BCC Minutes 03/20/2006 W (Floodplain Management)
March 20, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT
WORKSHOP
Naples, Florida, March 20, 2006
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a FLOOD PLAIN
MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP SESSION in the 3rd Floor Boardroom of
the W. Harmon Turner Building in the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Frank Halas
Commissioner Jim Coletta
Commissioner Fred Coyle
Commissioner Donna Fiala
Commissioner Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
J ames Mudd, County Manager
Joseph Schmitt, Administrator, CDES
Robert Wiley, P.E., C.F.M., Principal Project Manager, Engineering Services
William Lorenz, Director, Environmental Services
Kris Van Lengen, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department
Alexandra Sulecki, Coordinator, Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program,
Environmental Services Division
1
Colfer COUl1:ty
(""'i"'!.r",~!:;..(IIl1~""'~~f,"""!"";~!"'':'''~~:;'!i;r,'';;':':~hA~''''':.__"I' I," ';'.,,,,,~ " ~:-Ji'!":" ~;,.~::
Board of County Commissioners Workshop
Monday, March 20, 2006
9 a.m. -12 p.m.
Boardroom, Third Floor
K+: Harmon Turner Building
Collier County Government Center
At;ENDA
. Introductions
· Workshop Discussion for Higher Regulatory Criteria Additions
to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance - Joseph Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development and Environmental
Services Division and Robert Wiley, P.E., C.F.M., Principal
Project Manager, Engineering Services Department
· Consideration of policy options for property acquisitions under
the Conservation Collier Program that will work strategically
with the TDR Program and consideration of the Growth
Management Plan policy that allows only private entities to
generate TDRs - Alexandra Sulecki, Coordinator, Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program, Collier County
Environmental Services Dept.
· Communications
· Adjourn
March 20, 2006
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 AM with the Pledge of Allegiance by
Chairman Frank Halas.
II. Jim Mudd, County Manager, provided a brief introduction of the agenda:
. Higher Regulatory Criteria Additions to the Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance.
. Consideration of policy options for property acquisitions under the
Conservation Collier Program that will work strategically with the Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) Program and consideration of the Growth
Management Plan policy that allows only private entities to generate TDRs.
Each of these items had previously been presented to the BCC which, because of
their complicated nature, asked that they be brought back in this workshop forum.
Commissioner Fiala asked Mr. Schmitt to develop and present to the BCC the
impact on the cost of a house of the proposals being presented today.
III. Joseph Schmitt, Administrator, CDES opened the discussion on the Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance.
. On 9/27/05 the Community Development and Environmental Services
Division presented the Flood Ordinance to the BCC, and implemented the
flood insurance rate paths.
. Included were proposals to improve the Community Rating System (CRS),
the entire mitigation process for the flood insurance program.
. These proposals have already been presented to the Development Services
Advisory Committee (DSAC - on January 4,2006 and February 1,2006) and
the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC - on February 16,2006).
Their recommendations on specific proposals are included in today's
presentation.
IV. Robert Wiley, Principal Project Manager, Engineering Services, gave a
detailed presentation of some of the areas of higher regulatory criteria within
the CRS that are available for adoption, to enable the BCC to consider
including them in the County's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
. The objective of the proposed additions to the Ordinance is to:
o Make the community more resistant to flooding.
o Enable those who are covered by the National Flood Insurance Program to
qualify for discounted rates on their flood insurance premiums.
. Collier County is a participant in the Community Rating System of the
National Flood Insurance Program:
o Participation allows County property owners to receive flood insurance
premium discounts based on the County's level of effort to improving the
community's flood resistance.
o Participation is voluntary.
2
March 20, 2006
. The Community Rating System measures a community's flood resistance
activities using "Credit Points."
o There are 18 CRS activity categories and a total of 14,668 Credit Points
available.
o Collier County's current Credit Point score is 1,692.
o Many CRS activity categories that have large Credit Point totals are not
available to Collier County. An example is "Levee Safety," which has
potentially 900 Credit Points, but Collier County has no levees.
o Categories have been reviewed to determine where it makes sense to
modify some current practices in Collier County to improve flood
resistance and also improve the County's Credit Point score.
o Activities with significant potential for increased scoring are the
following:
. 340 (Hazard Disclosure)
. 430 (Higher Regulatory Standards)
. 450 (Stormwater Management)
. All "400" series activity category scores are multiplied by the
Community Growth Adjustment Factor of 150% based on Collier
County's high growth rate.
