendance. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. Ray added an Item 6 s9ifs New ess to discuss the Committee's attendance policy. Hiller Henning OLD BUSINESS: Coyle — Coletta 1. Approval of minutes for the 5 -2 -11 Regular Meeting – Ray Smith asked if there were any needed changes to the minutes and if not, then a motion for approval. Joe Gagnier motioned for approval and the motion passed unanimously. 2. FMPC membership vacancy /replacement (Bill Lorenz) – Robert Wiley informed the Committee that Raquel Pines will be replacing Chuck Mohlke as the representative from Everglades City. (The discussion was temporarily interrupted to allow Nick Casalanguida to give his presentation/discussion.) Raquel provided a brief discussion of her background and current work with Everglades City. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion on direction for revising the F000dplain Management Plan in 2012 (Nick Casalanguida) – Nick informed the Committee that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) recently adopted the Watershed Management Plan, so the County can begin to move forward with action on that. Also, the BCC gave direction to move forward with the Strategic Surface Water Business Plan which Jerry Kurtz is developing in 2012. With the floodplain maps getting updated and adopted by the BCC this spring, the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Plan (LASIP) is a part of the 5 -year capital imprci wMkd lan and is scheduled to be finished within the 4th year, and there is a new 5th year planning and programming, we have a deficit backlog of asset management issues that WN 4e a.Lso `i I l 6 12 Item #: 4:2c 21q L-4 Copies to: Page 1 of 13 concerned about. We are now starting to lay the groundwork in planning for what needs to get improved in the next 5 years. Maintenance of the existing system is the top priority. We don't want to start adding to the inventory of assets until we can make sure we have good control of what we have in the ground (e.g. existing Golden Gate City underground drainage facilities that old, steel culverts that are rotting). Nick is asking the Committee and the BCC to put an additional task for the Committee to look at issues of floodplain management, water quality, rehydration which are all tied together. The Committee would work with County staff to prioritize projects with a special favor toward flood management. As staff develops the projects for the Business Plan and 5 -year Capital Plan, the Committee would review and look at these over the next 6 to 12 months and give your endorsement or critique and comments. Staff is going before the BCC to change the resolution that established the Committee and add that as part of it. Phil Brougham commented that he has no disagreement with the expansion of the Committee's duties, but some of the Committee members have no understanding of the Watershed Management Plan, etc., and it would be helpful to the Committee at a near -term date to have a brief presentation on how the various plans integrate and complement each other. If the Committee is going to evaluate project priorities, he would feel better if the Committee could understand the objectives and touch points of the plans. Nick agreed with Phil and directed staff to give a brief presentation on the Watershed Management Plan and the Surface Water Business Plan that was also given to the BCC. Phil requested the presentations prior to the next scheduled Committee meeting date in April. Christine Sutherland asked if these new guidelines fall in with what FEMA wants the Committee to do. Nick responded that there is an overlap in that they are not all FEMA driven. Some are water quality driven, but water quality projects cannot be completed without addressing floodplain issues. Christine then asked for confirmation that there are certain things that the Committee must do for FEMA, to which Nick confirmed the Committee will stay compliant with those issues. Duke Vasey asked if the Committee could talk about NPDES permitting, what the County's responsibilities are, and how they tie together with Code Enforcement for the compliance portion. Nick responded that regulatory compliance issues are better directed to what the Pollution Control Department is doing as well as what Steve Preston's program participation involves. Nick stated that Steve Preston can certainly present information to the Committee. Ray Smith agreed with Nick on the connection of some of the Pollution Control Department's programs with the NPDES permitting. Duke then asked for a clarification in the handout on the Surface Water Management Business Plan as to whether the taxpayers were the stakeholders to which Nick agreed. Duke then requested that the term stakeholder be removed and replaced with taxpayer. Nick agreed and so directed staff to make the change. Ray Smith then requested for a motion and Duke Vasey motioned to approve the direction provided by Nick, taking the Watershed Management Plan and Business Plan summary handout documents as the core documents, with a unanimous vote of approval. [The following discussion on New Business Item 1 occurred upon completion of discussion of New Business Item 4 and is inserted here.l r Page 2 of 13 Robert Wiley commented that under New Business Item 1, Nick Casalanguida got it started on the Floodplain Management Plan, but what Duke Vasey just talked about (his comment on the document that Mike DeRuntz revised) was one of the new issues that we need to bring to you today. In that regard, in 2012 the Committee needs to officially go back through and review the Floodplain Management Plan. This is the one that Mike DeRuntz worked on and we brought you back to vote and approve and get submitted. We basically put it on hold because now is the year to submit it. We want to go back through