Loading...
Agenda 01/07/2003 W Joint BCC and City of Naples Workshop 9:00 a.m., January 7, 2003 Collier County Board of County Commissioners Boardroom 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 1. Beach Related Issues a. Beach parking agreement b. Beach renourishment 2. Airport Road Flyover a. Traffic forecasts b. Review of City of Naples study c. Discussion of entry into Bear's Paw d. Agreement with the Estuary 3. CAT Program 4. FEMA 5. ASR EXECUTIVE SUM MARY DISCUSS THE PROPOSED INTERLOCAL BEACH ACCESS AGREEMENT BET1NEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY Objective: To continue to provide free parking to all County residents at beach areas and related parking sites within the City of Naples, providing numerous parking options for all residents. Considerations: Since 1987 the City of Naples and Collier County have maintained an interlocal agreement under which all residents of Collier County may obtain beach parking stickers valid for free parking at any County or City beach designated parking location. The last agreement expired effective October 1, 2002, but the spirit of the Agreement has been enforced to date. Terms of the proposed renewal agreement call for the City of Naples to provide at least 1156 parking spaces located at street beach ends or City Beach Parks, a certain number of which must be unmetered,, and all of which will be made equally available at no cost to City and County residents. The City will also operate beach patrol and maintenance, beach and beach parking regulation enforcement, beach and beach parking cleanup, and beach and beach parking maintenance. In remuneration, the County will pay the City an annual fee. The payment amount for FY 02-03 will be $288,500. For each following year, the previous year's payment will be increased by the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index. The agreement will expire at the end of the 2006-2007 fiscal year. The payment amount proposed in the renewal agreement is based on payments historically made in accordance with previous agreements and pre-emanated from the 1987 agreement where the County paid one-third share of the total expenses of the City's beach parking program. The 1997 agreement established a first-fiscal-year payment amount of $220;443 with an annual increase based upon the CPI similarly to what is proposed in this agreement. Fiscal Impact: Funds in the amount of $253,400 are budgeted in FY 03 General Fund (001) for Collier County, and likewise, the associated revenues are budgeted with the City of Naples. Growth Management Impact: Beach access is an element of the Growth Management Plan. Recommendation: That the Board of County Commissioners and the City of Naples agree in concept to bring forth this Agreement for adoption during a regularly scheduled meeting. Submitted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: ~aanda O~wald, Operation-o~fi~oordinator P~s///~and ]~ecreatjorl3Dep artment K4~la O. Rams~y,'birec~.r ] [~arks.and Recreation Dep~fnent Jol~ ~)unnuck, Administrator Divksion of Public Services Date: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR CITY-COUNTY BEACH PARKING THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this __ day of 2003, by and between the CITY OF NAPLES, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City" and COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter called "County," to provide for the maintenance and operation of the beach areas and related parking sites within the City of Naples and to provide for the County to pay a portion of the expenses to provide for beach maintenance and flee parking for Collier County residents. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has built and maintained the beach area and related parking sites within the City, and WHEREAS, the County desires to provide for continued free parking for all County residents at the beach area and related parking sites within the City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. A certain number of parking spaces at each beach area and related parking site will be reserved for permit parking and will not be metered. The City and the County have implemented a reciprocal beach parking program whereby all residents of Collier County may obtain a beach parking sticker valid for free parking at any County or City beach parking location 3. The City will operate a beach patrol and maintenance program to provide for beach and beach parking regulation enforcement; beach and beach parking cleanup and beach and beach parking maintenance. 4. All expenses and revenues for the beach and beach parking program will be accounted for as separate funds of the City in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. In return for free parking permits, regardless of the number issued to County residents, and for beach maintenance services by the City, as described in Paragraph three of this agreement, the County shall remit an annual payment to the City. The payment mount for Fiscal Year 2002-2003, beginning October 1, 2002 and ending September 30, 2003, shall be in the amount of $288,500. For fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 the County shall pay to the City the amount of the previous fiscal year payment plus the amount of the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI for purposes of this agreement shall be measured by the 12 month change in the unadjusted U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI for thc Southeast United States, October through September annually. 6. One-half of the payment amount due shall be paid to the City not later than November 1 of each fiscal year. The remaining one-half shall be paid not later than May 1 of each fiscal year. For the term of this agreement the City agrees to provide at least 1,156 parking spaces located at street beach ends or City Beach Parks that will be available for vehicles of County residents with valid beach parking stickers. These spaces may be metered, restricted for permit parking or handicapped parking spaces as determined by the City but will be made equally available at no cost to City and County residents. Any adjustments made to the types of parking spaces will not be a basis for any adjustment to the annual payment made by the County to the City under this agreement. 8. The City shall provide annual .budgets and annual financial reports to the County each year as soon as reasonable after publication. 