. The areas in which Collier County has the potential to improve its flood
resistance and improve its Credit Point score are the following:
1. Freeboard
o Build a house at an elevation above the absolute minimum required in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
o Serves as a safety factor and reduces flood insurance premiums.
o Applies to the lowest floor elevation, including basement, electrical,
heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment, and other
service facilities, including duct work.
o Typical cost from surveyed builders for a 3,000 square foot house for one
foot of freeboard would be roughly $5,500, or $1.83 per square foot.
o One foot of freeboard enables a house to blend in with a community, not
stand up abnormally high.
o For a $200,000 house, annual flood insurance premiums would be reduced
from $645 to $415 with one foot of freeboard. This 35% flood insurance
cost reduction would pay for the freeboard in less than the life of the
mortgage.
Commissioner Halas noted that most homes around the coastal area are already
taking advantage of freeboard.
Mr. Wiley noted that was not necessarily freeboard, it may have been done to
attain the base flood elevation requirement. He also indicated that many builders
are already building one foot higher than necessary to improve moisture
conditions in the house.
3
March 20, 2006
Commissioner Fiala asked if the benefits of freeboard would apply to all homes.
Mr. Wiley responded that this applies only to homes within a flood zone area as
per the flood insurance map adopted by FEMA (zones identified by the letters
"A" and "V.")
Commissioner Coyle asked if this applies to the municipalities (the City of
Naples and the City of Marco). The answer is that it does not, they have their
own Ordinances.
o The damage from a major flooding event can easily amount to $25,000 to
$100,000 per flooded building, and Freeboard would help to protect
against that. Another advantage is that a building above the flood level is
usable for returning occupants.
o Potential CRS credit: up to 100 points.
o DSAC did not recommend approval over concern about the high cost
incurred for each structure.
o CCPC recommended approval.
2. Foundation Protection
o Specifies that buildings built on fill must be constructed on properly
designed and compacted fill (ASTM D-698 or equivalent) that extends
beyond the building walls before dropping below the base flood elevation.
o This protects against erosion, scour and settling.
o Typical cost for a house would be less than $1,200.
Commissioner Fiala expressed concern that this would negatively impact older
neighboring homes, causing water to run off of the property of new homes onto
the property of older homes.
Commissioner Henning also expressed the concern that using fill to raise the
level of a home would send water run-off to neighboring homes.
Commissioner Coletta noted that there is an Ordinance requiring homeowners to
retain storm waters.
Mr. Wiley clarified that the Ordinance (01-27) does not require homeowners to
retain storm waters, but to direct them toward a swale or draining system.
Commissioner Coyle noted that this does not apply to just large developments; it
applies to any new home. If fill is not used, very high walls are built adjacent to a
smaller structure which people typically don't like.
Mr. Wiley noted that Foundation Protection is dealing only with compaction, not
with the high wall issue.
4
March 20, 2006
o Potential CRS credit: up to 20 points.
o DSAC and CCPC recommended approval.
3. Lower Substantial Improvements Threshold
o The National Flood Insurance Program requires that if a structure has a
building elevation below its required NFIP elevation level and suffers
damage equal to or greater than a threshold level (the default threshold
level is 50% of the value of the house, not including the value of the land),
the building elevation must be made compliant with the NFIP elevation
level.
o If the threshold level is made slightly tougher by lowering it to 49%,
FEMA CRS credits can be obtained without having a significant impact
on required improvement costs.
o Potential CRS Credit: 10 points
o DSA C and CCPC recommended approval.
Mr. Mudd noted that the objective of this activity is to obtain 308 additional CRS
Credit points. Adding 308 points to the County's current 1,692 point total would
bring the new total to 2,000, a threshold at which flood insurance rate discounts
would increase from the current 15% to 20%.
Commissioner Fiala asked about other categories for CRS Credit points that are
not on the list being discussed today.
Mr. Wiley noted that, while some of the categories would not apply to Collier
County, other categories are being studied. Also, making a particular change does
not assure receiving the full potential number of CRS Credit points, so it is
necessary to try to obtain extra points. Ultimately, it is hoped that Collier County
can obtain enough CRS Credit points to qualify for a 25% flood insurance rate
discount.
