R10-037
II
1 RESOLUTION NO. RIO - 037
2
3
4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
5 FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BOYNTON
6 BEACH TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE 2009 REVISED
7 PALM BEACH COUNTY UNIFIED LOCAL MITIGATION
8 STRA TEGY PLAN j AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
9 DATE.
10
11
12 WHEREAS, Palm Beach County is susceptible to a variety of natural and man-made
13 disasters; and
14 WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, was enacted to establish a national
15 disaster hazard mitigation program to reduce the loss of life and property, human suffering,
16 economic disruption, and disaster assistance costs resulting from disasters, and to assist state,
17 local and Indian tribal governments in implementing effective hazard mitigation measures to
18 ensure the continuation of critical services and facilities after a natural disaster, and
19 WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as a condition for qualifying for and
20 receiving future Federal mitigation assistance funding, requires such governments to have Federal
21 Emergency Management Agency approved hazard mitigation plans in place that identify the
22 natural hazards that could impact their jurisdictions, identify actions and activities to mitigate the
23 effects of those hazards, and establish a coordinated process to implement plans; and
24 WHEREAS, Palm Beach County's Local Mitigation Strategy, in coordination with
25 governmental and non-governmental stakeholders having an interest in reducing the impact of
26 natural disasters, and with input from the private sector and other members of the public,
27 developed and revised the Palm Beach County Unified Local Mitigation Strategy; and
28 WHEREAS, the 2009 revised Unified Local Mitigation Plan has been approved by the
E :\Data\85\ltems \80\ 1 067\609\Reso _- _Local_Redevelopment_ Strategy_Plan .doc
II I
1 Florida Division of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
2 subject to adoption by the County Board of County Commissioners; and
3 WHEREAS, the LMS Steering Committee recommends the formal adoption of the 2009
4 Revised Unified LMS Plan, including planned future enhancements described therein, by the
5 County and all 38 participating municipalities.
6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
7 THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT:
8 Section 1. The foregoing "Whereas" clauses are hereby ratified and confirmed as
9 being true and correct and are hereby made a specific part of this Resolution upon adoption
10 hereof.
11 Section 2. The City of Boynton Beach hereby approves and adopts the 2009 Revised
12 Unified Local Mitigation Strategy Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit A) in its entirety, as revised by
13 the LMS and approved by the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, the Florida
14 Division of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
15 Section 3. The City of Boynton Beach authorizes the appropriate City of Boynton Beach
16 Officials to pursue available funding opportunities for implementation of proposed mitigation
17 initiatives described in the Plan, and upon receipt of such funding or other necessary resources,
18 seek to implement the actions in accordance with the mitigation strategies set out by the plan.
19 Section 4. The City of Boynton Beach will continue to support and participate in the LMS
20 planning and implementation process as required by FEMA, the Florida Division of Emergency
21 Management, and the Palm Beach County LMS Steering Committee.
22 Section 5. The City Commission directs the City of Boynton Beach Clerk to transmit an
23 original of the executed Resolution to the Palm Beach County Division of Emergency
E :\Data\85\ltems\80\ 1 067\609\Reso _ - _Local_Redevelopment_ Strategy_Plan .doc
II I
1 Management, attention LMS Coordinator (712-6481), for filing in the Office of the Clerk and
2 Comptroller.
31 Section 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage.
:th.
4 PASSED AND ADOPTED this ~ day of April, 2010.
5
6
7 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
8 .)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 ATTEST:
24
25 .P~
26
27 M. Prainito, MMC
28 Clerk
29 At9" ?~2:~~~~,
30
31
32 (COliIat~ ~1l1)~~1!~1
. "..'" ~f"
33 ;~':.,~ '-"'.!k';'fI
'''.:'''e '\" .:.,.,.
'!:,~1.t~i;!~, .;1:.. "',:,;_.{~~fJ'
..,\t)"l"1*,~\W~ '*~'t .
