Loading...
Agenda 05/20/2003 W COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA May 20,2003 w/CITY OF NAPLES WORKSHOP NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1 May 20, 2003 IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. CAT Program 2. ASR 3. Beach Parking Agreement Update 4. FEMA Flood Map Update 5. Airport Road Flyover Update ADJOURN 2 May 20, 2003 Joint BCC and City of Naples Workshop 9:00 a.m., May 20, 2003 Colfier County Board of County Commissioners Boardroom 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 1. CAT Program 2. ASR 3. Beach Parking Agreement Update 4. FEMA Flood Map Update 5. Airport Road Flyover Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PRESENT TO THE CITY OF NAPLES THE CURRENT STATUS OF AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY. OB,~ECTIVE: 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 two Requests for Information. Our responses were submitted to FDEP. 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. On April 22, 2003 Agenda Item 16 (C) 5 the Board of County Commissioners approved an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Water Resource Solutions to provide additional engineering services related to drilling the reclaimed water Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) well for this project. There are Executive Summary Aquifer Storage & Recovery Page 2 plans to install four additional ASR wells at the Pelican Bay Wellfield site on completion of successful operational testing of this ASR well. 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 has completed work to obtain core samples at a site located at Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road. This data will 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 2002 Water and Wastewater Master Plans. SUBMITTED BY: ~~gx ~ Date: %- I% -O~ Alicia Abbott, Public Utilities Engineering, Project Manager REVIEWED BY: Date: Roy B. Anderson/, Public Utilities Engineering Director APPROVED BY: ,~)~"'fff~J~~ James ~y, P.E., Public U¢ies Date: Administrator lee.4 u! q~,de{3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO PROVIDE THE COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WITH AN UPDATE OF THE INTERLOCAL BEACH PARKING AGREEMENT. OBJECTIVE: To provide beach access to the residents of Collier County. CONSIDERATION: The County and City have entered into an agreement over the past ten (10) years that allows residents of unincorporated Collier County to utilize beach accesses within the City of Naples in return for fair compensation. During the last workshop between the government entities, staff was directed to re-evaluate the formula utilized to determine compensation. While the agreement has not been finalized, staff has been working together to develop a formula based upon the percentage of beach stickers issued and the number of available parking spaces in each jurisdiction. This formula will allow for the percentages to change based upon the expansion of parking spaces in either jurisdiction. The issue that staff is negotiating at this time is what defines a beach parking space. The City has included parking spaces off of Third Street South while the County has included spaces at Conner Park off of 111th Street. It is hoped that County and City staff will be in agreement prior to the workshop in an effort to bring a proposed agreement forward to the respective Boards in June. FISCAL IMPACT: Depending on the final calculation, the fiscal impact to the Cotmty could be anywhere from $365,000 to $585,000. In FY02, the County remitted $241,034 to the City. In FY03, the County budgeted $253,400 in the general fund based upon the calculations assumed in the prior agreement. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: Public beach access is encouraged in the growth management plan but is not required at this time. RECOMMENDATION: come to agreement on methodology. PREPARED BY: Public Administrator  John f)unnuck, Services Accept this update and wait for County and City staff to EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REVIEW CURRENT STATUS OF THE ONGOING APPEAL AND RESTUDY 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 and restudy of the flood insurance maps proposed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the City of Naples and unincorporated Collier County. 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 comprised of representatives from all of the aforementioned local governments, along with representatives from the real estate, insurance, building, engineering and architectural sectors was organized to formulate a coordinated appeal of the flood insurance maps proposed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The City of Marco Island has subsequently withdrawn from the Committee and has officially accepted their respective revised maps. 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 coastal analyses presented in the preliminary FIS. The appeal itself summarized a number of 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 Flood Insurance Study (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 Bellomo 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, FEMA 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. 2. FEMA's review failed to include any response to our appeal issue conceming 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 LIDAR data now available are more accurate and technically superior and should be utilized as part of any revised study. 2 3. FEMA's own sub-contractor hired to review our Community's appeal (Baird & Associates) had recommended not using adjustments of the 0.2 ft. suggested by FEMA. However, FEMA continues to assume the wave setup on the open coast is 1.4 fi., while the R_FIS report clearly states it already included the 0.2 ft. 