4. Cumulative Substantial Improvements
o The total of all improvements, modifications, additions, reconstruction and
damage repair to a non-compliant structure made over the previous five
years are added together in calculating compliance with the Substantial
Improvements Threshold. This applies to any work that requires a
building permit.
o Potential CRS credit: up to 70 points.
o DSA C did not recommend approval, as the building industry is concerned
that the cumulative factor might cause some people to delay making some
construction decisions.
o cepc recommended approval.
Commissioner Coyle noted that this would stop manipulation of the process
where people can expand their home to just below the 50% threshold each year
and not be required to bring the home within compliance.
5
March 20, 2006
s. Protection of Critical Facilities
o Critical facilities are defined as government emergency services including
fire stations, sheriff stations, EMS stations, the Collier County Emergency
Operations Center, emergency evacuation centers, hospitals, water
treatment plans, pump stations, wells, wastewater treatment plants and
pump stations, electrical power substations and telephone communications
centers/switching stations.
o Within the Special Flood Hazard Area there are approximately:
. 26 schools
. 14 fire/EMS stations
. 2 hospitals
. The Collier County Emergency Operations Center
o These facilities should be protected to at least the recommended Freeboard
elevation of raising one foot in elevation.
o Potential CRS Credit: 50 points.
o DSAC and CCPC recommended approval.
Commissioner Coyle asked what would have to be done in the case of existing
facilities that don't meet the proposed new levels.
Mr. Wiley responded that these facilities would not have to be replaced, but as
improvements to them are made, mandatory floodproofing would be required and
critical equipment would have to be raised. New facilities would have to be
compliant.
Commissioner Coyle asked about electrical power and telephone communication
facilities that Collier County does not control.
Mr. Wiley responded that he has discussed this with utilities representatives, and
they are supportive of the proposed new requirements. They just want some
direction from the County.
Commissioner Coletta suggested requiring the gas stations have generators so
they can pump gas when power is out.
Mr. Wiley noted that this can be done, but it wouldn't generate any CRS Credit
points.
The Commissioners unanimously agreed that requiring gas stations to have
generators should be added to the Ordinance.
Commissioner Coyle proposed requiring food stores to have generators. Publix
has already announced that they are doing this.
The Commissioners unanimously agreed to this.
6. Protection of Floodplain Storage Capacity
6
March 20, 2006
o The placement of fill, especially in areas outside of planned developments
with stormwater management systems, reduces the volume of existing
storage for rainfall runoff.
o This can have substantial impact on older existing buildings and overland
drainage patterns as vacant land is filled.
o This regulation would require the provision of compensating storage
similar to what is already required for some larger developments.
o The typical cost is less than $1,000.
o Potential CRS Credit: up to 70 points.
o DSA C did not recommend approval.
o CCPC recommended approval.
7. Manufactured Home Parks
o Current regulations in Collier County allow manufactured homes in
existing manufactured home parks to be installed at elevations that may be
below the base flood elevation.
o This requirement would eliminate that provision and would require all
manufactured homes to meet the base flood elevations (plus freeboard).
o There are approximately 50 existing mobile home parks in Collier County
that may be affected.
o Most elevation increases would be I to 2 feet, with only a few in the 3 to 4
foot range.
o Typical cost to comply is less than $1,000.
o Potential CRS Credit: up to 50 points.
o DSA C and CCPC recommended approval.
8. Stormwater Management Facilities Inspection and Maintenance
o There is a long history of lack of maintenance of stormwater management
facilities in Collier County.
o Proper maintenance reduces the potential for flooding and allows the
designated stormwater management systems to provide water quality
treatment.
o Much of this effort could be included in the County's PUD Monitoring
Report. Non-PUD developments would have to take on this added
responsibility.
o Additional County staff would be needed to administer the program.
o This would ensure that stormwater systems function as designed and
permitted.
o Costs will vary greatly depending on the size, complexity, age, condition
and availability of reliable construction plans for each development. It is
assumed that the cost would be $3,000 and up for the initial year, with
reductions in later years.
o To qualify for CRS Credit, FEMA requires annual inspections of
stormwater systems in new developments.
7
March 20, 2006
o FEMA doesn't address stormwater inspections in existing developments.
It is recommended that these be inspected every two years.
o County program staffing costs are estimated at approximately $330,000
annually.
o Potential CRS Credit: up to 110 points.
o DSA C and CCPC recommended approval.
Commissioner Fiala asked about older communities with no Master Associations
- who would handle improvements and inspections for these?