"""J:::'i"~~~~M,,~~~\t:.,,/.:~>~' -,'
E :\Data\85\ltems\80\ 1 067\609\Reso _ -_LocaL Redevelopment_ Strategy-Plan .doc
PALM BEACH COUNTY
UNIFIED LOCAL MITIGATION
STRATEGY
2009
TABLE of CONTENTS
PART 2: PLAN SECTIONS Paae
1.0 PURPOSE AND PROGRAM OVERViEW........ ....... ................... ....... .......... ............ 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ... ............................... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... .............. 1-1
1.2 PURPOSE.. ................ ....... ............................. ....... ................................... ......1-1
1.3 PROGRAM ORGANIZATION .... ........... ........ ......... ......... ........ ......... .......... ..... 1-1
1.3.1 ORIGINAL LMS STRUCTURE.............................................................. 1-1
1.3.2 REVISED LMS STRUCTURE ...............................................................1-2
1.4 LMS PARTICIPATION REQUiREMENTS....................... ......... ............... ........1-4
1.5 JURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION OF THE LMS ..................................................1-5
1.6 NEW JURiSDiCTIONS/ENTITIES.... ........................... .......... ............... ..........1-6
2.0 GUIDING PRINCiPLES............................................ .......... .......................... ....... .. .2-1
2.1 METHODOLOGY... .... ...... ......... .'.... ....... ... ......... ..... ... ......... ..... ... ......... ....... ..... 2-1
2.2 PROCESS...................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 MITIGATION STRA TEG IES............................................................................ 2-3
2.4 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................. ..... ............ ...... ............. 2-3
2.4.1 GOALS................................................................................................ 2-3
2.4.2 OBJE CTIVES ...................................................................................... 2-4
2.4.3 BENEFITS........................................................................................... 2-4
3.0 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ........................... 3-1
3.1 HAZARD I DENTIFICA TION .................................. ................. ..................... ...3-1
3.1.1 NATURAL HAZARDS.... ..................... ....... .......................................... 3-2
3.1.1.1 FLOODING.......... .......... ........................................... ......... 3-3
3.1.1.2 HURRICANEITROPICAL STORM ...... ..... ................ ..........3-8
3.1.1.3 TORNADO ................... ............ ......... ......................... ...... 3-16
3.1.1.4 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM/LIGHTNING ....................... 3-18
3.1.1.5 DROUGHT....................................... ................ ................3-19
3.1.1.6 EXTREME TEMPERATURES. ........ ......... ........ .......... ......3-22
3.1.1.7 AGRICULTURAL PEST AND DiSEASE........................... 3-24
3.1.1.8 WILDFIRE/URBAN INTERFACE ZONE........................... 3-25
3.1.1.9 MUCK FIRE ... ............................ ....... .......... ....... .............. 3-27
3.1.1.10 SOIUBEACH EROSiON.................................................. 3-27
3.1.1.11 SEI SMIC HAZARDS........................................................ 3-29
3.1.1.12 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.................................................... 3-30
3.1.1.13 EPiDEMiCS........................... ......... ........ .........................3-30
3.1.2 TECHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS ... ................. ......... ......... .............. ...... 3-34
3.1.2.1 DIKE FAILURE....... .......... ....... ....... .......... .......... ....... ......3-34
3.1.2.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ACCiDENT........................... 3-34
3.1.2.3 RADIOLOGICAL ACCIDENTS ......... ......... ......... .............. 3-35
3.1.2.4 COMMUNICATIONS FAILURE ................. ..... .............. ....3-36
3.1.2.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE ............................3-36
3.1.2.6 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ACCIDENTS ...................3-37
3.1.2.7 WELLFIELD CONT AMINA TION ................. .......... ........... 3-38
3.1.2.8 POWER FAILURE (OUTAGES)... ........ ......... ........ ........... 3-39
Page 1
TABLE of CONTENTS
( Continued)
Paae
3.1.3 SOCIETAL HAZARDS......................................... ........ ......................3-40
3.1.3.1 CIVIL DiSTURBANCE...................................................... 3-40
3.1.3.2 TERRORISM AND SABOT AGE ............ ............... ............ 3-40
3.1.3.3 I MMIGRA TION CRiSiS.................................................... 3-42
3.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT................................................................. 3-42
3.2.1 NATURAL HAZARDS...........,............................................................ 3-43
3.2.1.1 HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS ...................... 3-43
3.2.1.2 FLOODING............. ................... ................. ............ .........3-45
3.2.1.3 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM/LIGHTNING ....................... 3-46
3.2.1.4 WILDFIRE/URBAN INTERFACE ZONE........................... 3-46
3.2.1.5 MUCK FI RE ..................................................................... 3-47
3.2.1.6 TORNADO............ ................. ......... ........ ......... .......... ......3-47
3.2.1.7 EXTREME TEMPERATURES. ........ ......... .................. ......3-47
3.2.1.8 COASTAL AND BEACH EROSION .................................3-48
3.2.1.9 AGRICULTURAL PEST AND DiSEASE........................... 3-48
3.2.1.10 DROUGHT................... .......... ......... ........ ................. ........3-48
3.2.1.11 EPI DEMIC........................................................................ 3-48
3.2.1.12 SEISMIC HAZARDS........................................................ 3-49
3.2.2 TECHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS.......................................................... 3-49
3.2.2.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ACCIDENT........................... 3-49
3.2.2.2 RADIOLOGICAL ACCIDENTS. ......... ........ ......... .............. 3-50
3.2.2.3 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM FAILURE ........................ 3-51
3.2.2.4 TRANSPO,TATION SYSTEM ACCIDENTS ...................3-51
3.2.2.5 WELLFIELD CONT AMINA TION ....... .......... ....... .............. 3-52
