HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07-23-2009
St. Lucie County Unified Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS)
Steering Committee Meeting
Conference Room 3
July 23, 2009
Agenda
1. Minutes of 6/17/09 Meeting
2. Attendance Policy: During the May 25, 2007 LMS Steering Committee Meeting a
discussion was held regarding voting privileges for committee members. After the
discussion; a motion was made, seconded and passed that a member organization
will lose its voting privilege if it has three consecutive unexcused absences. The
Committee also voted that a member organization may have its voting privileges
reinstated if it attends two consecutive meetings after losing its voting privileges.
Suggestion:
It is suggested that the LMS Steering Committee discuss, consider
and vote to adopt an attendance policy for inclusion in the 2009 LMS update.
3. Quorum and Approval of Motions: At the 9/28/2007 LMS Steering Committee
meeting, a motion was passed which stipulated that a quorum shall consist of nine
(9) members and that a motion shall be approved by a majority of members present
Suggestion:
at a meeting, but at least by nine (9) votes in favor of the motion. It is
recommended the Committee approve this policy for inclusion in the 2009 LMS
update.
4. It was recommended in prior meetings that the LMS Steering Committee
membership be updated for inclusion in the 2009 LMS update. It was also
recommended the LMS Steering Committee membership support the 17
Emergency Support Functions (ESF). The following is a list of the ESF and
possible support organizations for each.
1. ESF 1 Transportation
- St. Lucie County School District
- St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization
- St. Lucie County Council on Aging
2. ESF 2 Communications
- ?
3. ESF 3 Public Works and Engineering
- Fort Pierce
- Port St. Lucie
- St. Lucie Village
- St. Lucie County
- South Florida Water Management District
- North St. Lucie and Fort Pierce Farms Water Control Districts
(serving as one member)
4. ESF 4 Firefighting
- St. Lucie County Fire District
- Florida Division of Forestry
5. ESF 5 Information and Planning
- St. Lucie County Public Safety
- Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
Page | 1
- St. Lucie County Extension – University of Florida
6. ESF 6 Mass Care
- American Red Cross
- Fort Pierce Housing Authority
7. ESF 7 Resource Management
- St. Lucie County Public Safety
- INTACT
8. ESF 8 Public Health
- St. Lucie County Department of Health
9. ESF 9 Search and Rescue
- St. Lucie County Fire District
- St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office
10. ESF 10 Hazardous Materials
- St. Lucie County Fire District
11. ESF 11 Food and Water
- American Red Cross
- St. Lucie County Council on Aging
- INTACT
12. ESF 12 Energy and Utility Services
- Florida Power and Light
- Fort Pierce Utilities Authority
13. ESF 13 Military Support
- ?
14. ESF 14 Public Information
- St. Lucie County Public Safety
- WQCS
15. ESF 15 Volunteers and Donations
- INTACT
- St. Lucie County Council on Aging
16. ESF 16 Law Enforcement
- St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office
17. ESF 17 Animal Care
- St. Lucie County Agricultural Extension – University of Florida
The above would provide the following Steering Committee members:
1. Fort Pierce
2. Port St. Lucie
3. St. Lucie Village
4. St. Lucie County
5. St. Lucie County School District
6. St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization
7. South Florida Water Management District
8. North St. Lucie River and Fort Pierce Farms Water Control
Districts (serving as one)
9. St. Lucie County Fire District
10. St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office
11. St. Lucie County Department of Health
12. Florida Division of Forestry
13. St. Lucie County Public Safety
14. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
15. American Red Cross
Page | 2
16. Fort Pierce Housing Authority
17. St. Lucie County Council on Aging
18. Florida Power & Light
19. Fort Pierce Utilities Authority
20. WQCS
21. INTACT
22. St. Lucie County Extension – University of Florida
Please note St. Lucie West Services District (SLWSD) has requested to serve on
the Steering Committee. SLWSD has contributed positively to the committee
during recent meetings, has demonstrated consistent attendance and would be
reliable in meeting quorum. However, having SLWSD serve on the Committee
would provide residents of SLW with dual representation since SLW is part of
Port St. Lucie.
Suggestion:
It is recommended the Committee discuss and vote on
membership of the LMS Steering Committee.
5. Review Changes to Current Identified Hazards: During the June 17, 2009 LMS
Steering Committee Meeting, it was suggested by the LMS intern that the
committee reconsider and possibly remove some of the hazards identified in the
current LMS. After discussion regarding this suggestion, the LMS chairperson
created an ad hoc subcommittee to further consider this issue. The LMS intern
met individually with several committee members to reorganize and reconsider
Suggestion:
several of the identified hazards in the current plan. It is suggested
the committee review, consider and vote regarding changes outlined in the
attached document #1 regarding the reorganization of hazards identified in the
LMS.
6 Definition of Critical Facilities and Distinction between Primary and Secondary
Facilities: In light of item #8 on the Project Proposal Form #3, several
discussions have been held regarding the formal definition of the term “critical
facility” and whether or not specific proposed projects meet the criteria to be
considered a critical facility. During the April 25, 2008 meeting of the LMS
Steering Committee; a motion was made, seconded and passed regarding the
definition of the term “critical facility” (Please see attached document #2). During
the June 17, 2009 LMS Steering Committee Meeting, it became apparent that
some committee members wanted a tiered method regarding the ranking of
Suggestion:
specific critical facilities projects. It is suggested that the
committee further divide critical facilities into “primary critical facilities” and
“secondary critical facilities” and change the project scoring for item #8
accordingly. Please see attached document #2 for more information regarding
the proposed changes.
7. Given that the project scoring system has been changed, it is recommended that
changing the tie break rules be considered. Current tie break rules are the
following: “For projects with identical ranking scores that address different
hazards, the project that addresses the highest priority hazard shall be ranked
higher. For instance, if a tornado project and a hazardous materials accident
project received identical ranking scores, the tornado project would be ranked
higher because it’s overall hazard priority is higher than hazardous materials
Page | 3
accidents. For projects with identical ranking scores that address the same
Suggestion:
hazards, the benefit cost ratio will be used to break the tie.” It is
recommended the Committee consider the following proposed changes to tie
break rules.
a. For projects with identical ranking scores, the project with the higher
score on Consistency with LMS Goals (Scoring Factor 1) shall be ranked
higher.
b. For projects with identical ranking scores and identical scores on
Consistency with LMS Goals, the project with the higher score on
Consistency with Disaster Impact (Scoring Factor 2) shall be ranked
higher.
c. For projects with identical ranking scores and identical scores on
Consistency with LMS Goals and Consistency with Disaster Impact, the
project that benefits the greater number of citizens shall be ranked
higher.
d. For projects with identical ranking scores, identical scores on Consistency
with LMS Goals and Consistency with Disaster Impact , and identical
number of citizens benefited; the project that has the highest benefit cost
ratio shall be scored higher.
8. Other Business
9. Announcements
10. Adjournment
Page | 4