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 interdependencies 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. 9. That the 95 storm 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 3 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. TCE study will demonstrate that this methodology and data are scientifically correct and technically superior. 10. Additional comment with respect to probabilities of pressure depression: TCE 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. 11. 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. On January 7, 2003, at the Collier County Board of Commissioners and City of Naples City Council joint meeting, staff from Collier County, the City of Naples and TCE briefed the Board and City Council on the impact of the FEMA Flood Insurance Maps and the ongoing Appeals Resolution process. As a result of that presentation, staff was directed to not accept the current maps and in cooperation with the City of Naples to subsequently extend its contract with Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc. to initiate a detailed flood insurance rate map (FIRM) restudy to improve the accuracy of the proposed maps concentrating specifically on the coastal restudy and the "Sheet 2D" area of the Golden Gate Estates. Regarding the "Sheet 2D" study, staff recommended that both the preparations and submittals required under Appendix M of "Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Parmers", February 2002 and for work specified for the hydrologic analysis in Appendix C of"Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners" be performed to insure that all the required scientific and engineering data analysis is conducted in support of the appeal resolution process involving the Golden Gate Estates and surrounding areas. In addition, staff was directed to initiate actions to establish elevation benchmarks in the Estates to support any future Letter of Map Amendments (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revisions (LOMR) that may have to be initiated by the residents of Golden Gate. Staff working through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) contracted with the National Geodetic .Survey (NGS), an arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on a 50-50 cost sharing agreement to establish approximately 50 miles of Second Order vertical control benchmarks within the Estates in conjunction with their ongoing work to establish a First Order Control Loop around the 4 study area along 1-75, CR 951, CR 846, CR 858, and SR 29. (The terms "First Order" and "Second Order" refer to the procedures used during the survey and the resultant accuracy of the results, either horizontally or vertically. For example, using Second Order standards, a survey loop of 15 km. (10 miles) must close to within 31 mm. (1.22 in.)). These elevation benchmarks will provide additional data to verify elevations throughout the Estates and will serve as control points for validating the final home site slab elevation surveys. The roads slated for control are: Everglades Boulevard, Golden Gate Boulevard, a portion of 18th Ave. N.E., Oilwell Road (CR 858), and most of DeSoto Blvd, for a total of about 50 miles. The total cost of the benchmark network will be $110,000. On April 2, 2003, the Hazard Study Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, officially notified Collier County of the determination of the Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) for the greater Collier County unincorporated area along with the "final" Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This determination essentially terminated the Appeal Resolution process from FEMA's perspective. In a letter dated April 20, 2003, from County Manger Jim Mudd to the Director of the Hazard Study Branch requested that the implementation date for the "revised" maps be delayed until at least January 2005 to allow sufficient time to complete our restudy analysis and to adequately prepare for the approximately 7500 expected Letters of Map Amendments that will be prepared and filed with FEMA as county resident's initiate official objections to the FIRM maps. One of the most onerous changes that Mr. Mudd objected to in this final version of the FIRM maps was the "downgrading" of a large portion of Golden Gate Estates from a mix of Zone X and Zone D designation (outside the flood zone or hazard undetermined) to an unnumbered A zone (flood zone). The area of the Estates that was affected is about 65 square miles containing about 21,000 lots of which about 4500 contain properly permitted residential dwelling units. In addition, given previously submitted calculations by TCE to FEMA's study contractor, Dewberry & Davis LLC, additional random areas in the less occupied sections of Golden Gate X zones were removed from the flood zone but an additional 15 square miles of the most heavily occupied areas of Golden Gate were added to the A zone list resulting in a net increase of approximately 3000 more units; an action that will now unjustly force the majority of these property owners to obtain flood insurance or a file for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) because no elevations are ebing included on the maps. In sum, the county must continue to object to the issuance of FEMA's proposed maps. The revised maps will ultimately force thousands of new properties throughout the unincorporated County and the City of Naples to 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. There are only two ways for affected property owners to avoid 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