it again and see if we want to make any revisions to it. I know one of the issues is to talk about the size of the document. What I am hoping we can do is see if everyone still has it (staff will get Raquel Pines a disc with a copy of the document) and go through it and make sure everyone is happy with it, particularly with the goals. I know that some of the issues in there that we had, I was specifically told that there is no fiinding to even do them this year. When we come back to you in our April meeting with our annual progress report you are going to see some of those statements that had no funding and some of the stuff we may at that point want to revise some of our goals. We have until about October to get this thing put through the Committee. It would go to the Planning Commission and then the BCC, so the BCC would have to adopt it by the end of December. They only have one meeting in December and it is going to be their first meeting so we have a goal that we are working towards. He wants everyone to be aware so we will start with that in our April meeting. Nick wants us to spend minimal time on it because we have already spent so much time on it in the past, but it is just a process that we have to go through. Ray Smith asked whether we did approve this Plan. Robert replied that the Committee did approve it, but then it sat in his office for the past year because now is the year to submit it. We do it every 5 years. Ray Smith asked if there have been any changes to it since we approved it. Robert responded that the issue that he just talked about was Nick's direction on the current list of goals that are in there. Nick directed that we are not able to do some of the items right now, so we will need to go through those and do some modifications. That is some of what we are going to start discussing in our April meeting. Phil Brougham asked if we would be modifying the entire Plan or only highlighting areas for recommended changing. Robert responded that he intends to keep the Plan, as much as he can, in its current condition. One of the things he wants to do, with Committee agreement, is do like Rick Zyvoloski did on the Hazard Mitigation Plan and break out certain portions into appendices so that we can address and amend an appendix without having to go in right in the middle of an 800 page document and have to re- paginate and re- paragraph. Hopefully that is something that we can all come to agreement on what we want to do but not really changing text, just a formatting of organization. Ray Smith then moved forward to the next item under New Business Item 5 (Public Comment). 2. Discussion on Watershed Management Planning and Stormwater Business Plan (Nick Casalanguida, Mac Hatcher and Jerry Kurtz) — Nick Casalanguida briefly gave a background for the development of the Stormwater Business Plan. Stormwater is a business. The proposed program looks at surface water holistically as a utility. The City of Naples draws water from the upper aquifers in G.G. Estates, yet we are sending large amounts of water runoff into Naples Bay while we need to keep more of the water to recharge the aquifers. We are tied together as municipalities and the County. Without getting a business plan Page 3 of 13 together, we are in trouble. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) is setting up some meetings with the City of Naples and County to talk about these issues. The Big Cypress Basin is the over - authority that taxes us, and really we should be coordinating through them to drive the bigger plan. Nick wants to try and bring back the County tax dollars that are currently going out to Water Management District projects on the east coast. These are issues that the Business Plan will look at. (At this point Nick had to leave to attend another meeting.) Jerry Kurtz discussed the handout distributed that is a plan to create the Business Plan. Stormwater improvements are changing. For years the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP) has been the big focus, but it is coming to an end. One of the intents of the Business Plan is to lay out all of the ideas for future project, revenue stream, and begin to prioritize to make the best use of the monies available. Many municipalities take this type of business approach. Stormwater management is a business with customers and risks. We need to know our risks, where they are, their current and potential costs, the cost of service delivery (what level of service do we provide and what will it cost us), a plan to identify these risks and costs, and come up with something sustainable. The Surface Water Business Plan will be an effort to address these issues. We'll use the data from the Watershed Management Plans. Watershed Management Plans are really the science behind a lot of the issues of what is happing within the watersheds. The big thing is the prioritization and programming of the future needs as it relates to surface water and stormwater management. We want to get a lot of taxpayer collaboration through workshops and group meetings. The Business Plan goals are comprehensive and nothing that hasn't been discussed before. Initial efforts will address the repair, replacement or rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. Phase I will focus on what is already there. There are always responsibilities to various federal and state agencies for the operation of facilities. The stormwater system facilities are referenced in the NPDES permit as MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System). We have developed a basic schedule to create the Business Plan over the course of the next year, but the first phase is proposed for completion in the first quarter of 2012. The remainder of the year will look to developing a 5 -year outlook. The major staff participants will be