Item N04 N.4
County of Monroe P W
;� w 1rJ� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
r,�� Mayor Craig Cates,District 1
The Florida Keys Mayor Pro Tem Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5
y Michelle Lincoln,District 2
James K.Scholl,District 3
Ij David Rice,District 4
County Commission Meeting
February 15, 2023
Agenda Item Number: N.4
Agenda Item Summary #10398
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Sustainability
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Rhonda Haag (305)453-8774
TBD - 11:15 am?
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and direction of policy issues under the contract with
HDR, Inc. for the Roads Vulnerability Analysis and Capital Plan for County-maintained roads and
related services, to discuss policy issues related to potential road adaptation projects and seek further
direction on finalizing policy approach for Roads Vulnerability Analysis and Capital Plan
implementation.
ITEM BACKGROUND: This item is a presentation on the work completed as part of the Roads
Vulnerability Analysis and Capital Plan related to an evaluation of the various legal and policy
implications with implementation of a Roads adaptation capital program. Legal and policy research
has been conducted throughout the project to address issues related to levels of service for flooding
on roads, obligations of the County to maintain infrastructure it owns and potential assessment
methods for projects that do not fit the traditional rainfall drainage model. Both Federal and State
case law related to infrastructure maintenance and levels of service have been reviewed as well as
the County existing policy structure within the Code, Comprehensive Plan and other infrastructure
manuals. Added to this research, requirements of Federal and State regulatory agencies for
implementing roads capital projects have been reviewed. Numerous case studies have been
reviewed to provide insights on how governmental entities are approaching levels of service and
maintenance of existing infrastructure (versus new capital improvements)recognizing environmental
conditions that evolve outside of the control the government entity.
This presentation will include a set of recommendations related to the County's existing policies that
are related to these issues and seek further direction from the commission to finalize those
recommendations for future consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
06-18-18: Approval to advertise a Request for Qualifications for professional services for a Sea
Level Rise Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis for County Maintained Roads and Related
Packet Pg. 2190
N.4
Services.
02/12/19: Approval to negotiate in rank order with the firms responding to the Request for
Qualifications for professional services for the Roads Vulnerability Analysis and Capital Plan for
County-maintained roads and related services.
05/22/19: Approval of a contract with HDR, Inc., the highest ranked respondent for the Roads
Vulnerability Analysis and Capital Plan for County-maintained roads and related services, in the
amount of $1,708.491.66, plus $189,167.18 for optional services, totaling $1,897,658.84 over 3
fiscal years.
12/11/19: Approval to expedite the analysis and modeling of the Stillwright Point neighborhood to
determine the recommended adaptations, cost and related policy decisions, and report to the
commission when completed.
06/17/20: Presentation and discussion of the road's adaptation analysis of the Stillwright Point
neighborhood in Key Largo as part of the countywide study for the sea level rise vulnerability
analysis for county-maintained roads.
11/17/20: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the contract with HDR, Inc. for the Roads Vulnerability
Analysis and Capital Plan for County-maintained roads and related services, to extend the contract
from September 21, 2021 to December 21, 2021 at no cost.
04/21/21: Approval of Amendment No. 2 for $93,261.00 to the contract with HDR, Inc. for the
Roads Vulnerability Analysis and Capital Plan for County-maintained roads and related services, to
add 20 miles of roadway segments to the original 78 miles of County maintained roadways (98 miles
total) into the Conceptual Engineering Design assessment.
06/21/2021: Resolution to affirm continuing the work being performed under the contract for the
Roads Vulnerability Analysis and Capital Plan for County-maintained roads and related services
contract with HDR.
10/21/21: Presentation of updates to the HDR Roads Vulnerability Analysis and Capital Plan
for County-maintained roads, including conceptual designs, schedule, funding and outreach.
11/17/2021: Approval of Amendment No. 3 to the contract with HDR, Inc. for the Roads
Vulnerability Analysis and Capital Plan for County-maintained roads and related services, to extend
the contract from December 21, 2021 to June 24, 2022 at no cost to the County.
01/21/22: Approval of a $153,703.31 Task Order 4 to the contract with HDR, Inc. for the Roads
Vulnerability Analysis and Capital Plan for County-maintained roads and related services, to provide
conceptual design for the full number of miles of roads subject to inundation by 2045, retroactive to
December 17, 2021; and authorization for the County Administrator to execute the Task Order.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
Packet Pg. 2191
N.4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
DOCUMENTATION:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date: N/A Contract Expiration Date: June 24, 2022
$Value: N/A.