Mr. Wiley noted that these are the County's maintenance responsibility.
Break 10:36 AM
Reconvened 10:51 AM
9. Flood Hazard Disclosure
o Currently sellers of property and owners of rental property located in a
special flood hazard area are not required to notify purchasers and renters
that the property is located in a flood zone and requires flood insurance.
For homes located in a flood zone, mortgage lending institutions are
required to notify the purchaser at least ten days prior to closing that the
purchaser must buy flood insurance. Renters are not required to have
flood insurance for the structure, but flood insurance is available on the
contents of the building.
o It is recommended that sellers of property and owners of rental property
located in a special flood hazard area be required to notify purchasers and
renters that the property is in a flood zone and requires flood insurance. It
would be the responsibility of sellers and landlords to complete a form that
the realtor would provide to potential purchasers and renters when they
request correspondence about the property or when they first view the
property.
o The Naples Area Board of Realtors and Marco Island Realty Association
support this concept.
Commissioner Halas suggested noting on the form that the property is currently
covered by flood insurance.
o Potential CRS Credit: up to 71 points.
o DSA C and CCPC recommended approval.
10. Other Higher Standards - No Floodproofing
o This requires Elevation of non-residential structures within the Special
Flood Hazard Area instead of Floodproofing them. This is an issue even
when floodproofing systems have been installed because over time they
often are not properly maintained.
o There would be certain exemptions such as car wash bays.
8
March 20, 2006
o There is some concern that people with disabilities might find it
burdensome to access higher structures in compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Expensive ramps or elevators might have to be
provided.
o Potential CRS Credit: up to 10 points.
o DSA C and CCPC did not recommend approval.
o CCPC did recommend mandatory maintenance and inspection of
floodproofing systems.
11. In Summary
o Staff recommends approval of all the requested Higher Regulatory criteria
to not only provide a more flood resistant community, but to also increase
the CRS credit score and advance the County to the next CRS community
class for a 20% reduction in flood insurance premiums.
o Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners' approval and support
of the requested Higher Regulatory criteria for inclusion in the County's
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
12. Recap of Higher Regulatory Standards
1) Freeboard - up to 100 points
2) Foundation Protection - up to 20 points
3) Lower Substantial Improvements Threshold - 10 points
4) Cumulative Substantial Improvements - up to 70 points
5) Protection of Critical Facilities - up to 50 points
6) Protection of Floodplain Storage Capacity - up to 70 points
7) Manufactured Home Parks - up to 50 points
8) Stormwater Management Facilities Inspection and Maintenance -
up to 11 0 points
9) Flood Hazard Disclosure - up to 71 points
10) OHS - No Floodproofing - up to 10 points
11) Total possible requested points - 561 points
12) DSAC's recommendations - 311 points
13) CCPC's recommendations - 551 points
Mr. Mudd responded to Commissioner Fiala's earlier question concerning the
impact of the proposals presented today on the cost of a house.
o For a 2,000 square foot residence that is not on County water and sewer
the impact fee today is $12,013. If the proposals presented today are
adopted, impact fees would increase by $6,200 to a total of $18,213.
o For a 2,000 square foot dwelling on County water and sewer the impact
fee today is $18,298. If the proposals presented today are adopted, impact
fees would increase by $6,200 to a total of $24,498.
Commissioner Coyle indicated his agreement with recommendations 1 through 9
(directing CDES to come back with an amendment to the County's Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance to include these recommendations in that Ordinance) and
9
March 20, 2006
to investigate further item number 10 and any other potential recommendations
for inclusion in the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, and to bring these back
to the BCC for their consideration. All the Commissioners agreed.
Mr. Mudd noted that two other follow-up items were identified today:
o Requiring gas stations and grocery stores to maintain generators to enable
them to operate during times of power outages.
o Requiring owners of property in flood hazard zones to notify potential
purchasers orrenters of their property that it is in a flood hazard zone at the
time that discussion of such transactions is initiated.
V. The second agenda item was discussed: Consideration of policy options for
property acquisitions under the Conservation Collier Program that will work
strategically with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program and
consideration of the Growth Management Plan policy that allows only
private entities to generate TDRs.