Jerry, Mac Hatcher and Steve Preston. The stakeholders (taxpayers) will be adding to that effort as well as input from various County departments. There are many types of projects for consideration. Some focus on future growth, some are environmental related (e.g. rehydration, aquifer recharge), some are strictly stormwater management, there are canal and weir improvement projects, maintenance /replacement projects, agricultural land and better land management projects, wetland rehydration projects, primary or secondary system improvement projects, tertiary system projects. The list is approximately 150 projects for now. The available revenue is 0.15 mil of taxable value. Program development will use rough project cost estimates to lay out initial prioritizations. Grouping projects with those of the Big Cypress Basin can increase efficiency and support. Funding partners and grant partners are important considerations. Many flooding issues are limited to flooding of land and not homes. There will be evaluations of potential for building flooding, street flooding, and comparisons to the new FEMA flood maps, etc. All of this is a quick summary of what will be involved in developing the Surface Water Business Plan. Page 4 of 13 Duke Vasey asked if the aquifer impacts will only address the upper and lower Tamiami aquifer, or will it also include the Hawthorne? Jerry couldn't answer this detail, but addressed how there is a fine line in managing the stormwater in the summer to avoid draining off standing water to keep people from becoming so aggravated, yet still being able to hold it inland where it needs to be held to provide recharge to the aquifer. Duke also commented there is no mention of productive water bodies in the plan summary, and asked if there is the intention to include Lake Trafford as a productive water body. Jerry agreed. Duke then asked Jerry how he would approach the BCC to write a letter to the SFWMD governing board to use County -owned lands for mitigation in permit applications for public facilities. Jerry responded that that issue has come up previously, and Duke said the letter has always been written to District staff and not the governing board. Jerry concurred with Duke's interest in getting the issue resolved. Phil Brougham asked if Jerry could bring back to the Committee a more detailed presentation of what he is going to be doing, how to measure success, and how to include the Committee's feedback and suggestions in these steps as we go forward. If the Committee is going to provide feedback and benefit the project, then the Committee must be worked into the project. For example, the Committee's input should be obtained prior to going out to the public for feedback. Phil requested more specificity on how the Committee interacts with the project plan and how they can provide input into the priorities as they are set. Ray Smith suggested setting up either the next quarterly meeting or a special meeting to give Jerry a time to provide this information to the Committee. Phil noted that in the handout there is already identified an April 30'' deadline for the project ranking and prioritization. Duke Vasey asked to see a copy of the asset inventory to know what it includes. Does it include the 4000+ retention ponds, or is it limited to NPDES. There are many permit holders throughout the County. What about the 40,000+ number of private wells? An asset inventory needs to include wet and dry detention facilities which have been permitted with obligations to the permit holder. There are also consumptive use permits. The inventory alone could take a year to resolve regarding what to include. He asked when he would be able to see the inventory listing. Looking at the available funding, there is going to be a focus on what is needed to protect public health and safety. None of the other stuff will get done unless there is a way to influence creation of this work, other than grants or Big Cypress Basin/SFWMD funding, this effort will not be productive. He likes the idea of a Watershed Management Plan, and knows that an inventory is critical. He felt one of the first efforts should be to get the Big Cypress Basin inventory information and merge it with the County's. Then there is the cooperation of the municipalities with their own permits. We're looking at a big drainage problem, and each watershed, each PUD, each pond, each large farm creates either a domestic water requirement or they create a specific drainage problem. If that's the inventory we are talking about, then maybe we are looking at 2025 to get this thing some place. There may be some things we can do before that. Jerry Kurtz responded that the County has an inventory in many layers in the GIS (geographical information system). There has been work for quite a few years on the inventory, and there are different levels on how to approach this. Duke responded that he is interested in the numeric nutrient criteria that will be here in March from the FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). The County will have to respond to the nutrient levels that we have, the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) is gone. That will be a huge Page 5 of 13 problem. Jerry responded that the County is working with the FDEP. They are indicating the County will enter into the BMAP (Best Management and Practice) process on some of the impaired watersheds. He thinks we will enter into these one at a time, and Mac Hatcher is taking the lead on this. Basically the 0.1 mils provides around $4 -5 million dollars annually for capital projects once LASIP is completed. That is the funding we will need to program for spending in a master plan way. The County is in pretty good shape on its inventory and the District knows its inventory. One of the challenges is to do a life cycle analysis