3.2.2.6 POWER FAI LURE........................................................... 3-52
3.2.3 SOCIETAL HAZARDS..................................... ................. .................3-52
3.2.3.1 CIVIL DiSTURBANCE............................................... ....... 3-52
3.2.3.2 TERRORiSM AND SABOTAGE....... ........... ....... ..............3-52
3.2.3.3 IMMIGRATION CRI SIS ....................................................3-52
3.2.4 VULNERABILITY OF CRITICAL FACiLITIES.................................... 3-53
3A VULNERABILITY OF CRITICAL FACILlTI ES.. ............ ........ ........ ....... ........ .3A-1
3B COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION INITIATIVES .................................................3B-1
3.3 RISK ASSESSMENT................... .............. ......... ......... ........ ................. ........ 3-53
4.0 INVENTORY AND EV ALUA TION OF EXISTING HAZARD MANAGEMENT GOALS,
POLICIES, PROCEDURES, ORDINANCES, PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES ........4-1
4.1 GOVERNMENTAL.. ......................... .................... ....... ........ ......... .......... .......4-1
4.1.1 FEDERAL.......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 STATE............................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.3 REGIONAL... ....... ....... .......... ........ '" ........ ....... .......... ....... ..... ....... ... ... 4-3
4.1.3.1 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL ...... 4-3
4.1.3.2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT........ 4-4
4.1.4 LOCAL ...........".................................................................................. 4-5
4.1.4.1 PALM BEACH COUNTy....................................................... 4-5
4.1.4.2 MUNICIPALI~IES...................................... ........ ............ ......4-26
Page 2
~
I
TABLE of CONTENTS
(Continued)
Paae
4.1.5 I NTERGOVERNMENT AL COORDINATION... ................ ................. 4-31
4.2 PRIVATE SECTOR BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS ................................4-34
4.2.1 BACKGROUND, .... .......... ... .... ... .... ........ ......... ..... ........ ............ .... .....4-34
4.2.2 ACCOMPLISHMENTS...... ................. ......... ........ ..... ............ ............4-35
4.2.2.1 OBJECTIVE 1 .......................................................... ........... 4-35
4.2.2.2 OBJECTIVE 2.......................................... ...........................4-36
4.2.2.3 OBJECTIVE 3................................ .....................................4-37
4.2.2.4 OBJECTIVE 4..... ..................................... ...........................4-38
4.3 STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ....................4-39
5.0 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY... .............. ............ ........ ............ ....5-1
5.1 DEVELOPMENT AND RATIONALE.............................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 COMMUNITY BENEFIT..................................................................... 5-3
5.1.1.1 COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM CREDIT ............................5-3
5.1.1.2 PROJECT BENEFIT ............................................................. 5-4
5.1.1.3 COMMUNITY EXPOSURE ................................................... 5-4
5.1.1.4 COST EFFECTiVENESS...................................................... 5-5
5.1.2 COMMUN ITY COMMITMENT ........................................................... 5-7
5.1.2.1 CONTAINED WITHIN THE EXISTING GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................................... 5-7
5.1.2.2 CONTAINED WITHIN AN EXISTING EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PLAN OR OTHER GOVERNING
DOCUMENT......... .......................... ................. ..................... 5-7
5.1.2.3 PUBLIC SUPPORT............................................................... 5-8
5.1.3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.... ................ ................ ............. .........5-8
5.1.3.1 CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK...................................................................... 5-8
5.1.3.2 FUNDING AVAILABILITy..................................................... 5-9
5.1.3.3 MATCH I NG FUNDS.............................................................. 5-9
5.1.3.4 TIMEFRAME FOR ACCOMPLISHING OBJECTIVES ......... 5-10
5.2 TIE-BREAK PROCEDURE ........................................................... ...............5-10
5.3 LMS EV ALUA TION PANEL.......... .................... ........ ..................... ...... ........ 5-11
5.3.1 ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL FUNDING .......................................... 5-11
5.4 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION UPDATING PROCESS ................................. 5-11
6.0 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEDURES ............................................................ 6-1
6.1 BACKG ROUND............................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE. ............. ..... ......... ......... ................ 6-2
7.0 LMS REVISION PROCEDURE ..............................................................................7-1
7.1 REGULAR LMS UPDATE PROCEDURES.................................................... 7-2
7.2 DECLARED EMERGENCY ASSESSMENT .................................................. 7-4
Page 3
TABLE of CONTENTS
(Continued)
PART 3: APPENDICES Paae
APPENDIX A: RISK & VULNERABILITY ANALYSES DATA.....................................A-1
RELATIVE VULNERABILITY TO HAZARDS, BY
LOCAL GOVERN ME NT .................................................................... .A-2
RELATIVE PROBABILITY TO HAZARDS, BY
LOCAL GOVERNMENT...... ....................................................... ....... .A-4
DATA SOURCES USED FOR THE PALM
BEACH COUNTY HAZARD VULNERABILITY
AND RISK ASSESSMENT... .................................... ......................... .A-6
RISK ASSESSMENT HAZARD EVALUATION
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY .........................................................A-22
RISK ASSESSMENT BY HAZARD AND JURISDICTION................A-28
I MPACT ANALySiS...................... ............ ......... ....................... .......A-34
APPENDIX B: COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION I NITIA TIVES................. ....... ............... .B-1
PALM BEACH COUNTY INITIATiVES...... ...... ............. .............. ........B-2
JURISDICTIONAL INITIATIVES .................................................... ....B-5
INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ................. ........ ....... ...B-35
PRIVATE SECTOR COORDINATION.. ........ ....... ............... ............ .B-36
APPENDIX C: HAZARD & RISK ASSESSMENT MAPS .......................................... C-1
APPENDIX D: INCORPORATION INTO OTHER PLANNING
MECHANI S MS.................................................................................. D-1
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL COMPREHENSIVE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................................................................... D-2
PALM BEACH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN... .......... ................... ..................... D-4
Page 4
TABLE of CONTENTS
( Continued)
Paae
APPENDIX D: COMPREHENSIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
(Continued) PLAN, HAZARD MITIGATION INVENTORy..................................... D-7
EXISTING HAZARD MITIGATION PROJECTS
AND PROGRAMS............................... ................. .......................... D-10
CURRENT AND FUTURE LAND USES.......................................... D-12
APPENDIX E: PRIORITIZED PROJECT LISTS. ..... ................................................. .E-1
APPENDIX F: POTENTIAL MITIGATION AND PROTECTIVE
MEASURES....................................................................................... F-1
APPENDIX G: FUNDING AND DATA SOURCES .................................................... G-1
APPENDIX H: PLAN ADOPTION........ ............ ................... ......................... ............. H-1
APPENDIX I: MEETING SUMMARIES................ ............ .......................... ...... ....... ..1-1
APPENDIX J: REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTI ES .................................................... J-1
APPENDIX K: PLAN MAINTENANCE..,........................ .......................................... ..K-1
APPENDIX L: PROJECT SCORING EXAMPLES.......................... ........ ........ ...... ..... L-1
APPENDIX M: LMS COMMITTEE MEMBERS ......................................................... M-1
APPENDIX N: LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................... ....... ..... ........................ ....... ..... N-1
SPECIAL
APPENDIX I EXPANDED HAZARDS LIST......................................................... SAI-1
SPECIAL
APPENDIX II THE HAZARD ENVIR:ONMENT... .......... .................. ......... ............ SAII-1
SPECIAL
APPENDIX III NFIP & CRS STATUS & ACTIVITIES .......................................... SAII'-1
SPECIAL
APPENDIX IV MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAMS......................................... SAIV-1
Page 5
TABLE of CONTENTS
( Continued)
PART 4: HAZARD MAPS Paae
HAZARD MAPS
· AGRICUL TURAL PEST AREAS.................................................................................... HM-1
· COUNTY -WiDE.... ............ ..................... ............. ......................................... ................. HM-2
· COASTAL EROSION AREAS.................................... ........... .............. ......... ........... ....... HM-3
· EV ACUA TION ZONES............................................................................... ................... HM-4
· FLOOD PRONE AREAS ............ ......................................... ................................. .......... HM-5
· HERBERT HOOVER DIKE BREACH AREAS... ...................... ........ ..... ..................... ..... HM-6
· HURRICANE WI ND SPEED............................. .......... ....... ......... ........................... ........ HM-7
· MUCK SOIL AREAS ................ ...................... ............................ ........ ......... ............ ....... HM-8
· RADIOLOGICAL HAZARD AREA ........................................ ......... ...... ........................... HM-9
· STORM SURGE AREAS ............................................................................................. HM-1 0
· TRANSPORTATION SySTEMS.................................................................................. HM-11
· TSUNAMI THREAT AREA........... ................................................................................ HM-12
· WELLFIELD PROTECTION ZONE AREAS...... ............ .......... .......... ............ ............... HM-13
· WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE AREAS ....... ............. ...... ......... ................................ HM-14
HAZARD MAPS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES
· AGRICULTURAL PEST AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ................................ HMCF-1
· COUNTY-WIDE WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ......................................................... HMCF-2
· COASTAL EROSION AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES .................................... HMCF-3
· FLOOD PRONE AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ............................................ HMCF-4
· HERBERT HOOVER DIKE BREACH AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACiLITIES........... HMCF-5
i:>age 6
TABLE of CONTENTS
( Continued)
Paae
· HURRICANE WIND SPEED WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ...................................... HMCF-6
· MUCK SOIL AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES .................................................. HMCF-7
· RADIOLOGICAL HAZARD AREA WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES .............................. HMCF-8
· STORM SURGE AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ........................................... HMCF-9
· TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES .............................. HMCF-10
· TSUNAMI THREAT AREA WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ....................................... HMCF-11
· WELLFIELD PROTECTION ZONE AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ............. HMCF-12
· WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ............... HMCF-13
Pa~ie 7
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND PROGRAM OVERVIEW
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Palm Beach County Unified Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) was formally adopted by the
county, municipalities, and the LMS Steering Committee in 1999. Initial development of the LMS
was funded, in part, by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) with Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds earmarked for the development of
comprehensive hazard mitigation planning.