Total Dollar Value of Existing Contract: $1,990,919.84
Total Cost to County: N/A Fiscal Year Portions: N/A
Budgeted: N/A Source of Funds: N/A
CPI: N/A Indirect Costs: None
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: N/A
Revenue Producing: No If yes, amount:
Grant: No County Match: N/A
Insurance Required: No
Additional Details:
01/21/22 102-22556 - SUSTAINABIL,ITY ROADS $0.00
REVIEWED BY:
Rhonda Haag Completed 01/26/2023 12:49 PM
Cynthia Hall Completed 01/26/2023 3:37 PM
Purchasing Completed 01/26/2023 3:50 PM
Budget and Finance Completed 01/27/2023 11:27 AM
Brian Bradley Completed 01/27/2023 11:32 AM
Lindsey Ballard Completed 01/27/2023 1:11 PM
Board of County Commissioners Pending 02/15/2023 9:00 AM
Packet Pg. 2192
rrr11 �
• •
1
------------------------------------ ,,,ii � 011����111�\1111111�1111IIIIIIIIIII�II� IIIIII�III Illluuiu
a� ��� )������')�) I�U�����°oiliuuuuuuu9iului�gumiUpli�'I'II�I iiiiuuoilllllllllllllllllll
uoviU, °'
ProjectRoad ri ri ies Ainalysis Completel.
WO
1. Coimpletioin of Cm cel',-iti.ial Desigi (Neigli��:
r o m Areas)
® Coi ioinIII
Project Reca ..........�11111111111..........�11111111111..........
r � .
a� ��� )������')�) I�U�����°oiliuuuuuuu9iului�gumiUpli�'I'II�I iiiiuuoilllllllllllllllllll
uoviU, °'
ProjectIntent1�1�1
Evaluation
Years 2025, 2030, 2035, 204.0, 2 4.5, 2060, and 2100.
Sea L v ll Rise and King Tide Predictions
Roadway IL...oR
S-toirim surge
Wind waves
Extreme events
p Data aIIII in too.
(Project water surface elevations
Conduct ullin it lbiillii-ty`IPiriiorii-to , tiioin evalluation
Identify areas of concern
, ��� When olli areas the impacted
y11 yy � y�i�y
, y it yyyl y y y y y J
� IDefine improvement projects himilts
U • Assess einvir inir ent ll iimp cts`Iperimiittin
• IDevellolp preliminary cost estimates
a� ��� )������')�) IIU�����°Illiuuuuuuu9iului�gmmUpli�'I'II�I iiiiuuoilllllllllllllllllll
uoviU, °'
Vulnerability nd Criticality Assessment ���������
VP
Ste77
G
1,
Vulnerability Evlu tion Weighting
Factors Percentages
Roadway Surface linuindaboin Depth W/o
Roadway Groundwater Clearaince 25%
Roadway I inundation Due to Storm Surge 556
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuui _/�( r
i r
Land Surface
Roadway Surface Wave Impact Potential
uuuuuuuuuu �`
RoadwayExi in Pave rneir Condition Y
Roadway Groundwater Clearance
�„ 11
�� �)���WN�N� IlViiiii°I�liuuuuuuu9iulul�gumiUpli�'I'llll iliiuuollllllllllllllllllll
u owi U,„yyJ.
Vulnerability nd Criticality Assessm """"
a
'W000 0
influenced by
a uu
Human Factors
Weighting
M"
Criticality Evaluations Il,,, t rs
Percentages
1
Vulnerability Score 50%o
Numberof Residential Units
I
w
i A
nd� 1't'
v
r i
l
i
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuui r / � .
%
t
9
Roadways Associated with Critical Facilities(Police,IFpr etc.
� I
I tp �✓���✓�za � � � lU✓i ttr
11= O//
Wetlands/Natural 1--p lbp gated with Road Segment
uuuuuuuuuuuuui ��, �Om�, uN�rr ,��n, r
Roadway Functional Classification n Evacuations Routes Residential Units
Non-Residential P rc ll(Commercial Buildings) 3946
I
W andFocus Species Associated with Road Segment2946
Roadway Associated wits Critical �:::acilities
Adaptation an and
Program Cost
^a� ��� )������')�) I�iuum�uuuuuumgu111uw�uuuVUUP'I��i�iuuonllll IIIIIIIIIII�
u oviU,
Adaptation
III 1�1�1
49 Neighborhood areas .1.0 Neighborhood areas 10 Neighborhood areas 28 Neighborhood areas �lsll�
dim= � CEM 4COM
owe $ °' °9 u, ow $307,853 ow $683,432(ow
Projected SLR + King Tides will affect the following: , ,, Unincorporated
Countywide '
(SLR Condition:
Intermediate-1 fi h + King Tides)
Iles of Vulnerable and Critical County Maintained Roadways
# of Residential Units along County Maintained Roadways 11,111,13
* Cost estimate is conceptual and does not include design,right-of-way acquisition,harmonization/costto cure,and legal fees.Cost estimates are preliminary and subjectto 'v;
change.Cost Estimate is based on 2020 Dollars.