on the structures, and that analysis will have a pretty high priority. Duke asked if that would consume the $4 million to which Jerry replied it should not take too much to do a quick structural analysis of the hard infrastructure. Then they will be prioritized in their life cycle, select a few that need quick replacement, and then see where all of the others will fall in line over the next 20 -25 years. Some projects are pure construction and some are planning and assessment projects. Duke Vasey commented that this then leads into Phil Brougham's question on timing. Phil commented that it needs to be sooner than later. Ray Smith commented that the Committee doesn't want to be holding up the progress. Jerry Kurtz responded that staff is resource limited with who is available, and staff is really lean (e.g. Mac's staff is just himself, he got the Watershed Management Plan completed but it took a long time). Available staff is basically Jerry and Mac and a few others. The County will hire consultants when needed, but there is probably 5 years worth of work for 20 people and there are only 3 or 4 people available. Phil Brougham commented that if this Committee is going to be the sign -off and input body, as earlier proposed, we are going to have to be brought into the process. He understands the County doesn't have a lot of resources, but if what Jerry is suggesting is that he is going to move faster than the Committee can keep up. Therefore, if you won't be bringing back to the Committee proposed priorities, etc. then we need to go back and revise our newly amended charter. The Committee is either going to have input based upon Jerry coming to the Committee or they're not going to have any responsibility to it. Jerry responded that as this plan is developed, staff will go as fast as they can, but getting input as they go. If the schedule needs to be revised, then it will be revised. We're not going to bring this plan forward without adequate input from this Committee or others. Phil offered that if Jerry needs more meetings from the Committee than once a month, then he was willing to meet more often than once a month. Jerry suggested that maybe we could use workshops, if needed, instead of full regular meetings. Bill Lorenz commented that watershed management issues will be added to the Committee's charter through a resolution before the BCC on 1- 24 -12. This idea for using the Committee has evolved over the past several months. As Jerry was getting the Surface Water Business Plan, and Mac was getting the Watershed Management Plan, ready for BCC presentations in December, and this Committee was getting ready for the first meeting of this year, all of these ideas have coalesced, and now we need to develop a comprehensive project management plan to identify the various individuals and/or committees that we will need to bring a variety of different issues to. Jerry's schedule was developed before when the idea of the Committee work was identified. Jerry's project schedule will need to be addressed to bring in the work of the Committee, and then this new schedule will be shared with the Committee. Phil Brougham responded that everybody wants a realistic project plan that effectively uses limited resources rather than a "show and tell" where we're going to Page 6 of 13 accomplish all this stuff and then don't have enough manpower to accomplish it. Bill stated his agreement. The initial effort will be to identify what needs to be accomplished before putting the resources to it. Then we will have to develop a timetable for prioritization. If the schedule needs to be pushed out, then so be it. Ray Smith suggested that as we start off, and as we approach the approval of major points of the plan, consider having a workshop with the Committee and then a month later have a meeting to vote on the issue. Bill Lorenz agreed. Ananta Nath wanted to follow -up on Duke Vasey's request about writing a letter to the SFWMD governing board for using County lands for mitigation, he didn't think that the Board had a letter from the County or County Commission, so perhaps this Committee could make the recommendation or work with the BCC to write that letter. Duke Vasey responded that this issue goes back about 5 years when the SFWMD was approached about using County -owned property for the purpose of residential construction and permit applications. This led to the creation of the ROMA which handles residential. Then we began looking further at County -owned property and wondering why the County, as a public works project permit applicant wasn't using County property to mitigate the public works requirements. It was discovered that the SFWMD (Lower West Coast) had entered into a memorandum of agreement with a private contractor for creation of their own mitigation bank outside the functional watershed. When we approached Anita Bain, she said that could be done on small projects. But when we went into the first permit application, the SFWMD said to use the ROMA for that. This showed a lack of understanding of the problem. The BCC has a requirement to approach the Governing Board of the SFWMD and specifically ask if County - owned may be used to mitigate public works projects within the County or functional watershed. Since 1955 that has not been done. Duke requests that we go to the BCC and resolve this use of County -owned property for mitigation with permit application to the Board of Governors. He would prefer to take this to the Governor of the State of Florida, but will concede to wiser counsel that now says take it to the SFWMD Board of Governors. Jerry Kurtz responded that he thought Conservation Collier had an application in now to use Pepper Ranch as mitigation. Duke Vasey is unaware of what Conservation Collier is doing. He only heard the statement made that Laura