9. This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of both parties in writing. This Agreement may be tenninated by either party giving the other party written notice of termination, not later than April 1't of 10. each calendar year. Failure to notify the other party in writing by that date results in the automatic contin,mnce of the Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of five years commencing on October 1, 2002 and expiring on September 30, 2007 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands and seals this __ day of 2003. Attest: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Deputy Clerk , Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: CITY OF NAPLES Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney By: Bonnie MacKenzie, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY BY: City Attomey City Clerk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT OBJECTIVE: To present information about the next major County beach renourishment. CONSIDERATIONS: The Coastal Advisory Committee has recommended the fast- tracking of the next major beach renourishment project originally projected for 2006. The last major renourishment had an anticipated life of eight to ten years but the entire project was not constructed due to time constraints. Annual monitoring reports indicate that the beach has eroded beyond the design minimum and therefore renourishment is needed. In order to work toward a goal of renourishing next winter, Coastal Planning & Engineering (CP&E) has provided a budget estimate for all of the engineering services needed for not only the Sand Search that is underway but also Program Management, Public Relations, Marine Resources Investigation, Long Term Permitting, Final Design, and Bid Analysis. During the design phase, CP&E will include beach profiles as well as potential storm-water drainage systems and permeable groins. The rough estimate for the renourishment is 6-900,000 cubic yards at a cost of $8-12M. The planned contract will include the requirement to screen the material prior to placement on the beach and this will likely result in the contractor electing to use hopper barges rather than hydraulically pumping the sand directly onto the beach. FISCAL IMPACT: The total estimated cost for the Sand Search, and all of the other engineering services to prepare for the next major renourishment, is $1,235,000. The Coastal Advisory Committee, the Tourist Development Council and the Board of County Commissioners have approved this budget. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The Growth Management Plan (GMP) states the goals as "The County shall continue to insure that access to beaches, shores and waterways remain available to the public .... [and will] Evaluate appropriate public access intervals for renourished beaches considering the demand for recreation and the ability of the natural system to support the demand. If existing access is not sufficient, then the County s hal 1 acquire a~ part of the renourishment proje~/~t.'.//)iD SUBMITTED BY: Date: / . Ron Hovell, P.E., Coastal Projects Manager REVIEWED BY: ~'-/~/'~ - Date: -~ ~'Roy B. Anderson/P~., Public Utilities Engineering Director APPROVED B Y .'~~)~~ Date: a~es W. Demo~j~, P.E., Public Utilities Administra-~-or EXECUTIVE SUMMARY UPDATE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE NAPLES CITY COUNCIL ON THE STATUS OF THE AIRPORT PULLING ROAD/GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY OVERPASS PROJECT INCLUDING TRAFFIC FORECASTS, THE CITY OF NAPLES TRAFFIC STUDY OF THIS AREA AND THE BEAR'S PAW AGREEMENT WITH THE ESTUARY. OBJECTIVE: To update the Board of County Commissioners and the Naples City Council on the status of activities regarding the Airport Pulling Road/Golden Gate Parkway Overpass. CONSIDERATION: The Airport Pulling Road/Golden Gate Parkway Overpass has been identified as a need in the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO's) Long Range Transportation Plan since 1993 (which was then a 2010 Long Range Transportation Plan). The 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan (done in 1996) had identified twenty intersections that would be over capacity in 2020 and were candidates for grade separation. Due to funding and other constraints, those twenty locations were trimmed back to five locations that were included in the 2020 plan. As part of the current 2025 MPO Long Range Transportation Plan update, Kimley-Horn conducted a detailed evaluation to determine what locations could not achieve acceptable traffic operations based on existing and future traffic conditions with at-grade improvements. The Kimley-Hom Grade Separated Overpass study looked at various evaluation criteria to prioritize the intersections. This evaluation criteria considered the speed of the facilities, signal density around the intersections in question, the future number of lanes, existing and future traffic conditions, activity centers, whether the roadways are evacuation routes, traffic congestion, parallel roadway options and congestion on those roadways and if those roadways serve as intermodal connections. The highest ranked location (most needed) based on the criteria identified was the Airport Pulling Road at Golden Gate 'Parkway intersection. The Grade Separation Study indicated that even with at-grade intersection improvements this intersection would experience extremely long delays and would still be a bottleneck in the transportation system. If the at-grade improvements were blown out completely to free flow rights (or dual rights as another alternative) and triple lefts along with six through lanes for each approach the intersection still fails to operate at an acceptable level-of-service (LOS). This conclusion is supported by the current and future predominance of through movements versus turning movements. Additional analysis in the report was undertaken to estimate the user benefits of an Overpass at this location. It is estimated .that 1,700,000 hours of delay per year could be saved based on 2025 traffic conditions at a cost savings of $8.7 million. In addition the overpass is projected to reduce traffic crashes, particularly the rear end crashes associated with heavy traffic congestion, which is projected to save $400,000 per year. The developments in the area, Grey Oaks and Naples Grande, have set a portion of their land aside for an overpass to be developed. The indicated need for a grade separated overpass at Airport Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway was further evaluated under a contract with RWA who was tasked with the refinement of design traffic movements and coordination of public involvement activities to develop an overpass concept within the footprint of existing and reserved rights-of-ways. County staff and RWA met with the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), the Naples City Council on February 6, 2002, Bear's Paw on April 4, 2002 and held Countywide public meetings on February 11, 2002 and March 4, 2002 to present the conceptual plan and gain input into the design of this project. This concept plan produced by RWA was finalized in February of 2002 and it included architectural and landscaping features to establish a more human scale to the structure and to serve as the gateway to Collier County and the City of Naples consistent with construction of the 1-75/Golden Gate Parkway interchange and it's separate beautification efforts. On May 14, 2002, County staff went to the BCC to get authorization to proceed on the design with RWA and Stanley Consultants based on the work that was done through the conceptual design study. Currently the Overpass is at the 30% design phase and meetings over the next month are planned for Grey Oaks, Naples Grande, the City of Naples and Bear's Paw. In addition, a public meeting is planned for the beginning of February. Further public meetings will be held later in the design phases as this project proceeds forward. The County actively sought additional funding sources for this project and was successful in obtaining $7.45 million in Transportation Outreach Program funds from the state. There were over two hundred