Division of Emergency Management Comprehensive Funding Proposal for Public Shelter Retrofits November 1, 2006 Purpose: Chapter 2006-71, Laws of Florida task the Florida Division of Emergency Management (Division) to establish a statewide competitive grant application process for public hurricane evacuation shelter retrofit programs. Upon the completion of the competitive grants proposal application process, the Division is directed to evaluate and prioritize the submitted shelter retrofit proposals and to submit a comprehensive funding recommendation to the Legislative Budget Commission (LBC) for approval. The Florida Division of Emergency Management’s report provides the LBC with the Division’s comprehensive funding recommendation to retrofit public hurricane evacuation shelters. Timeline: First NOFA and Application Period: June 2 - August 15 Technical Review of Applications: August 16 - 28 First Committee Meetings to Prepare Initial Priorities and Funding Recommendations: August 30 Second NOFA and Application Period: September 20 - October 25 Second Committee Meetings to Prepare Initial Priorities and Funding Recommendations: October 27 Division Internal Review and Preparation of Funding Reports: September - November 1 Submission of Comprehensive Funding Proposal Reports to LBC: 30 days or more prior to December LBC Meeting LBC Review and Approval Process: December 2006 Preparation and Distribution of Agreements: January, 2007 Construction: February 2007 through June 30, 2009 Competitive Grant Application Process: Chapter 2006-71, Laws of Florida (HB 7121) tasks the Florida Division of Emergency Management to establish a statewide competitive grant application process for proposals to structurally enhance or retrofit Public Hurricane Evacuation Shelters. HB 7121 established a very challenging schedule identifying, developing, and submitting new retrofit projects. The process guidelines involve needs-assessment, project planning and project cost analysis to be developed by 1 the shelter facility owners in consort with the local counties Emergency Management Director and staff, and architectural and engineering consultants. Given the short lead- time for this grant application cycle, the Division proactively informed counties of the public evacuation shelter retrofit funding opportunity enacted by the 2006 Legislature. In order to maximize the number of potential applicants, the Division prepared a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) advertisement for publication in the June 2, 2006 Florida Administrative Weekly. The NOFA, published about a month in advance of funding appropriations, provided over 30 extra days for the preparation of project proposal applications. The NOFA outlined the funding requirements, eligibility, limitations, priorities and application process. Application forms were prepared to be consistent with the additional requirements of HB 7121, as well as the Division’s hurricane shelter and critical facility survey program. Further notifications were prepared and distributed via e-mail to the county emergency management staff on May 25, 2006 that notified all interested counties in preparation for the official NOFA. Additionally, on June 2, 2006 the NOFA and application forms were published on the Division’s website http://www.floridadisaster.org/. The Division of Emergency Management provided programmatic assistance to the shelter facility owners, local counties Emergency Management Director and staff, as well as the architectural and engineering consultants throughout the application cycle. This assistance was provided in the form of meetings, telephone consultation, personal contacts, and written e-mail exchanges. The application cycle closed at 4:00 p.m. local time in Tallahassee on August 15, 2006 with a total of 37 shelter retrofit projects (plus two duplicate projects) submitted at that time. Fifteen of the grants proposals included alternate project proposals. The selection committee, composed of Division of Emergency Management (DEM) shelter retrofit program staff, DEM mitigation programs staff, and a Florida Emergency Preparedness Association (FEPA) representative, reviewed the project proposals. The committee’s initial recommendation came to only $7,836,740.00. Consequently, a second round of grants proposals was requested in another NOFA, between September 20 and October 25. The second deadline was 4:00 pm on 25 October 2006. The Division again provided local EM and staff programmatic assistance and information concerning the update NOFA and application forms that again were posted on the Division’s website. A short-list of suggested shelter retrofit projects (shelters that required only shutters to meet ARC 4496) was gleaned from available shelter retrofit survey reports. The short-list was published on the website (also pertinent counties EM director staff were notified via email) of the potential for these short-list projects. The project applications were specifically not limited to the short-list. The short-list was only provided as a convenience. Also, DEM staff created project proposal preparation “toolkits” (spreadsheets containing formulas and guidance for estimating shutter costs for various buildings) and distributed the toolkits to aid the counties preparing grants proposals determine each project’s probable shutter costs. The toolkits were also published on the website to aid all applicants with retrofit cost estimating. These efforts generated 42 additional project submittals including 7 submitted grants proposals with alternate project solutions. On October 27, 2006 the review committee reassembled to merge, and reprioritized all project proposals. The final selection list 2 commends a total of 69 projects and a total shelter retrofit grants request amount of $10,265,186. The committee further endorsed twenty engineering feasibility studies for twenty of the projects (priority 4 projects), recommending that these studies be completed in advance of full funding of each respective retrofit project. The committee provided a typical estimate of an additional $10,000 to each of the twenty projects, or a total additional request amount of $200,000. Prioritization Process and Funding Recommendations: HB 7121 prescribes the criteria the Division must consider when prioritizing recommendation of funding for shelter retrofits under the statewide competitive grant process. The criteria includes, but is not limited to, the project’s: 1) ability to meet both the structural and site standards required by the American Red Cross Standard ARC 4496, “Guidelines for Hurricane Evacuation Shelter Selection,” upon retrofit completions; 2) Regional Shelter Deficits per the 2006 Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan (2006 SESP); 3) County Shelter Deficits per the 2006 SESP; 4) Shelter spaces gained; 5) cost effectiveness (costs per space gained); and 6) eligibility of project for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds. The prioritization process began with evaluation of the projects for ability to meet ARC 4496 upon completion, eligibility for HMGP funding, and whether the project appeared to meet HB7121 intention for retrofitting public hurricane evacuation shelters. The committee selected only one solution out of each the proposed projects. A total of 34 projects appeared to be 1) ineligible for HMGP funding; 2) did not meet the intent of HB7121 for public hurricane evacuation shelters; 3) duplicative projects, or 4) consisted of the non-selected alternative solutions to a project. A total of 69 projects were selected, and divided into priorities 1, 2, 3, and 4. The projects were divided into recommended – yes (priority 1); recommended-maybe-but not as strong a project (priority 2); recommended- but need clarification prior to funding (priority 3); and recommended-but first do an engineering study- phase one (priority 4). Each group was then independently sorted and ranked per the following procedures: In each priority group, the projects were then sorted: by Regional