Layman, an employee of the SFWMD, made a statement that they could not do it. She is functioning off of a letter of agreement signed by someone in the Lower West Coast office, but that was not approved by the SFWMD Board of Governors. Jerry suggested getting information from Conservation Collier, and Bill Lorenz followed up with a suggestion to get information from Conservation Collier staff as to what they have as a permit application and distribute that information to the Committee. Duke was willing to see the information. Mac Hatcher then began the discussion on the update of the Watershed Management Plan (WMP). They have been working on the WMP for quite some time, and it was recently approved by the Board of County Commissioners in December. The handout is a very brief summary of the findings and it lists the recommendations presented to the BCC that they approved. The WMP identified as watershed resource concerns • the excessive freshwater discharges from the canals, • the drainage system doesn't meet the desired flood protection level, • we have a potential problem with pollutant loading from development, and Page 7 of 13 • we have aquifer impacts due to the canal discharges, reduced recharge from development, and potable and agricultural withdrawal demands. The recommendations that were approved are intended to be developed by staff using existing stormwater budget and whatever grants and partners /joint funding we can scrape together. A lot of the matrices we use to value and quantify impacts can be used to move forward with quantifying improvements and keeping track of performance related to the water resource issues as we move forward. The first table is a list of the recommended projects, primarily to help with reducing drainage and improving water quality. The scores from the matrices are listed, and these were prioritized based upon the estimated cost to construct and the benefit to cost ratio. The second initiative proposed in the recommendations is the Low Impact Development (LID) treatment program which is to be implemented by developing incentives, and the LID treatment program will be in addition to the existing 150% water quality treatment requirement which has been in place since the interim WMP standards were set. The next initiative is a program to upgrade and retrofit the existing public stormwater treatment systems with LID best management practices (BMP) to maximize water quality benefits and recharge benefits. The next initiative is a fee -based stormwater utility to see if a fee structure can be created to provide incentive for private entities to upgrade their stormwater treatment systems through the fee structure process. That will be a 2- phased approach, with the first phase being a drafting of the basics used by other Counties and then getting direction from the BCC as to whether or not to move forward with more detailed incentive possibilities. We want to develop some flood protection land development code and ordinance improvements. As part of the WMP we developed discharge rate limits and the consultant also proposed we implement some volume discharge limits. These standards will be upgraded. They also recommended we re- evaluate the way we develop our level of service standards. We need to do some analysis to see if the way we develop the alternate level of service standard will adversely impact the way we have the different basins valued with the level of service. The next initiative is the North Golden Gate Estates Transfer of Development Rights ( NGGTDR) program. We are looking to send development rights out of some of the more sensitive Golden Gate Estates areas and get some additional storage where those development rights are sent away. This is also the recommendation of the Master Mobility Plan from Transportation. The WMP planning and Transportation planning efforts are trying to complement each other. In addition to the NGGTDR is the North Golden Gate Estates Mitigation Program (NGGMP), which is to see if an in -basin mitigation program can be created that complements the NGGTDR. If we are successful in this, then we will try and move this idea into other basins. We want to work with the SFWMD and Big Cypress Basin on the storage and structural enhancements when they come up for review. The water quality monitoring program will be coordinated with the FDEP and the SFWMD on enhancing the location of stations and the monitoring that is done to get the most benefit out of the program. We are looking at working with the SFWMD and other entities to development storage and treatment of stormwater in fallow agricultural areas. This is being pursued in some of the upper Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River basins now, and this may be useful in Collier County. Page 8of13 r We are also looking to development a stormwater treatment system certification program. The basis would be the proposed State's Stormwater Quality Applicant's Handbook as a guide for what types of inspections we would be requiring. The last initiative was the fertilizer ordinance which was passed and adopted. The Pollution Control Department is working with us on the education for that program. Christine Sutherland asked for an explanation of the term Total Normalized Project Score. Mac explained that there was no upper limit for scoring, but it is a combination of the evaluations that were placed on the project to get at their improvement to water quality, water storage, habitat improvement and flooding. The consultant worked up matrices that allowed an evaluation for each of these things, and the scores were developed for each of the projects. The normalization was requested by the Environmental Advisory Council to make sure that all of the different evaluations were on the same scale. The consultant pointed out that the proposed water resource projects will make an improvement over the existing system, but they won't get us where we need to go. We need to also develop the LID programs to keep water quality at acceptable targets, and we need to do other things to prevent over drainage and provide flood relief. Christine then asked if a low score was good or bad. Mac replied that the higher score indicates more value to a project. The Committee then returned to the Old Business item of Raquel Pines' membership. (see in Old Business, Item 2 above.) 