The LMS was established and continues to operate in accordance with prevailing federal, state
and local guidelines and requirements. In 2004 the plan and program were substantially
modified to improve operational effectiveness and to comply with new federal guidelines
established in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of the Palm Beach County LMS is to develop and execute an ongoing unified
strategy for reducing the community's vulnerability to identified natural, technological and
societal hazards. The strategy provides a rational, managed basis for considering and
prioritizing hazard-specific mitigation option!:; and for developing and executing sound, cost-
effective mitigation projects. The LMS also p~ovides a basis for justifying the solicitation and use
of local, state, federal and other monies to support hazard mitigation projects and initiatives.
1.3 PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
1.3.1 Original LMS Structure
The original LMS structure consisted of three levels; (1) the larger body of public agencies, non-
profit organizations, private institutions, and members of the public at large interested in
participation in LMS activities, (2) the Steering Committee, and (3) subcommittees.
The Steering Committee, the policy and decision body of the LMS consisted exclusively of
designated representatives from the county and the 37 municipal jurisdictions. Voting rights
were restricted to one officially designated primary member and two alternates from each
jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction had one vote on LMS matters and a quorum vote was required for
Steering Committee approval. Written notice from the manager/mayor of the jurisdictional
governing body to the Chair of the LMS Steering Committee or to the Director, Palm Beach
County Division of Emergency Management was required to designate new voting members.
While jurisdictions could have multiple voting representatives present at any Local Mitigation
Strategy meeting, each jurisdiction was limited to one vote.
While voting on important LMS issues was resl.ricted as described above, attendance and
participation in general meetings was open to the '::ommunity at large.
An LMS Chair and Vice Chair were elected every' other year; unlimited successive terms were
permissible at the will of the Steering Committee.
Page 1-1
The LMS Chair was authorized to establish standing and ad hoc subcommittees as needed to
further the goals and objectives of the LMS.
Four subcommittees were established in the early stages of the LMS to assist with initial
program and plan development. They included: The Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis
Subcommittee, the Outreach and Education Subcommittee, and the Financial and Legal Issues
Subcommittee. Over the course of program development, the Outreach and Education
Subcommittee evolved and changed its name to the Community Rating System (CRS)
Subcommittee to reflect its growing focus on CRS outreach and education and other CRS
issues. The Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis Subcommittee and Financial and Legal Issues
subcommittees gradually became inactive as the LMS matured, but were subject to reactivation
if future needs warranted. A fifth subcommittee, the Update/Review Subcommittee, was created
to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the LMS and recommend changes to ensure the
LMS plan remained current, compliant, focused, and responsive to community interests and
needs.
An additional standing subcommittee, the Evaluation Panel was established specifically to
review, score and prioritize LMS mitigation projects submitted by LMS steering committee
members and other partner organizations in accordance with guidelines, procedures and criteria
developed early in the program. Under the original project prioritization process, the Panel
prepared and submitted Prioritized Project Lists (PPLs) to the Steering Committee for approval
and adoption twice a year. With FEMA's issuance of new funding criteria based largely on
benefit-cost justifications the role and skill requirements of the Evaluation Panel had to be
reexamined.
1.3.2 Revised LMS Structure
In July 2003, the Update/Review Subcommittee was reconstituted as an Administrative
Subcommittee with the broader mission of providing guidance and assistance necessary to
bring the plan and program into compliance with the new federal guidelines and criteria
established in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Title 44 Code of Federal
Regulations. This process is explained in Section 1.2.4. The group met numerous times over
the course of an 18 month period to review FEMA's feedback, expectations and requirements,
develop plans and strategies for the revision process, and monitor and review plan revisions.
The group's charter was eventually expanded to include taking a critical look at the
effectiveness of the overall LMS program. A number of important recommendations and actions
emerged from this later responsibility.
Among the Committee's observations were the following:
. The LMS Steering Committee, composed of the County and 37 municipal members, was
considered too large and unwieldy to serve as an effective policy and decision body
. Although the county had many active mitigation :Jrograms and initiatives, too often they
functioned as independent, uncoordinated activities
. Greater attention needed to be given to ensuring mitigation projects were cost-effective
and focused on threat-specific mitigation priorities and strategies
. The LMS had failed to effectively tap the county's vast resources and expert-rich public
and private sectors.
. The LMS had not adequately exploped and used non-traditional sources for potential
mitigation funding assistance
Page 1-2
. Many of the county's jurisdictions, particularly the smaller municipalities, lack the in-
house technical resources, funds, and expertise necessary to effectively execute
FEMA's mandated Benefit-Cost analyses
. The plan revision process afforded an excellent opportunity to also reconsider and
revamp the LMS program structure and operating.,philosophy, and
. The increased competition for scarce mitigation-. assistance funds would undoubtedly
place a premium on optimizing program efficiency and responsiveness
In response to these and other considerations, in June 2004 the LMS voted unanimously to
adopt and phase into implementation a number of significant program changes and
enhancements proposed by the AdministrCjltive Subcommittee. Among the executed and/or
planned actions are the following:
LMS Steerinq Committee
Effective July 2004, the LMS Steering Committee was reduced from thirty-seven members to
fifteen members. comprised of: seven municipal representatives, two county/local government
representatives, one state/federal government representative, one university/college
representative, one healthcare industry representative, one non-profit representative, and two
representatives from the private sector. The Steering Committee serves as the Local Mitigation
Strategy program board of directors. As such, it is the primary decision and policy body for LMS
sponsored mitigation activity.