Policy Im ementation
r � .
.........................
a� ��� )������')�) IIUIIIII°oiliuuuuuuu9iului�gumiUpli�'I'll�l iiiiuuoilllllllllllllllllll
uoviU, °'
Implementation Compone
Vie
III w t d oJ�III
01 03
The Roads PlIan us intended to The program can Ike implemented
sum mar�ze pr�orfties ffor road elevation project by Iprcopectwhen funds are
arid stcorrmwater based on priorirty avaflaWe or as a Iprograr�n funded by
iranllkiirn,gcrirteria and provide concept cost specified sources. Assessment methods.
estimates.
.......
02 III III I Iffy' 'CIA III �"� ��III
04Sources
Poky changes w1H be needed to ExampVes of funding: generaV funds,
i mlpllermenrt the roads program,e.g., grant funds or sip cull asse.ssi entso or
Comp Plan polfiicy,design standards,etc. any of these sources,and others
combined.
Monroe County Implementation Issues
Vie
s
m Planning . Operational
conduct/decision for local
gove
rnm .... nts an infrastructure
2. What are the County's obligations
for roadways?
3. What are the s
responsibilities forflooding and
drainage'?
4. 1 low do we move forward?
1"Street,Judy Clarke,Dctober2016
5. h "s next?
Planning n II
When pair iinfirastru ctuire (iimproveirnents eir When infrastructure, a government entity
maiintenance)p hiis is typiicaHya Oe Wativeor has these ® hgationso 1) The necessary MwMaLrnning or
executive function protected by sovereign immunity. correction of a kno n dan er uMus c n rti n® .) The
Fhe decision to EpZri.deinfrastructure is considered necessary and Iproper.maintenan e of existing
a lannun 4veO function and a sollute u improvements; and ) ..Fhe RE2RtLgins r�n or
attaches". Fla. Dept. of Transp. v Neilson inst 00 tuon and desien of the improvement Ipllan "
City 9f St. Petersburg u. Collom
MEN
u
ma".. Nom
EME
f
FII"e ..",I,Wok Ell,,,e,1lM1-reeement %:
tl� � ',. � ��� 1. � � � � .. awe, eV�'•'�,„ I'.
w i l
��„�,,,YyYyY
Emer enc Mann ement
n �,� �JJJ)�JJJ)�JJJ)�JJJ)�JJJJ)�JJJ)�JJJ)���JJJ)�JJJ)�JJJ)�JJJ)� JJJ)�JJJ)�JJJ)�JJJ)�JJJ)�JJJ)�JJJ)�JJJ)�JJJ)�JJJ)�J�JJJlJl
����Yn;,lnain�rnnn�lln�nnnnnnnan„�nn�nn»,nnnnan„�nn�nn»,nnnnan„�nn�nn»,n�ir�,na�i„��ar�ry�y�l ayiry���y„�y�������l�ol _
Let®s wake a PLANT A system, with people, operating it....
4111111)
What are the County"s obligations in II
Vie
government entity must irk. ....i�..t. ..i..!�...i.t. ....iroads.. :.!!�. ....!nnai.intai..!n.�in. .. .....�
JED ins...do[in. ...so....."as....u.t...e, a ts," Fla. Dept. of Trans . v Neilson
overini ent emit "...d . . ....iro,of....Ihave ..... .u..t. ..to....0 ...... it trod s o
.......Jp ............................. y
(prevent obsolle,sceince, even 6f newer designs or -features woWd imake
that road safer."y Fla. Dept. of Tr nsp. v (Neilson f
1
.I�. .t... .... .�a.!�.....t....Ik,irk, ...fro.!r�.....the courts: Does add ressin sea Il v � iris off
inundation and flooding constitute something within the scope of
i w
®maintenance"?AH -thin being ::::::: the road is in good condition and its
The bin g maiiimtuindy it `ust fIloo ds p e iruoiicallll y. ,
Ib .t s .errors m s. �Vk. � ft is most HW that road improvements
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,y.n y
contemp4ted in -thus Roads project are "upgrades or umjprov marts" and
the decision to undertake k« them (or riot) is p1lanning conduct protected
by sovereign irnimu nityo
Stfllwiright IP6nt -IN Blac11<wateir(Leine (2020)
��11
What are the County's County' responsibilities regarding flooding nd drainage? II
Man u a I of Stormwater Ma nagement Practices To Be Used In Conjunction With
BOG The Monroe County Land Development Code,June2020
wwf it &J S wake d,'.Inidfieewt In iiarr Mt air w'�
.1 iriiy .: .....p...........pd�lr y s'torrnwat�r Ir �ir� ...................................