3. Revisions to FMPC Establishing Resolution (Bill Lorenz) — Bill Lorenz said that on 7 -26 -11 the BCC passed a resolution that changed the Committee's membership. The reorganization of the Transportation and CDES divisions led to staff being reduced from 10 to 4 individuals. They now represent the Bureau of Emergency Services, Communications and Customer Relations, Growth Management and Public Utilities. The incorporated municipalities remain the same with 3 individuals. The members of the public went down from 10 to 8. The County Manager reappointed the remaining 8 serving members of the public. We now have 15 members on the Committee instead of 23. Recently is the issue of going to the BCC on 1- 24-12 to add to the Committee's responsibilities the review and recommendations for surface water and watershed management issues, both water quantity and water quality. This is the same as the discussion we had earlier on Jerry's Surface Water Business Plan and Mae's Watershed Management Plan. As we begin implementing those initiatives, we will have to bring into our schedules, how to come back to get input from this Committee. That resolution is being proposed for the 1 -24 -12 BCC meeting. Bill then asked whether Nick Casalanguida intended for this discussion to receive any action from the Committee or if it is just intended for information. Robert Wiley responded that this is just an item for the Committee's information as to where we are going and give them the purpose for the expansion of the Committee's duties. Bill Lorenz then informed the Committee that this would also lead into the duties to review and provide recommendations for the development of floodplain management regulations and then review and provide recommendations for surface water and watershed management issues including water quantity and water quality. Assuming the BCC approves the resolution, we will provide the Committee with the final resolution since that is essentially the charter. Robert responded that the signed resolution will go into the Committee's record. Page 9 of 13 4. Revisions to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Robert Wiley) — The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) must be revised primarily to officially adopt the new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map ( DFIRM). The way the FDPO is written, we will be going to the BCC on 1 -24 -12 for adoption, but the official effective date will be 3- 30 -12. That gives the development community roughly 2 months from the day the ordinance is adopted to get ready for the impact. If there would be a change in the flood elevation at a particular location, they will be able to address their planning and the timing sequence for approvals so that they don't get caught in the situation that they have submitted an application based upon a currently effective flood elevation but by the time it is approved the new map is in effect. So this gives everybody plenty of lead to know to plan for when your permit is to be approved not submitted. Now a lot of times when we have code changes, as long as you are submitted by a certain date that works but that does not work with FEMA, it is when your permit is approved. So that is one of the big changes. The other things are the state flood plain management office has to review our flood damage prevention ordinance and give a recommendation of approval to FEMA. So FEMA can then sign off on it and say "Yes, it meets the minimum criteria ". When the state reviewed our current ordinance, and we were imitating closely the state model ordinance, they did discover that their model ordinance had omitted one federal requirement that we have to report information to the NFIP or FEMA within 6 months of our finding it if it will change or have an impact on the floodplain. That was in our old ordinance, but since it was not in the model ordinance we did not put it in because we were told to imitate the model ordinance, so we did. So in their review of us they caught it, but they caught it with a bunch of other people, too. So rather than find us non - compliant they simply said, "We know that you are going to have to be adopting the new map anyway, so at the time you adopt the DFIRM go ahead and make that change in it too ". So one of the changes is to add that additional duty. We have some other minor changes in there. They asked us to take out the word "cumulative" because they were afraid that it would be misinterpreted by FEMA. We specifically do not have cumulative damages as a consideration for requiring a structure to be rebuilt. But we had used it in there to explain to everyone that when you apply for building permits; it is the accumulation of all of the costs that go into that building permit that you have to be considered for a 50% threshold for substantial damages and for substantial improvements. And they asked us to remove the term accumulative at that point even, so it could not at all be construed by anybody as being the official "cumulative" that FEMA uses for a 5 -year or a 10 -year or life -of- structure or whatever time frame they want to have for it. So we are removing the word "cumulative" out of the definition. It does not hurt anything so we are doing that. The other issue that is being modified in the ordinance