and six applications for this funding totaling over $727 million in requested funding with only $91 million available. Only forty nine projects were accepted statewide and Collier County was awarded $7.45 million, which was the second largest amount awarded statewide and spoke to the important nature of this project to the overall transportation system. Over the last few weeks, the City has asked Kimley-Horn (currently under contract to the City) to look at the traffic impacts associated with the 1-75/Golden Gate Parkway Interchange and the Airport Pulling Road/Golden Gate Parkway Overpass. This study was undertaken to determine the traffic conditions at the Airport Pulling Road/Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette Frank Road/Golden Gate Parkway intersections. From their Preliminary analysis to date (results will be discussed and illustrated at the workshop), the results indicate that the Airport Pulling Road/Golden Gate Parkway intersection operates at LOS F in 2005 and 2025 for PM peak hour conditions and LOS E for 2005 and LOS F for 2025 AM peak hour conditions with severe delays even with every at-grade improvement possible. An Overpass that removes the highest through trips (the highest traffic movement) from the signalized intersection allows the intersection to operate at LOS D for the AM peak hour and LOS E for the PM peak hour conditions in 2025. For the 2005 traffic conditions at the Goodlette Frank and Golden Gate Parkway, the intersection is projected to fait for both the AM and PM peak hours with or without at-grade improvements. From the Kimley-Hom Study, the results indicate that with at-grade improvements the intersection in the AM peak hour will operate at LOS D and the PM peak hour will operate at LOS E (it should be noted that the intersection, under current traffic conditions, operates at a LOS F for the peak hour conditions and is projected to fail with or without the Airport Pulling/Golden Gate Parkway Overpass). The Goodlette Frank Road/Golden Gate Parkway intersection is projected to operate at LOS E for AM peak hour and LOS F for PM peak hour in 2025 under a scenario with at-grade improvements. From a traffic modeling aspect the Airport Pulling Road~Golden Gate Parkway Overpass does not increase traffic through the corridor, rather it affects how the corridor operates. Conversely, the Interchange at 1-75 and Golden Gate Parkway will increase traffic on Golden Gate Parkway as drivers currently using Pine Ridge and Irranokalee are rerouted to a more direct route to access the business and retail areas in and around the City. The traffic queue's, vehicle delay and signal timing is what is affected by building the Overpass and it is expected that, particularly for the PM peak, this will be improved by the Airport Pulling Road/Golden Gate Parkway improvements. The County has recently updated the five-year work program and has advanced the construction of the six laning of Goodlette Frank Road from Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge Road with the design phase programmed in this fiscal year and construction programmed in FY 2004. This project will include improvements to this intersection to help meet the existing and future traffic needs. The current City of Naples study along with the traffic analysis during the design phase will help determine what those improvements should be, including, at the very least, extending the inadequate turn lane storage capacity that currently backs up into the through lanes and, in some cases, cannot be accessed when the through lanes back up beyond the turn lanes. Some of the improvements that have been tested include the addition of a northbound left on Goodlette Road (making it a dual left), the addition of a westbound left turn on Golden Gate Parkway (making it a triple left) and signal timing improvements. The Kimley-Horn study indicates that in 2025 the intersection with these same improvements would result in a LOS F condition and then would only operate at an acceptable LOS if a grade separated overpass or flyover was constructed at this location. However, County staff, in review of the preliminary Kimley-Horn analysis, believes that the inclusion of free flow fights and the expansion of the left turn movements, given the nature of existing and future traffic conditions, would allow at-grade improvements to operate better than the HCS software is indicating. The future improvements should be further evaluated in the design phase instead of recommending an overpass at this location that is probably not cost effective and is not identified in the Long Range Transportation Plan. In response to resident concerns over safe access to Bear's Paw, Commissioner Coyle, with the assistance of County staff, facilitated an agreement with Bear's Paw and the Estuary at Grey Oaks to permit Bear's Paw residents to utilize the Estuary's signalized entrance and turn around for easier access their development. This agreement, executed on June 27, 2002, was done so that Bear's Paw residents would have an option to weaving across three lanes of traffic when they are coming from Airport Pulling Road north or proceeding past their entrance to make a U-turn at a median opening. The County staff has also been working closely with the City of Naples staff regarding the 36 inch raw water main that curt-, ently lies outside the roadway lanes but will fall under the outside lane when Golden Gate Parkway is widened to six lanes. This water main supplies 80% of the City of Naples water and initially the County had requested that the City relocate this main so that it is not under the roadway pavement. Currently the City is continuing to assess the main's structural condition and believes that the pipeline can function adequately and safely during and after the construction of the roadway. Official written confirmation of 3 this was to be received from the City by Thanksgiving but has not been received to date and we continue to work with the City to get confirmation of this verbal commitment. This effort would be considerably more cost effective than the full relocation of the water main that is estimated to be $2.8 million. In summary, listed below are the highlights that should be considered: The Grade Separated Overpass at Airport and Golden Gate has consistently been identified as needed and a planned improvement. There have been a significant number of public meetings to help develop the conceptual design of the overpass. · The Grade Separated Overpass will not induce any significant new travel into the City, but will help PM flow out of the City. The through trip nature of traffic flow at Airport Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway can only be addressed by Grade Separated Overpass, not by turn lane improvements. The Goodlette Frank Road at Golden Gate Parkway traffic can be more readily addressed by turn lane improvements given current and projected traffic movements after the 1-75 interchange and the Grade Separated Overpass on Golden Gate Parkway is built. Goodlette Frank Road from south of Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge Road has been advanced into FY2004 to address intersection improvements needed with or without Overpass. An enhanced Golden Gate Parkway corridor will provide relief to Pine Ridge Road and Davis Boulevard corridors and the Grade Separated Overpass will~ along with Livingston Road, provide relief to Goodlette-Frank Road and US41 corridors. The design of the Grade Separated Overpass includes landscaping and architectural features to bring the Overpass down to a more human scale and to establish the entrance gateway to the County and City. · The particular needs of Bears Paw have been addressed in the agreement with the Estuary. · Approximately 25% of the costs, for this improvement will be funded from the State under the TOPS agreement recently awarded to Collier County. FISCAL IMPACT: The Overpass is estimated to cost $32 million, which is to be funded by Gas Taxes, Impact Fees and the $7.45 million TOPS grant. 