LMS Workinq Group
The LMS Working Group is comprised of the full body of the LMS, representing a broad cross-
section of public sector and private sector organizations and individuals, including the general
public. The Working Group serves as an umbrella or~lanization for coordinating all mitigation
programs and activities, supplies the staffing and expertise for the standing and ad hoc
committees of the LMS, and is the primary mechanism and forum for exchanging information
and mobilizing the vast expertise and resources of the community.
Standinq Committees
After submission of the 2004 plan several standing LMS Gommittees were established for the
purpose of facilitating, bolstering, and supporting LMS activities. These included:
. Evaluation Panel, designated to review, evaluate, score and rank mitigation projects
applying established local, state and federal prioritization processes and criteria.
. Flood Mitiqation Technical Advisory Committee, comprised of flood mitigation engineers
and experts from public and private sector organizations, is charged with assessing
county-wide flood risks and vulnerabilities without regard to jurisdictional boundaries and
recommending flood mitigation priorities, strategi'ss, plans and projects for LMS
consideration and action that optimally benefit to the ~veater community.
. Flood Mitiqation Committee - CRS Outreac~: Subcommittee, comprised of
representatives from the county's 26 CRS communities, who collaborate on a full range
of Outreach Projects Strategy (OPS) initiatives 9nd pre mote CRS participation
Page 1-3
Ad Hoc Committees
In addition, two ad hoc committees were formed:
. Plan Inteqration Committee charged with monitoring the LMS plan for compliance and
assisting with the linkage between the LMS and other local plans, and supporting plan
updates and revisions.
. Administrative Committee, originally established to facilitate and assist the LMS plan
revision process in response to the new federal guidelines evolving from DMA2000. The
committee was also charged with serving as an interim decision body for the LMS until
the Steering Committee was formally reorganized and functioning.
1.4 LMS PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
Since the Unified Local Mitigation Strategy is written directly from input from all meetings, it is
important to make sure that the entire Palm Beach County community is represented. The
following groups are invited to all Local Mitigation Strategy meetings. Each group has different
participation requirements; however, all groups are strongly encouraged to participate in the
planning process.
J u risd ictions
Municipal and county participation are critical to the success of the LMS. In order to retain LMS
voting rights, qualify for federal mitigation assistance consideration, and otherwise remain a
member in good standing, the county and all municipal jurisdictions are expected to conform to
the following standards:
. Participation of the representative or officially designated alternate(s) in three (3) out of
four (4) Steering Committee meetings where plan revisions will be addressed;
. Consecutive absences will be cause for disqualification for the LMS, subject to appeal
and review by the LMS Chair. All rights and privileges will be terminated during a period
of disqualification and formal reapplication;
. Participation in subcommittee meetings may be substituted for Steering Committee
attendance in meeting the 3 out of 4 rule pending approval by the Chair;
. Subject to pre-meeting and post-meeting roll calls, participation in special conference
call meetings of the Steering Committee or subcommittees will be credited for purposes
of participation; and
. Have a dully executed resolution adopting the revised LMS plan on file with the county
and the LMS.
. In order for a jurisdiction to be eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP),
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) funding programs,
they must have an executed resolution/interlocal agreement adopting the LMS on file
with the LMS and have participated in the revision process. Appendix H includes the
Page 1-4 ,
Board of County Commissioners agenda item summary, along with a copy of all
executed adoption resolutions.
Non-Governmental Orqanizations (NGO's) and other Governmental Entities
In order to qualify for LMS grant sponsorship, NGO's and other governmental entities must:
. Have an dully executed letter of commitment to the LMS on file with the county and
LMS; and
. In the judgment of the LMS Steering Committee, actively participate in and otherwise
support LMS activities.
The Public and Private Sector
The Palm Beach County Unified Local Mitigation Strategy believes broad community support,
including ongoing public and private sector involvement, is very important to the success of the
program. While participation by private organizations and the general public is strictly voluntary,
their attendance, comments, contributions, and support are actively invited. sought. monitored
and fully documented.
In order to promote the opportunity for broad participation, at a minimum, notices and agendas
for all general meetings of the LMS are posted through some combination of the following:
newspaper ads or public service announcements; postings on county and municipal websites,
announcements on the county's TV station (Channel 20), postings in county and municipal
newsletters and calendars, and blast faxes and e-mailir gs to all previous participants.
1.5 JURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION OF THE LMS
Adoption of the LMS is subject to the following FEMA requirements:
Requirement ~201.6(c)(5): The local hazard mitigation plan shall include documentation that
the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting
approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council).
Requirement ~201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting
approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted.
Requirement ~201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted,
as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process... Statewide plans
will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans.