deals with what we consider as de minimis impacts. We have a greatly expanded flood plain with this new DFIRM that is coming to be in effect, and as a result of that we have had some discussions among staff. Exactly what do we want to allow without requiring the applicant to hire an engineering firm to do a detailed floodplain analysis? We know that we have within some of our existing regulations an issue for compensatory storage within the designated floodplain. Since that is going to greatly expanded now, and this led to some good discussions among us for the various situations the developers would be in, we are basically going to allow a stem wall house, where you actually fill inside the foundation of the stem wall to construct the slab on it. We will allow the placement of fill for a septic system and for a single lane driveway to Page 10 of 13 Y get up to the house. All those are to be considered de minimus because they are going to have a minimal impact and not require someone to develop a stormwater system. We do have some limitations on it so that it falls into compliance with the current regulations that we have for the maximum size of a house that you can put on a property before you have to consider other impacts. Those are the changes that are coming in to the BCC on the 24h of this month. We are here to let you know that it really does not affect the stuff that this Committee reviewed, and there are no other higher regulatory criteria involved so we are still playing fairly low key with the impact. We are trying to make practical revisions, particularly in those de minimus impacts, so that single family home owners can try and get a house built out in Golden Gate Estates, and even more onerous in Golden Gate City on a vacant lot where there is no room to provide compensatory storage on that lot. The issue needs to be that they could go ahead and build because the accountability for that house is already there within the system. That is why we are providing the criteria. (Returning back to New Business Item 2) Ray Smith commented that he would like to go back and have Bill Lorenz provide the Committee with the website for the Watershed Management Plan instead of printing it out because it costs about $100.00 per copy. Duke Vasey requested to get a copy on his flash drive. Bill Lorenz agreed with the request and replied that Mac Hatcher can send the link for the website because there is also the development documents and a lot of other information that would be useful as well, and staff will see what they can do about getting it burned onto something else. Duke Vasey asked if this is the work that Mike DeRuntz was revising to which Bill Lorenz explained the difference that this is the Watershed Management Plan which Mac worked with a consultant, Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan which is now renamed Adkins, a had a number of meetings with a variety of input groups. Ray Smith commented it is Volume 2 and Volume 3 that discuss the existing projects or proposed projects. Volume 3 also discusses some other items that Mack summarized in his handout. Bill Lorenz offered Mac's assistance to Ray to help with orientation on the information. Duke Vasey commented that the Soil and Water Conservation District would like to get permission to link their web page to it if they could get it. 5. Public Comments — None. 6. Attendance Policy- (Ray Smith) The Floodplain Management Planning Committee (Committee) approved an attendance policy into the by -laws on July 12, 2010, and the purpose of the policy is intended to support full strength contributions of all Committee members. There are two standards associated with this, and everyone should have a copy of this, that the members need to abide by. 1.) If a member has 2 unexcused absences in a row or 2.) If the member has 3 excused absences within a 12 month period, the Committee chairman is suppose to contact that member and discuss the problem with the attendance. Ray thought it would be a good idea that we discuss this as we do have one individual, John Torre, who has 2 unexcused absences in a row. The action that the Committee takes with this policy is to recommend a) no action; b) replace or c) terminate. Ray's recommendation, as chairman, is that we take no action at this time, but he would like to offer to John the opportunity to discuss with the group what his thoughts are. Page 11 of 13 John Torre responded that, as far as unexcused absences, he is being pulled in too many directions, so to be fair to the Committee he has a letter of resignation here that he will submit to the chairman after the meeting. Phil Brougham asked if John had a recommendation for a replacement. John responded that he has discussed it with the County Manager, and he will make the appointment. Ray Smith asked if, with the new approved committee membership, whether anyone will be representing Communications and Customer Relations. John responded that it is a public information position. Ray then asked if John will have someone attend. John replied that he has a recommendation for the County Manager that he thinks the Committee will agree to. Duke Vasey asked to clarify a point. He noticed in the reconstitution ordinance (resolution) that there was not a term stated for members. Most everything that he does has an expiration date, but there was not an expiration date for the term of appointment for citizens. Three consecutive absences and you have missed a year, now that we are on quarterly meetings. You might have missed 2 years actually depending on the scheduling of the meeting, so I am wondering if that was an oversight or very clever? Duke Vasey recommended not taking any action. He understands the complexity of the problem, and just always thought public information would be assisting us, but just