4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT: The design and construction of this overpass is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the MPO's Cost Feasible Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Informational item. Prepared by: Donald Scott Director, Transportation Planning Date: ///~ /0,~ t ,[ Reviewed and Approved by: Gregg Strakaluse Director, Transportation Engineering Date: Reviewgql' and Approved by: Norn~n Feder Tra~portation Administrator Date: COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the CAT system. CONSIDERATION: Collier County launched an all new transit system, Collier Area Transit (CAT), to serve the Naples area with connector service to Immokalee on February 15, 2001. Employers see the system as a channel for getting much needed workers to their worksites. Lower income and some elderly residents see the transit service as an alternative for those without cars or unable to drive. Social service agencies see the system as a aid to getting Iow income residents into training programs and jobs. The CAT System operates seven routes designed to keep buses on main streets while minimizing the impact of stops on traffic. The routes and schedules have been designed to maximize service coverage, with particular focus on serving lower income areas and commercial and medical destinations. All Collier County residents may at one time or another benefit from the CAT system. For example, any resident might chose to use transit when their car is in the shop for maintenance, or to avoid heavy traffic along Hwy 41. It is therefore important that quality passenger information be easily available when needed. Likewise, many residents who never chose to ride will benefit indirectly because the system will serve their employees or family members, and it is important that they be made aware of this benefit. However, there are a number of target groups which make up the bulk of transit ridership and which deserve particular attention in the system's marketing efforts. Low to Moderate Income Residents Many families within Collier County do not own a car or share one car among two or more adults. The CAT service offers these individuals access to jobs, medical care, social services, shopping and recreation. These families tend to be concentrated within specific neighborhoods, particularly in Golden Gate, East Naples and Immokalee. Elderly and Disabled Residents Unable to Drive Another segment of Collier County's population, which benefits greatly from transit are those unable to drive due to age or disability. These individuals are spread throughout the service area. Youths Under Driving Age Many junior high and high school students are old enough to travel alone for after school and weekend activities, but too young to drive. The CAT system offers them the freedom to reach jobs and recreation. Adult and College Students Students at Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology and Edison College are served by the CAT system. Many adult students have limited resources and are able to benefit from the economy offered by public transportation. In fact the new service may make education accessible to many students (particularly in Immokalee) who previously could not attend due to lack of transportation. Workers and Students Commuting to/from Immokalee In the currently tight labor market, Immokalee offers a workforce, which many Naples area employers would like to tap. However, transportation has been a barrier. In addition, there are a small number of employees, specifically teachers and managers, who make the 50 mile commute to Immokalee. These individuals benefit from an alternative commute mode. The core components of the CAT system is it's name, logo, vehicle paint scheme and bus stop signage. These are the visual elements that identify the CAT system and anything associated with it to the public. This identity was carefully selected to provide an esthetically pleasing design. A new shelter design is currently under review; an example of a potential design is contained in your packet. Effective passenger information is the single most important component of any transit marketing effort. Without clear usable information, transit services are often perceived as to confusing or difficult even for residents who really need transportation. The riders guide for the CAT system includes the following information: A Naples area map showing the seven routes. Schedules for all routes (color coded to match the routes on the system map). How to ride information (fares, how to read the map & schedule, transfers and other policies). The telephone is the most used information channel by people unfamiliar with transit. Therefore a telephone information center was placed in service. Telephone information representatives are trained to assist callers with all aspects of trip planning including: Bus stop locations nearest their home and destination Schedules Fares and Passes Making transfers In addition, they are prepared to mail a Riders Guide to callers and to fill requests for information and materials from gatekeeper organizations. The telephone information center number is included on bus stop and vehicles signage, as well as in all information and promotional materials. In closing, the Collier Area Transit system's ridership has far exceeded expectations. In fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, there were a total of 97,571 passengers. In fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, there were a total of 324,037 passengers. Prepared by: ~..~,~~,,,~.--,_~. Date: 1/03/03 ~,..