All jurisdictions wishing to participate in and share in the benefits deriving from the LMS
program must complete and file a fully executed resolution (see Appendix H) which conforms to
the adoption standards jointly established and amended by the Palm Beach County Board of
County Commissioners and the LMS Steering Committee. Resolutions are kept on file by the
Minutes Section of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
,
Page 1-5
1.6 NEW JURISDICTIONS/ENTITIES
In the event municipal jurisdictions are added, deleted, or merged within the county, the LMS
will appropriately adjust its member rolls as necessary and require any newly defined
jurisdictions to provide documentation necessary for participation in the program. A new
municipal jurisdiction (Loxahatchee Groves) was incorporated in November of 2006 a
subsequently joined the LMS.
Page J-6
SECTION 2: GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The LMS guiding principles are an expression of the community's vision of hazard mitigation
and the mechanisms through which it is striving to achieve that vision. The principles address
concerns of the community relative to natural, man-made, and environmental hazards.
2.1 METHODOLOGY
In formulating the guiding principles for the LMS, several techniques were employed. One
involved a review of appropriate plans, policy statements, laws, codes, and ordinances of each
participating local jurisdiction. As part of this process, a survey was distributed to each local
jurisdiction. The surveys provided information about the jurisdiction's development plans and
regulations, and hazard mitigation projects they have implemented. With 37 local jurisdictions
involved, defining a community-wide vision became far more complex than one local
government defining its mission for local hazard mitigation. Therefore, a facilitated discussion
with the Steering Committee was conducted. Using this approach, a comprehensive list of
hazards of concern to the local governments was developed. From these defined hazards, the
Working Group identified areas of concern. These areas of concern included:
. Loss of life
. Loss of property
. Community sustainability
. Health/medical needs
. Sheltering
. Adverse impacts to natural resources (e.g., beaches, water quality)
. Damage to public infrastructure (e.g., roads, water systems, sewer systems,
stormwater systems)
. Economic disruption
. Fiscal impact
. Recurring damage
. Redevelopment/reconstruction
. Development practices/land use
. Intergovernmental coordination
. Public participation
. Repetitive flood loss properties
. Historical structures
These concerns, along with information generated from the inventory of local planning
documents and ordinances, led to the mitigation goals and objectives established in Section
2.3.
Palm Beach County's Unified Mitigation Strategy is built upon comprehensive processes
including multi-jurisdictional hazard identificaLon, risk and impact analyses, program capability
assessments, operational and disaster experil3nce and cost-benefit analyses. These processes,
and their results to date, are described in Section 3 of the LMS and in the Situation Section of
the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. These processes are applied on an ongoing
basis and additions and changes are reflected in revisions to the LMS plan. Hazards most likely
to affect each of the county's jurisdictions, tile risks those hazards pose to each jurisdiction, the
potential impacts of those hazards, jurisdictional capabilities to implement and support
mitigation strategies, and cost-benefit analyses of mitigation strategies and projects are integral
Page 2-1
considerations in developing, prioritizing and implementing mitigation strategies and initiatives at
the county and municipal level.
2.2 PROCESS
The strategy used for the development and revision process of the Palm Beach County Unified
Local Mitigation Strategy Plan, consisted of the following tasks:
1. Public involvement to ensure a representative plan
2. Coordination with other agencies or organizations
3. Hazard area inventory
4. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
5. Coordinated and Integrated Programs and Plans within LMS
6. Review and analysis of possible mitigation activities
7. Local adoption following a public hearing
8. Periodic review and update
This hazard mitigation plan contributes to the overall mitigation strategy outlined above and
illustrated in Figure 2. 1 Planning Process Diagram. The Palm Beach County Unified Local
Mitigation Strategy summarizes the activities to as:;ess the effects of storm flooding, hurricanes,
and all other hazards specific to our area and recommends mitigation activities. In following this
strategy, all areas are addressed to reduce the amount of damage after a hazard occurs
through mitigation efforts. Participation is encouraged by any individual, agency, organization
and jurisdiction who would like to take part in the planning process defined in Section 1.
All parties are encouraged to participate in the revision planning process occurring at "Steering
Committee" meetings with suggestions, comments, involvement and feedback documented
from all participants. To ensure all jurisdictions, organizations, and the public are represented
throughout the entire revision of the planning process, each meeting will be operated in
accordance to Robert's Rules of Order. These procedures are in place to meet the overall
objective of the LMS which is to have a plan representative of the entire county and to be a true
Unified Local Mitigation Strategy.
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 set new requimments to be met in all mitigations plans
across the country. The LMS Working Group decided the work would be completed by the
Administrative sub-committee. The meetings were open to anyone who wished to participate.
Direction to meet all new requirements were discussed by the Steering Committee. The
direction was established through a series of sub-committee meetings. The sub-committee sent
requests out to all communities to review and update charts, and to complete a narrative about
mitigation initiatives within each community. In addition, all communities were asked to review
new additions to the plan for comment and recommendation. However, the LMS Working
Group, ultimately made the final decision. The Rublic was invited to all LMS Working Group
meetings to comment before any changes were " finalized within the mitigation plan. Also a
Page 2-2
diagram below illustrates all the components that made up the new planning process for the
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requirements. The original planning process documenting public
involvement can be located in Section 4.2.