did not know how. Looking at the Communications and Customer Relations, he thought the recommendation would be more than acceptable without a letter of resignation. Ray Smith asked Duke for a clarification. Duke responded that he did not want John to resign, but would rather have him solve this problem before it goes to using this document for a resignation. Ray Smith agreed. Robert Wiley commented that there is the ability for John to have an alternate who can show up anytime he cannot attend. Dan Summers has done this quite frequently with Rick Zyvoloski. He didn't think that anyone wanted John to resign. The Committee wants John to be able to come here whenever he can, or have an alternate. But, stay with us is what you are hearing. Ray Smith followed up by adding that he is just bringing this up because this is what we adopted, and John can contribute a lot. And his team can contribute. John Torre stated that he really didn't know how to respond. He will discuss it with the County Manager, as John had indicated to him that he was resigning and the County Manager agreed to it. John will revisit the issue with him. John went on to explain that he is having a difficult time making these meetings, especially the day before a BCC meeting. Ray Smith responded that John can send an alternate and we can work it out that way, and they can report back to you. Lew Schmidt requested to get a list of the current members and how to contact them. Ray Smith responded that there is a website where that is all kept, but he didn't know if it is up to date. Robert Wiley added that the list doesn't include how to contact them, that is considered to be private information, not going out to the public. If the Committee members all agree, he can give telephone numbers to the other committee members, but the issue then becomes that if you contact them you are in violation of the Sunshine Law. With that legal limitation, Robert didn't think the Committee members needed each other's contact information. He can give the names, but he recommended against contacting them. Ray Smith preferred that we not provide any contact information due to the concern regarding Sunshine. Bill Lorenz advised that, for the new committee member, perhaps we could get the Sunshine Law requirements from the County Attorney Office. One of the easiest ways to fall into a Page 12 of 13 problem with Sunshine is when you get an e -mail from, let's say Robert, and Robert sends the e -mail out to all of the Committee members and then if you want to respond back, you can respond back to Robert, but don't respond back to all because that gets into a problem with the Sunshine. That is one of the things that Ray is saying. The less you have for the contact the better off you are so you don't slip into some inadvertent Sunshine violation. Motion to adjourn was made by Duke Vasey and passed unanimously at 10:36 a.m. However, the meeting schedule had not been officially determined, so both the motion maker and the seconder withdrew their motions and the meeting was reconvened to decide the next meeting. Ray Smith noted that the next meeting date was identified on the bottom of the agenda as April 2 n The discussion was then opened to discuss changing this. Phil Brougham commented that the next meeting date would depend on when something substantive could be brought back to the Committee in a workshop. Robert Wiley wanted to know about availability of Committee members. Does Jerry Kurtz get his information ready and then staff just picks a date? Ray Smith suggested visiting the items to be changed in the Floodplain Management Plan at an earlier schedule. Robert advised that we need to address some of the issues in Jerry's Business Plan to meet that deliverable schedule, and there was discussion about having workshops. Phil Brougham suggested setting the next meeting for the first Monday in February with the agenda to include the recommended changes to the Floodplain Management Plan and, if Jerry is prepared, bring information to the Committee on how these plans interface. If needed, the Committee can then go out another 2 weeks. Christine Sutherland supported meeting the first Monday in February, but not the 2 week later date. Lew Schmitt asked for a repeating of the motion. Lew also supported maintain the already planned April 2na meeting. Rick Zyvoloski asked if the February meeting as a workshop would count toward the attendance record as he would not be able to attend. Ray Smith noted the 3 allowed excused absences within a 12 month period. Duke Vasey asked if a workshop required the same attendance as a regular meeting, to which Ray Smith noted that was not stated in the attendance policy. Lew Schmitt noted that if the workshop was a continuation of the current meeting, the attendance matter would not be an issue for those in today's meeting. Ray Smith read the attendance policy statement on regularly scheduled, publicly noticed meetings, to which Robert Wiley noted that since he has to notice a workshop, it would be inclusive as a noticed meeting. Workshops do not provide official direction, but there is still the noticing and getting together the same as a meeting. Rick Zyvoloski requested that if there are additional meetings outside of the regular quarterly meetings, they not be scheduled on the day before a BCC meeting. Phil Brougham motioned to meet on February 6th. The motion passed unanimously. Next Meeting: Monday, February 6, 2012, starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 610 of the GMD -P &R building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. • Floodplain Management Plan changes (Robert Wiley) • Storm water Business Plan discussion (Jerry Kurtz) Duke Vasey motibned4o adjourn, and the motion passed unanimously at 10:42 a.m. Robert Wiley, St Coordinator Page 13 of 13 r