: Iin Monroe County, there its Inca private property
storrrnwater/d�'rairnage .system "operated" by the County. Appro ilnrnatelly 2.0% of the County
its served by storinnw telr structures constructed nstru cted pursuant nt to permits wlhild h are plri rrnalriilly dry retention swMalu ��' "
passive (not "operated"), coHec-flng stormwater (4rn-faH/rurnoff flooding) and provUng
wetland
sorne storage and treatment before 'iisclhalr e.
torl ater IrV"n_ .I� gInld�la 'fig rgq� sd A government entity canlrnd.�'It divert flood waters onto H-depth of swate required
16 krcat runoff lexample—
pHvate property such that an iInvoWlrntalry servitude arises (takiling 1plrlivate property for 1v half inch of runuffJ
Irnanagiing flooding firoirrn arts roads). i erlrrnirt.s wiiill Irequ re .storinrnw telr features to manage the
bond's dlralllna e for Ilmost road IImplroverneirits. AN
IMa ny roadways plres lnfiy do not have drainage 'f atures d:thner" but that will change when
thney are ilnrnplroved. 'Tlhelre wills be a "sy.stcrinn" tlhat is IInow "olpelrated" for Iroadw y drailnage.
Road irrnlprovelrnernt projects coin'Pemp�ated by 'fts 1pVa nrnurng 1process .w.i_I.]....n o1.._prQydg priv�
Ipr p .lr'.y a alrlrrnwatelr m rnagernent.
IProperties Mth very how eieva-don will._, .e....nc:r ed.. lood in rom sea level rise, r�illrnfaH or
corn°nikaiilrnafloln of the two regardless of whether the roads are improved or not. ._�:�:ae.._ro d
pj*e is will no bR causing_lh l:floodidn ra ath r nature will.
���1I
How Do We Move Forward Based on What we Now Know on rheselssues?
Recommendations, iir the ComprehensivePlan
Unless the County is considering forming a storm water utHity and
1 I "�YI giliiaWY
providing drainage to private (property, several) policies in the
Cournpr Olpuuensive Plan :slba. Wd be updated to reflect the Cou nty's approach
to s ormwater and road improvements (lpolky language summarized,
clarifications underlined )
.D..r _i.i.n . Goal) 1.001; IPoliicy "11.00I.I.A.
0 ConceptDrainage service delivery isfficus d an roads and
maintaining road access to the extent practicably
. .. j_L .1 m rQy�ru� int: ObjectNe 1.401.1a F oIllcy 1.401-1.2, Objective
L..
14011.2.® IPolluay .1.40.1.2.1e IPa�lucy 11.4C�1.4,10; (Poky "i.40.1.5.2
Concept- l�`a flooding level of.service:s for roads cannot be
achieved, the County will consider all options to maintain
accessibility through upgrades or improvements, but will
continue to maintain the road as It currently exists.