2.3 MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Palm Beach County's unified LMS encompasses diverse mitigation strategies, including, but not
limited to: hazard elimination, hazard reduction, hazard modification, control of hazard release,
protective equipment, establishment of hazard warning/communication systems and
procedures, redundancy of critical resources and capabilities, mutual aid agreements and
public-private partnership initiatives, contract services and resources, construction and land-use
standards, and training and education.
2.4 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
All mitigation goals and objectives must be consistent with the goals and objectives of the
county and the individual jurisdictional comprehensive plans, codes and ordinances, as well as
any other jurisdictional documents reflecting aspirations for the welfare, safety and quality of life
of their citizens.
In a county as large and diverse as Palm Beach County, no single list of mitigation goals is
going to encompass every conceivable mitigation goal and objective. The overall objective is to
reduce the vulnerabilities to hazards which directly affect Palm Beach County. In so doing, the
following goals will serve provide guidance to the LMS:
2.4.1 Goals
. Reduce the loss of life, property, and repetitive damage from the effects of natural,
societal and technological hazards from all sources but especially hurricanes,
tornadoes, major rainfall and other severe weather events
. Achieve safe and fiscally sound, sustainable communities tllrough thoughtful long-
range planning of the natural and man-made environment
. Take preventative actions to reduce the number of repetitive loss properties
published annually by FEMA on the list of "Repetitive Loss Properties"
. Qualify the county and jurisdictions for incre'llental improvements on the Community
Rating System classification in relation to flf)od insurance under the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) and to reduce flood hazards
. Optimize the effective use of all available resources by establishing public/private
partnerships, and encouraging intergovernmental coordination and cooperation
. Promote awareness and preparedness through the distribution of information on
hazards and measures to mitigate them
Page 2-3
. Increase the level of coordination of mitigation management concerns, plans and
activities at the municipal, county, state and federal levels of government in relation
to all hazards
. Establish a program that facilitates orderly recovery and redevelopment, and
minimizes economic disruption following a disaster
. Ensure an enforceable commitment for the implementation of the local hazard
mitigation strategy
2.4.2 Objectives
The ultimate objectives of the LMS are to:
. Improve the community's resistance to damage from known natural, man-made, and
environmental hazards
. Place Palm Beach County in a position to compete effectively and productively for
pre and post-disaster mitigation funding assistance
. Encourage strong jurisdictional, nongovernmental and public participation and
support of LMS activities
. Reduce the cost of disasters at all levels
. Facilitate community recovery when disasters occur
. Minimize recurrence of damage by i lcorporating mitigation into post disaster
rebuilding
. Promote intelligent development
2.4.3 Benefits
Adoption of this strategy will provide the following benefits to both County and municipal
governmental entities:
. Compliance with Administrative Rules 9G-6 and 9G-7, Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), requirements for local comprehensive emergency management plans to
identify problem areas and planning deficiencies relative to severe and repetitive
weather phenomenon, and to identify pre and post-disaster strategies for rectifying
identified programs
. Universal points from the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) Community
Rating System (CRS) Program for developing a Floodplain Management Program,
which may help further reduce flood insurance premium rates for property owners
. Access to FEMA's Federal Mitigation Assistance grant program, which provides
funding for pre-disaster mitigation projects and activities
r
Page 2-4
. Compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 allowing Palm Beach County to
compete competitively for grant money;
. Identify and prioritize projects for funding under the State of Florida's Residential
Construction Mitigation Program, to help reduce losses from repetitive flooding
damage
. Set forth the guiding principles with which both the County and municipal
governmental entities of Palm Beach County will address the issue of all hazard
mitigation (Section 2.0, Guiding Principles)
. Identify the known hazards to which the county is exposed, discuss their range of
impacts, and delineate the individual vulnerabilities of the various jurisdictions and
population centers within the county (Section 3. 0, Hazard Identification and
Vulnerability Analysis)
. Review and evaluate the existing legal, regulatory, and response framework
currently in place to deal with hazard mitigation (Section 4. 0, Inventory and
Evaluation of Existing Hazard Management Goals, Policies, Procedures,
Ordinances, Projects, and Activities)
. Develop a detailed method by which Palm Beach County (municipalities and County
government) can evaluate and prioritize proposE'd mitigation projects along with new
federal requirements (Section 5.0, Project Priori"ization Methodology)
. Develop a conflict resolution procedure by which municipalities and county
governmental entities can resolve any differences that arise over prioritized
mitigation projects or mitigation strategies (~ection 6. 0, Conflict Resolution
Procedures)
. Develop the process and schedule by which this entire Unified Local Mitigation
Strategy will be reviewed and updated (Secliion 7 .0, Review and Revision
Procedures for the Palm Beach County Local Hazard Mitigation Strategy)
. Ensures jurisdictional plans are consistent and supportive
.
f
,
Page 2-5
..