~.J111 M. Brg~vn, Pu'b~ic Transportation Planner Approved bY:DD~aJt~~~, Director Date: 1/03/03 p t ~ Alternative Transportation Modes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REVIEW CURRENT STATUS OF AND ALTERNATIVES TO, THE ONGOING APPEAL REGARDING FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY MAPS PROPOSED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OBJECTIVE: For the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the City of Naples City Council to review the current status of the ongoing appeal of the flood insurance maps proposed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the City of Naples and unincorporated Collier County (the Community); and to provide guidance to staff as to how to proceed with respect to four alternatives. CONSIDERATION: In December of 1998, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) general consulting contractor, Dewberry & Davis, submitted a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and associated preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for unincorporated Collier County and the cities of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades. Shortly after receiving the flood maps, a committee was organized that included representatives from all of the aforementioned local governments, along with representatives from the real estate, insurance, building, engineering and architectural sectors. In May 2001, with the support of the Committee, Collier County and the City of Naples jointly retained Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc. (TCE) to study the proposed maps and provide a preliminary report to the Board. TCE raised some issues concerning the calculations and methodology of the coastal study conducted by the contracting consultants for FEMA. The review process generated a number of reports, clarifications, and letters with conflicting opinions as to the methodology and findings of the FIS. Specific issues of concern related to the frequency of storm occurrence and the most appropriate approach to determining wave setup at this location. On July 31, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners considered the preliminary technical findings of TCE, a report from FEMA and its consultants, and testimony from Committee representatives. The Board then authorized TCE to further review FEMA's preliminary maps with an understanding that further study would likely result in preparation and filing of an appeal with FEMA at the end of the agency's ninety (90) day appeal window. The nature of the appeal was to point out scientific and technical errors in the data and methodology utilized by FEMA to produce its proposed maps. The detailed results of TCE's study validated the existence of viable scientific and technical grounds for filing an official appeal. Subsequently, on December 24, 2001, Collier County formally appealed the coa~ analyses presented in the preliminary FIS. The appeal itself summarized a numbm 2003 technical concerns presented in a December 2001 report prepared by TCE entitled "Appeal of Flood Insurance Restudy (RFIS) Proposed Base Flood Elevations for Collier County and City of Naples." This report, which served as the basis of the preliminary FIS appeal, argues that the Base Flood Elevations assumed in the preliminary FIS are scientifically and technically incorrect. On September 25, 2002, County staff along with Mr. Bob Devlin of the City of Naples and our contractor Richard Tomasello of TCE, Inc. met with Doug Bellamo of the Hazard Study Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and representatives of his staff to discuss our appeal of the revised FEMA flood insurance rate maps. Mr. Bellamo acknowledged our concerns again but at the conclusion of the meeting he formally presented the Community with a letter dated September 25, 2002, addressed to the Chairman of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. In that letter, another FEMA representative noted that our methodology was not superior to the methodology utilized by their contractor, Dewberry & Davis, LLC, and that we had not validated that their data was technically flawed. This letter was intended to close the appeal process. Mr. Bellamo did, however, emphasize a willingness to work with the County on a phased submittal and review process to incorporate modeling and map revision requests concerning the Golden Gate Estates (Sheet 2D study) and/or the coastal analyses. As a result, on October 25, 2002, County Manager Jim Mudd, on behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioner's Chairman, James N. Coletta, acting in his capacity as our Community's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), forwarded to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Hazards Study Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, the Community's (Collier County and the City of Naples) written comments in response to FEMA's review of our appeal. The written response formally objected to the revised maps, and thereby assured the Community that we were proceeding into the next step in the appeal resolution process. The comments reflected a synthesis of comments from the City of Naples, Collier County, and our consultant, Tomasello Consulting Engineers (TCE). In summary, the comments in that letter stated the following: 1. The latest FIRM maps for virtually the entire Golden Gate Estates area do not provide accurate floodplain information. The map panels do not have any base flood elevations (BFE's) shown even though TCE's analysis (provided as part of our appeal utilizing a methodology approved by FEMA) calculated 100 year flood elevations (BFE's) for the area and we respectfully reject FEMA's suggestion to have residents in the area use the LOMA or LOMR processes for relief from what could be unprecedented flood insurance premiums or unnecessary documentation of approved construction above the floodplain. 2. FEMA's review failed to include any response to our appeal issue concerning the inadequacies of the underlying Flood Insurance Study (FIS) transects. We continue to question whether the number and location of the transects is representative of the actual Collier coast, and further emphasize that the L ~ data now available are more accurate and technically superior and should be utilized as part of any revised study. 3. FEMA's own sub-contractor hired to review our Community's appeal (Baird & Associates) had recommended not using adjustments of the 0.2' suggested by FEMA. However, FEMA continues to assume the wave setup on the open coast is 1.4', while the RFIS report clearly states it already included the 0.2' frequency adjustment. 4. Although Baird says that TCE did not consider the storm parameter interdependences, TCE has yet to find any support for this statement. Regardless, in the event there was an oversight on TCE's part, any correction to the storm parameter interdependcies would lead to lower still water elevations. 5. Our appeal prepared by TCE did not use the National Weather Service, NWS-38 statistics, in part, because the statistics from NWS-38 are based on a data set that has not been updated for almost two decades, and are therefore, scientifically incorrect and not technically superior to those used by TCE. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the NWS-38 data does not include a few storms that passed inland of Naples. Regardless, as Baird & Associates (Baird) has previously pointed out to FEMA, the RFIS was also not based on NWS-38. To resolve this issue, an extension of the NWS-38 methodology to include additional years of data is possible, though it is not conceded that this is the best approach for providing input data for the surge modeling for the Naples area. 6. It is incorrect for Baird to state that NWS-38 only considered data from 1900 onwards for its calculations of frequency of occurrence. The estimates of frequency of occurrence in NWS-38 were based on storm data from 1871 through 1984, as clearly stated in the abstract of NWS-38. Other storm parameters in NWS-38 were estimated from data from 1900 onwards. The data presented and methodology used by TCE are technically superior and more scientifically correct as evidenced by the fact that the frequency of occurrence calculated in the TCE report is very similar to the results of the SFWMD and NWS-38 studies. 