Others:
41111��flj
How Do We Move Forward n ,,,r s l s s s°
Recommendations For Code andPublic arks Manuall
ClIarifying factors Ir llat d to (roads in the Code shoWd be updated to (reflect; the Ir a iit;y of future flood
risk (policy language suulrrnlrxn riled, clarifications underlined)
Manual ofUniform Mininnum Section 19...42...Standards for Design, _4�9_bstaIII:��_ .l..._Ire Alr�:t ...._�Df Roads...�. lr�_ E's construction sta_ lords a nd s ec I�lcatlIo� ns
Construction and Maintenance BMT
Street.and Highway. concepts:
r cy nuzur the Wiowillr co cery ts: e vurorrertal lAclnal ler Ilocatuors, ea on full access,
vnwr, o t.r mw:
cost: effectiveness and use- Vide of roads when facing fuuture flood risk and sea Vev O risen irncVunde
jg n..._ ceptl-o�%....:�:o F::1D T.._Greenb olk (standard road designs for Counties). Why? Proper
construction irnstaHlatiorn and design
Section 19-1- ..0d.il lre.s in IHorW
Stautesamccoasierse IIe rs� / ��u inundation as a basis for abandonment (-fort ..._ .1 _ ..._ � _ ..._ ...__ ....._ _ " rn .._i.i _ .i _ _ _: _
examlplle County owned street ends) Why? Ib rndo n if man nternarnce isn't pracficall (filed small # of
r ' property owners)
Section 19-2- / dn trydedicatiors for court IS �- _s, evaluate factors 'to_ pr r r
deterlrn°ni ne if de6cat<io n wouuVd create an urnte naNe firnarncW burden for future man niterna nce (Iloolk
< �R DAD - at other rellated infrastructure sections as well((). Why? Don't n't accept" it: if you can't man ntai n it
,MAY New Secfllo n? CIreat110 n of sii.�eplrogralrnn to_warll�..._offlo dlln co ndil�ilo ns. any? Warn of
IFL h .1 wdangerous conditions
Modify PuIbhc Works Manua as , Roads and Fridges, Standard Specifications and Deta Vs, Part 2 DetaHs.
W81-1 n ,1 Sulbsta ntiiall rewrite (,needed. AA/hy Proper construction i nstaHat:iio n and design
https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/roadway/floridagreenbool</2018-florida-greenbook.pdR 41111
htt ps://m utcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2r3/m utcd 2009r1r2r3e di ti o n.pdf
How Do We Move Forward Based on What we Now Know on rheselssues?
Recommendations, lir Funding
IDetermine if addirtiiomnall policy adolptiloin !is needed to manage the pu✓ubiiic"s e 1p ctatiiomns regarding the funding approach for future
road iirmnlpronrermnemnts. Most granting pro rarros 6tlher requ lire some Ilenrell of rm-natclb or-the projects wffl rank Nghem with a source of
matcHng funds.
• Programmatic atic alplpra ach with dedicated funding sources or
• "Pay as you o" incorlporaflng 1projects into the calpitall irm-nlprovem eats planrOng 1process as more fun61ng becomes available.
IFor a v Iliid spedall assessment:nt: (1) the 1property assessed irmnust derive a slpecii ll benefit fro mn the servilce provided and (2) tlh e
assessment nt must be fairly and reasonably alpport pined arnoirn, tlhe 1prolperties that receive the specW benefit.
• E..)evellop an assessment methodollogy for the existing IMu.umnidpall Service Beinefrirt Unit for Sea Levell IRiise and IFllood V�liirtii aflo n
(CIhalpter 22, Article IIII). Why? TradffiionA "storrm wat r" its assessed based on per 1prop irty or arnount of irnnlperAous surface
relying on a ,storirn ater drainage system (influenced by rainfall). The "'benefit'fram these road improvements is accessibility
(and draining the roads® not private property) and the dominant factor influencing that is tidal flooding not rainfall.
• A irmnetlhodoio y for tlhese road iimn°nlprover nermt 1projects needs more nrettiimn o A tradiitiio nai storm water umtiiiiity assessime nt under
Section 403.031.(1.6 & 13), F.S. maybe isn't the answer because we are not jproviding a rairnfaH driven system for (private
Iprolpertyo
111411)
How Do We Move Forward s Know on TheseIssues?