. Kris Van Lengen, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department,
discussed the following issue:
Should the Growth Management plan be amended to allow government
owned lands to sever and sell TDR credits? At the present time the Growth
Management Plan limits TDR severance to private land owners.
o There are approximately 20,000 acres in public ownership and
approximately 20,000 acres in private ownership eligible for TDR
severance.
o Adding publicly owned lands would increase TDR supply, and could
result in lower overall prices per TDR.
o There might be a higher degree of build-out in Receiving areas due to the
increased number of TDRs in the market.
Commissioner Coletta indicated that he does not want to see county owned land
have TDRs that can be severed. It would dilute the program and harm those
people that the TDR program was intended to make whole. He also noted that, as
Commissioner Henning earlier proposed, if the County has lands coming to it
through Conservation Collier, before that land sold the price should be reduced
and the TDRs be severed to the County.
. Alexandra Sulecki, Coordinator, Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program, Environmental Services Division, recapped some of the points in
the Executive Summary:
o Sending Lands with TDRs attached were made a target protection area in
the original Conservation Collier Ordinance. That Ordinance directs
Conservation Collier to solicit those owners.
o The TDR program developed in a parallel track as Conservation Collier,
and there was no experience as to how these programs might interact and
to what effect.
10
March 20, 2006
o Conservation Collier acquisition permanently extinguishes development
rights.
o Concerns arose during Conservation Collier development that led to
Conservation Collier not becoming a TDR holder and seller.
o As a result, Conservation Collier might pay for TDR credits as part of the
purchase price of lands being purchased and then extinguish them and lose
their value.
o In January, 2005, the BCC directed the Conservation Collier Committee to
determine how to remove TDR credits before purchasing lands for
conservation.
o The Conservation Collier Committee discussed this subj ect in March,
2005 and found two positives with removing the TDRs: strategically they
didn't want to compete with the TDR program or reduce the amount of
credits that exist, and it saves the County money when someone separates
the TDRs before selling land to the County.
o The Conservation Collier Committee was concerned that a TDR policy
could potentially chill some smaller land owners who might not want to go
through the multi-step process of severing the TDRs and then selling the
land itself, resulting in the County's inability to obtain desired parcels.
o In January, 2006 the Conservation Collier Committee discussed this topic
again and made the following recommendations:
. Remove Sending lands from target protection areas. These would still
be eligible but would not be actively sought.
. Change the Purchase Policy to require the removal of the first two
(Base and Early Entry) TDR Credits and have appraisals reflect the
property value without those. With this action the County would pay
less and keep the steps for the owners at a minimum.
. Change the scoring matrix to give added points to properties where
owners have removed TDR credits. That would provide some
incentive to also separate the third and fourth TDRs.
Commissioner Henning stated there is more valuable land outside of the fringe,
and they shouldn't be competing with the fringe TDR program.
Commissioner Coyle suggested that the County could buy land with TDRs and
then sell those TDRs, removing the burden of selling them from the land owner
and ending up paying the same net price for the land.
Ms. Sulecki responded that the Ordinance says that when the County purchases
property its TDRs are immediately extinguished. She suggested changing the
purchase policy to say to the owner that the County would purchase property only
if the owner were willing to remove the first two TDRs.
Commissioner Coletta noted that the market for transferring TDRs is working,
and the County should not get involved except in those instances where it buys
land for conservation from time to time. Then the County should tell the sellers
11
March 20,2006
that they have to sever whatever TDRs are reasonable to sever for the County to
consider the purchase of the land.
Ms. Sulecki said that the Conservation Collier Committee members think that it
is reasonable to require people to remove the first two TDRs, and to provide
incentive to remove the third and fourth TDRs.
Commissioner Henning said the system works and they should stay out of it, not
compete and drive up the market price for TDRs.
Commissioner Coyle asked for agreement that the Commissioners don't want to
see the taxpayer's money going to overpay for land and then the TDRs are just
extinguished.
The Commissioners unanimously agreed.
There was discussion about the cost to the County of removing exotics from
Sending Lands - this cost is not currently reflected in the appraisal. It was
recommended that the cost of removing exotics from Sending Lands should be
reflected in the appraisal or, if the appraiser is unable to do this, staffwill have to
develop an estimate for exotic removal to be negotiated with the seller.
The Commissioners unanimously agreed.
Environmental Services staff is directed to come back to the BCC with the formal
proposed changes.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the workshop was
concluded by order ofthe Chair at 11 :51 AM.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~~/
Chairman Commissioner Frank Halas
ATTEST:
DWIGHf 6:.~:O~K) CLERK
, ~ -. " ...
, as presented
v
12