7. TCE's approach to calculating the alongshore storm frequency per nautical mile is scientifically correct and technically superior because it determines the number of storms that move along the shore, both inland and offshore, by dividing by the diameter, not the radius of the circle of interest. TCE made such a calculation and we stand by the conclusion that the FEMA study erred in calculating alongshore frequency. 8. The frequencies of the landfalling, exiting and alongshore storms should be applied separately for the purposes of surge modeling. Furthermore, the characteristics (storm parameters) vary considerably depending on the direction of storm motion. TCE's report lumped the separate frequencies together into a single number solely in order to compare the results of the various studies regarding the total storm frequency in the vicinity of Naples. Otherwise, TCE provided frequency of occurrence separated on the basis of storm motion in a manner that is more scientifically correct and technically superior. AGENDA ~TEM 3 JAN 0 7 .2.003 9. TCE's Point 7 in the attached memorandum, that the 95 events are broken down into sub-populations of smaller sample size, is sufficiently large enough to distinguish differences in typical storm parameters because they depend on direction of storm motion. These results are quite consistent with physical reasoning with respect to storm track climatology, the large-scale environmental factors that affect tropical cyclones and the local geography of the coast near Naples. Regardless, the Community agrees that future work can, and should, be done with respect to quantitative significance levels in coordination with FEMA's agents to demonstrate that this methodology and data are scientifically correct and technically superior. 10. Additional comment with respect to probabilities of pressure depression: Our analysis does not significantly underestimate the pressure depression of storms that directly affect the coastline around Naples. As stated in TCE's report, the data set in their study included more recent storms that have strongly favored cyclones of tropical storm, not hurricane, strength. Because the updated data are not included in NWS-38 and the SFWMD study and the methods utilized in the other studies tended to include statistics from strong storms that did not directly affect the Naples area, we are of the opinion that the TCE data and methodology scientifically correct and technically superior. l l. Baird indicated that TCE's PROBS analysis did not include conditional probabilities between storm direction and pressure, nor between forward speed and pressure. Although this claim is relevant, TCE has not found any evidence to support this statement, perhaps, in part, because TCE's request for clarification on this point has not resulted in an adequate response from Baird. Regardless, in the event of an oversight by TCE, the resulting effect of any correction would be further reductions to the still water stages that would necessitate lower BFE's on the preliminary maps. 12. Review of the maps we received on September 25th reveal that flood zone delineation lines are barely visible. In addition, some of the flood zone delineation lines are not visible where they intersect with a street. At this point, the Community is awaiting FEMA's reply to the foregoing written responses. In sum, the Community is now faced with the four following alternatives: Withdraw from the appeal resolution process and accept the maps as proposed. They would go into effect at least six months after doing so. Continue with the appeal resolution process. If not sufficiently successful, refute the proposed maps and attempt to prevail on an appeal to the federal courts. Initiate a flood insurance rate map (FIRM) restudy concentrating specifically on: 1) coastal restudy, and 2) establishing elevation benchmarks in the Estates. The initial cost estimate to do so is $235,000 for the continuing services of TCE, Inc., and approximately $2,000 to establish an initial set of elevation benchmarks in the Estates. ~ JAN 0.7 2{lib 4. Withdraw from the federal flood insurance program and seek support to form a State-wide flood insurance program. Acceptance of the proposed maps under the first alternative would mean that thousands of new properties throughout the unincorporated County and the City of Naples would be added to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As such, the primary fiscal impact would be that the mortgage lenders on those properties would likely require flood insurance, even if the houses were purchased prior to the map revision. Federal law dictates that federally insured lenders must require their loans on structures within certain types of flood zones be protected by flood insurance. Once the maps are accepted, and after verification that the subject properties are located within a designated flood zone, these lenders would notify the homeowners that flood insurance will be required. Affected property owners would have only two ways out of this new insurance requirement: either assume the risk for themselves after paying off their mortgages, or seeking approval through FEMA to have the property removed from the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) through a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). These appeals, made directly to FEMA, basically state that the gross data used to create the maps inaccurately portrays the property and that it is high enough to no longer be considered in a SFHA. In order to receive a LOMA or LOMR, a registered surveyor must be retained to perform the survey and determined that the land on a particular property is higher than the projected flood level. If a LOMA or LOMR is obtained, the applicant is relieved of the federal requirements that loans using the structure as collateral be protected by flood insurance. However, it is the lender's prerogative to require flood insurance as a condition of its own. If this is the case, the premiums will generally be much lower than before the issuance of the LOMA or LOMR. In any event, the fiscal impacts would be extreme. Another consequence of accepting the proposed maps would be to construction requirements. The new requirements will certainly impact coastal residents because the minimum base flood elevation for building height will increase anywhere between one to four feet from existing levels. Additionally, Collier County and the City of Naples will be required to impose federal rules regarding construction in an SFHA. These rules apply to "substantial improvement" and new construction in the SFHA. "Substantial improvement" is defined as any repair, reconstruction or improvement to the structure for which the total cost of all improvements exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the existing structure, excluding the land value. Thus, there would be tremendous additional costs to new construction or any substantial improvement of existing structures. Based on the foregoing analysis of the first alternative, the County staff does not believe the first alternative is a viable choice for the citizens of the County, especially in light of how much time and money has been spent challenging the proposed