Recommendations for Funding
VP 30%evapotranspiration
a
90°/a ovapotraru
0000
airae"" asae is
a [ ua5°/a
"�Ira&tl1onall s-tonrrn ateir �*.�  °strunoff �
assesslrnell�'ItS Erased on the w noft22
auffi a :
low
� kM
impact to the stoirlrnwater
systelrn (Iraiinfailll) firolrn the
property. Infiltration
https:�/
PrS
f 9 w rrr "
PTaaparoaeaTUaarpaeuwerrroevutswith
SILR+ACT Wafer Levels �
2
r
IBu.�t irth tii�'aII '�l�as��iilr� f 11
iirnpelrvllous surface its h-r l v nt
it mD
j f� itii ir*E,rr'�nra�,r �
and its not Rely a methodo� ogy
for assessing for Iroad
Vmplroveirnent.s (this II,s not the
same type of assessment
contempllated in Chapter 4.0 , PoInMew Road
IFo,S4 -for stoirmwatelr)o
Erin Deady,Lantana Boat Ramp,October 2021 ���,
What's Next Rear this Project? II
Recommendations'f Ilr Fur llh ter Policy Development Li llk 111 Ilr 111 in Ilr lbi 111 i II I
!!::;IV
:CI.. Ensure projects identified in this (Report are integrated into the Count "s
VulnerabiliIN Assessment set tin be updated and finalized over the next year
(Resilient Florida program requires identification of projects in MCA BY 2024 for
funding elI ibHlity)
io
2. Develop a (prioritized (project (list of adaptioQ rg` ts fqr other irrfr straLqC r and �
assets that are not.just reads (forthcorning in conjunction with VA update)
3. Analysis of r ice standards are -
ado ted within the Comprehensive F% n urncMi n a
The LOS for roads is establIshed uim Traffic Cuircullaflorn IPollncnes 301.1.1. and
30 1.1. ✓ � � rt "..,
• The LOS-for potabIle water is establlislhed inPotalb e / ter P olicy 701.1.Ar arty Harris,2016 Dottie Moses
• The LOS for solid waste is establlished in Solid Waste (Policy 0I.A.o1i.d
• ..rbe II...OS foDr sanitary sewer is establii.slhed in Sanitary ,Sewer IPofiicy
01.A.A.d and
• The LOS for parks and recreation is estabhslh d in Recr a-do n and Open
Space IPolicy 1201.1.1.
What's Next Rear this Project? II
Recommendations, itFurther Policy Development Lill 111 it Ill ii� it I i III i ii �
!!::;IV
4. Analysis of locations and 2l mativa,rns of Count,(-ownrAd ingrc lsg theiir elevations and if flooding impacts
are occurring or are arotiiclIpated to occur on them, adjacent rights.-of.-way or adjacent parcels.
5. Develop policy approaches and address polky conflicts for pro, rt owners that arnt t adapt their
ri�tat rcn rti s ism thcns that d rn t® for example-
Existing shor iirn olicies that Ipdoritice eWrornme ntal goals Iby limiting hardening in
ceirtali n areas Mth the desire of a property owner to (protect their (property;
�r Fill + shorelirn glic (imueust consider these together);
(Fill + onsute stormwat r mani Orement considerur7la future conditions (not just Ipire and (post
project) irairnffiicatbims of fill iirn floodlpllaiirns and desire of private property owner to
levate property v. tiradiitiioirmal floodlplanirn imairna, eirnirmt concepts that 6scourage such
actiiviity in flc odIpIIalirnsy and
�rc� art ��nrr� r to r� art � a7ar irrn acts with onsite retention + fill (such as Iberims and
,. iretei ntiorn allls)
(Ilili
y
� ��k�"' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I° � IIIII
r
IVP ,
RI
i
✓ Tarr„�,,,,� ,.,'.r ,,��;. ri✓ iri,,irror✓ aiir✓ra�,,�"" / 1
I
r
"✓i, ,,,,,,,ram/ r/a/s r
IIII�IIIIIII
Monroe County Proactive Planning Approach
• IRoads - Elevate or mitigate - County services and assets
• IH lbit t/IRe,s ur e,s riiv to structures - People
• Elevate or miligate County Ibuildings * I....ot fill and driveways * Habitat
Infrastructure - Shorelines relines - lEconomy
411iliv/l)
What"s Next Now for I�
sir)
Current c ens iris for Roads Pr i s it c i n
I.. Flinahze and bring back Corrnlpreheinsive Man recommendations for furtheir
co nsWera-Horn
2. IF=iinall ze and bring back Cade ir6ated changes for the Roads project for further
crarnsider floin
a. Road desi irn 1parameteirs
Ib. Abandonment
c. Voluntary deed c do ns for roads
do Sigina, e for flooding conditions
3. Update Pudulblllic Works Manually Roads and Bridges, Standard Sip cilicatiio ns and IDetails,
Part 2 DetaHs
4o Develop Assessment Methodology Iby end of calendar of year ff ilb0
(procurement Iles been repassed)
n im o�llq Ii k o III° c o u III'
(Ililivll)
u
� l
1 11 l
:mmmmmmmmm::au, 1,IL1'.
r /_ rr ,
r ,
/
/ r r
r r
e
/ All
Ues i ' ' ! °
%
/ ! f% o
rani/ /
r / rrr
r� rr r
/iir rrr r ri
rr
, rr
/
/ r r
/
/
/
r
/
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ,.
/
/
�II