maps to date. Rather, County staff, as addressed more fully below, recommends following both the second and third alternatives at the same time, i.e. in parallel. As to the fourth alte staff will seek direction from the Community's elected officials on whether to pul alternative, and if so, to what degree, recognizing it would not likely occur be mative_~. ~ue thliC-~NbA ~T~J~ Ore ~ JAN 0 7 2003 timeframes for the second and third alternatives had resulted in revised maps becoming effective. FISCAL IMPACT: The current estimate of a fiscal impact to government for the third alternative of $235,000 could be shared jointly (presently an 80:20 cost sharing formula has been used) by the City and the County to continue with TCE to perform the Coastal Flood Insurance Restudy (RFIS) and provide the required documentation in accordance with the FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners (FEMA, February 2002) "Appendix D - Guidelines for Coastal Flooding Analysis and Mapping." If retained, TCE will prepare an Engineering Report to FEMA specifications to document specific meteorological and hydrologic data, ocean bathymetry, shoreline characteristics, surface and bottom friction coefficients. The engineering report is intended to provide the detailed site-specific data needed by FEMA and Collier County and the City of Naples to recommend or defend, on technical grounds, the study results. The engineering report in general will include the input data, modeling approach, model parameter values, and all assumptions, decisions, and judgments that influence model outputs. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: None directly, although the location of the coastal high hazard zone may be affected. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the second alternative and continue with Tommasello Consulting Engineering, Inc. to resolve the appeal as favorably as possible, while at the same time and as soon as practicable and possible, initiate a restudy concentrating specifically on the coastal and the Estates areas to producing revised and corrected Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Assistant County Attorney Prepared and ~ J~~. Schmitt, Administrator mmunity Development & Environmental Services ]AN 0 7 2003 Federal Emergency Management Washington, D.C. 20472 www. FEMA.gov Agency FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING THE EFFECT THAT REVISED FLOOD HAZARDS HAVE ON EXISTING STRUCTURES What factors determine flood insurance premiums? A number of factors determine premiums for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) flood insurance coverage. Major factors include the amount of coverage purchased; the deductible; and the location, age, occupancy, and type of building. For newer buildings in floodplains, the elevation of the lowest floor relative to the elevation of the 1% annual chance flood can also be used to rate the policy. My house is not in a floodplain according to the current map, but the new map will show it as being in a floodplain. Will I have to purchase flood insurance when the new map officially takes effect? If you have Federal or federally related financing for the property in question and you do not already have flood insurance, your lender may contact you once the new map takes effect and require that you purchase flood insurance. If you do not purchase the insurance within 45 days after being informed that flood insurance is required, the lender can force place the insurance and charge you for the cost of it. If you dispute the lender's determination that your property is located in a floodplain, you and your lender can jointly request a Letter of Determination Review from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within 45 days of being informed by your lender that your property is located in a floodplain. If you have insurance before the new map~ take effect, the basis for rating that policy remains unchanged (i.e., you can use the rate that was charged to you when your property was located outside the floodplain). I haveflood insurance, and my house is in afloodplain according to the current map. The new map, however, will show my house as being outside the floodplain. Will I have to continue carryingflood insurance when the new map officially takes effect? If you have Federal or federally related financing for the property in question, you will no longer have a Federal requirement to purchase flood insurance when the new maps take effect; however, lenders retain the prerogative to require flood insurance, even for property that is not in a floodplain. If you wish to continue coverage once the new maps take effect, you may be eligible for preferred risk rates based on your property being outside the floodplain. You should have your policy re-rated using the new maps, which should lower your premium. Even if you are not required to purchase flood insurance, we encourage homeowners to continue coverage at the preferred risk rates, because you may be flooded by an event greater than the 1% annual chance event. My house was built to the flood elevation shown on the current map (or a previous map). On the new map, my house will remain in the floodplain, but the flood elevation will increase. What will happen to my insurance premium when the new map officially takes effect? If you can show that your house was built in compliance with local floodplain management regulations and the flood map in effect at the time of construction, the basis for rating your policy does not change and your premium will be the same. If you cannot show that your house was built in compliance at the time of construction, your policy will be re-rated using the new flood map, which may raise your premium. However, if you can show that your home has been continuously insured since before the map change, your premium will not be affected. If you do not have Federal or federally related financing, you are not required by Federal regulations to have flood insurance, although it is available to you. My house was built to the flood elevation shown on the current map (or a previous map). On the new map, my house will remain in the floodplain, but the flood elevation will decrease. What will happen to my insurance premium when the new map officially takes effect? You should contact your insura ensure that the policy is re-rated when the new map officially takes effect. The lower flood el ~van may result in a lower premium. 1 ,JAN [~ ? MT-T: ~HS 03/19/99q My house is in a floodplain according to the current map. On the new map, my house will remain in the floodplain, but the flood elevation will be increased. Will my house be considered to be in violation of NFIP regulations when the new map officially takes effect? Any house that can be shown to have been built in compliance with local floodplain management regulations and the flood map at the time of construction will continue to be considered compliant, even if the new maps will show an increase in flood elevation or a change to a more restrictive zone designation. However, should your house be substantially damaged (damage is 50% or more of the pre-damage market value) and you wish to repair it, you will be required to bring the entire structure into compliance with the zone designation and flood elevations in effect at the time the repairs take place. If the structure is less than substantially damaged, you do not need to refer to the flood map when repairing damages. Please note, however, that there may be more stringent state or local requirements that take precedence over those stated here. Regardless of whether your building is substantially damaged, you will likely need a building permit to make repairs and need to contact your local building official. My house is in a floodplain. What do I do if I want to build an addition or otherwise improve it? ' If the value of the addition 6r improvement to the house is less than 50% of the market value of the existing structure, you need oniy make sure that the improvement meets or exceeds the standards that were used in constructing the existing structure (assuming the existing structure was built in compliance at the time it was constructed). Additions or other improvements valued at 50% or more of the market value of the existing structure are considered substantial improvements. In such cases, the entire structure must be brought into compliance with the elevations on the map in effect at the time the improvement begins. Under certain circumstances only the addition needs to be elevated to the flood elevations shown on that map. Please note, however, that there may be more stringent state or local requirements that take precedence over those stated here. Regardless of whether your building is substantially improved, you will likely need a building permit to make the improvement and need to contact your local building official. For Coastal Areas Only My house was built in Zone AE to the flood elevation in effect at the time of construction. On the new map, my house will remain in the floodplain, but the zone designation will be changed to Zone VE. What will happen to my insurance premium when the new map officially takes effect? If you can show that your house was built in compliance with local floodplain management regulations and the flood map in effect at the time of construction, the basis for rating your policy does not change and your premium will be the same when the new map officially takes effect. If you cannot show that your house was built in compliance at the time of construction, your policy will be re-rated when the new map takes effect using the new flood zone designation and flood elevations, which may raise your premium. However, if you can show that your home has been continuously insured since before the map change, your premium will not be affected. My house is shown as being in Zone VE on the current map. On the new map, my house will remain in the floodplain, but the zone designation will be changed to Zone AE. What will happen to my insurance premium when the new map officially takes effect? You should contact your insurance agent to ensure that the policy is re-rated when the new map officially takes effect. The change to a Zone AE designation will likely lower your premium. JAN 0 7 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PRESENT TO THE CITY OF NAPLES THE CURRENT STATUS OF AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY. OBJECTIVE: To present to the City of Naples a review and update of the Collier County Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Projects. CONSIDERATIONS: On October 9, 2001, Agenda item 16(C)4, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution to support the implementation of aquifer storage and recovery technologies, based on a request by the South Florida Water Management District. Reclaimed Water ASR: On August 3, 1999, Agenda item 16(B)23, the Board of County Commissioners approved a professional services agreement with Water Resource Solutions to install an exploration well for purposes of eventual development of reclaimed water ASR at the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF). The City of Naples objected to the concept of placement of an ASR well at this location. In an effort to work cooperatively with the City of Naples, the County elected to move the ASR test site to the Pelican Bay Wellfield site, which lies approximately 3 miles northeast of the NCWRF. An agreement dated February 27, 2001, was signed between the City of Naples and the Board of County Commissioners that allowed Collier County to proceed with the permitting and construction of the exploration well at the Pelican Bay Wellfield. On September 5, 2002, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit application for an ASR well, and a report on the drilling and testing of the exploration well were submitted to the City of Naples. This was done 30 days in advance of the submittal of the ASR well permit application to the FDEP on October 11, 2002, in accordance with the agreement. The FDEP sent a Request for Information in a letter dated November 7, 2002. A response will be submitted to FDEP by January 10, 2002. There are plans to install four additional ASR wells at the Pelican Bay Wellfield site on completion of successful operational testing of this ASR well. To satisfy a request made by the consultant for the City of Naples for an analysis of a continuous core to provide data on the physical properties of the subsurface material, the Board of County Commissioners, on April 10, 2001, agenda item 16(C)2, approved the purchase of services from the Florida Geological Survey (FGS). The data collected from the FGS core at the Pelican Bay Wellfield site showed continuity of the permeable and confining units as originally indicated by regional cross sections developed by the County's consultant, Water Resource Solutions. Executive Summary Aquifer Storage & Recovery Page 2 Potable Water ASR: The Manatee Road potable water ASR well has been in operation for approximately 3 years. Four additional wells are proposed at the Manatee Pump Station site. The FY 2002 Water Master Plan, currently under review by the Board of County Commissioners, proposes that a second ASR system be considered at the Carica Road Pumping Station. The County will continue to seek areas with favorable hydrogeological characteristics to be considered for development of potable water ASR facilities. Surface Water ASR: The County is pursuing a project to investigate storing surface water or groundwater in ASR wells, at a site close to the Golden Gate canal. This will provide additional supplemental sources of water for irrigation. FGS is currently obtaining core samples at a site located at Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road in order to provide data that can be used for future proposed surface water ASR wells. The FY 2002 Master Plans indicate an alternative for reclaimed water or surface water ASR to store 500 million gallons. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds currently budgeted for ASR projects are available in the County Water and Sewer Capital Projects. Source of funds are impact and user fees. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: ASR Projects are needed to meet current and future potable water demands, and effluent management needs, and is consistent with the 2001/2002 Water and Wastewater Master Plans. Alicia Abbott, Public Utilities Engineering, Project Manager Roy B. Anderson, Public Utilities Engineeriff~Director ~am+~'-~'~D~y, p.E., Public Utilities A~i~s~ator ell I 0 0 © 0