Deficit (highest deficit first), County Deficit (highest deficit first), and Spaces Gained (highest number first). The project list was then numbered from 1 (on top) on down. Next, each group was sorted by Costs Effectiveness per Space Gained and Spaces Gained. The list was again numbered from 1 (on top) on down. These two rankings were then averaged. Each project group was then sorted by this ranking and then numbered 1 (on top) on down. At this point an overall priority numbering of the four groups was done. The final list can be seen in Table 1 and is the Division’s recommended priorities for retrofit of public hurricane evacuation shelters under HB 7121. 3 Table 1 Overall Priority Numbe r County Site/ Campus Bldg Estimated Spaces to be Gained @ 20 sq.ft./space Funds Requested under HB7121, $ County Hurr. Shelter Space Surplus/ (Deficit), spaces RPC Regional Hurr. Shelter Space Surplus/ (Deficit), spaces HB7121 Funding Cost- Effectivenes s, $/space Recommend Engineer Phase 1 funds? 1 Pasco Wesley Chapel District new 1,100 $300,000 (29,236) (149,582) $272.73 2 Duval NW Jacksonville Community Center Multi- Purpose Center 1,750 $365,000 (14,041) (31,486) $208.57 3 Baker New Macclenny ES A,C,D,E, F 1,370 $250,000 (1,859) (31,486) $182.48 4 Polk Wilfred Smith Community Center main bldg 504 $38,631 107 (51,337) $76.65 5 Polk Eloise Community Center main bldg 495 $125,811 107 (51,337) $254.16 6 Osceola Celebration HS Bldg 6 1812 $29,124 3,753 8,262 $16.07 7 Osceola Celebration HS Bldg 7 1806 $22,696 3,753 8,262 $12.57 8 Osceola Harmony HS Bldg 7 1805 $22,711 3,753 8,262 $12.58 9 Highlands Knights of Columbus (SpNS @ 81?) new 244 $200,000 (20,956) (51,337) $819.67 10 Osceola Harmony HS Bldg 6 1804 $39,176 3,753 8,262 $21.72 11 Glades Moorehaven ES Richie Bldg 204 $19,000 (2,239) (157,323) $93.14 12 Okaloosa Baker School Bldgs 14,17,18 382 $100,603 (11,922) (20,867) $263.36 13 Bay Waller ES 5 441 $111,311 (2,362) (20,867) $252.41 14 Osceola Harmony HS Bldg 4 1176 $42,998 3,753 8,262 $36.56 15 Polk River Ranch Chapel/Medulla Community Center? main bldg 208 $45,000 107 (51,337) $216.35 16 Bay Patterson ES 16 427 $89,107 (2,362) (20,867) $208.68 4 Table 1 Overall Priority Numbe r County Site/ Campus Bldg Estimated Spaces to be Gained @ 20 sq.ft./space Funds Requested under HB7121, $ County Hurr. Shelter Space Surplus/ (Deficit), spaces RPC Regional Hurr. Shelter Space Surplus/ (Deficit), spaces HB7121 Funding Cost- Effectivenes s, $/space Recommend Engineer Phase 1 funds? 17 Okaloosa Crestview HS Bldg 11 304 $29,551 (11,922) (20,867) $97.21 18 Osceola Celebration HS Bldg 5 732 $69,806 3,753 8,262 $95.36 19 Okaloosa Laurel Hill School Bldg 7 & 8 280 $37,490 (11,922) (20,867) $133.89 20 Osceola Harmony HS Bldg 5 711 $81,034 3,753 8,262 $113.97 21 Polk Medulla Community Center main bldg 174 $32,289 107 (51,337) $185.57 22 Lafayette Lafayette HS Gym-B32 332 $60,634 (604) (7,052) $182.63 23 Bay Haney Vo Tech 24 300 $99,735 (2,362) (20,867) $332.45 24 Osceola Celebration HS Bldg 8 603 $7,750 3,753 8,262 $12.85 25 Polk Mary N. Campbell Youth Center main bldg 153 $15,255 107 (51,337) $99.71 26 Osceola Harmony HS Bldg 8 601 $8,974 3,753 8,262 $14.93 27 Santa Rosa Chumuckla Community Center main bldg 140 $12,450 (4,585) (20,867) $88.93 28 St. Lucie Human Resources Development Center Gym Gym 350 $500,000 8,599 20,797 $1,428.57 29 Lafayette Oakridge Assisted Living Facility bldg 50 $24,100 (604) (7,052) $482.00 30 Osceola Discovery Intermediate School Bldg 5 222 $131,644 3,753 8,262 $592.99 31 Gulf Honeyville Comm Center new 232 $562,000 (514) 8,520 $2,422.41 32 Osceola Discovery Intermediate School Bldg 3 195 $123,239 3,753 8,262 $631.99 33 Osceola Discovery Intermediate School Bldg 4 175 $92,260 3,753 8,262 $527.20 5 Table 1 Overall Priority Numbe r County Site/ Campus Bldg Estimated Spaces to be Gained @ 20 sq.ft./space Funds Requested under HB7121, $ County Hurr. Shelter Space Surplus/ (Deficit), spaces RPC Regional Hurr. Shelter Space Surplus/ (Deficit), spaces HB7121 Funding Cost- Effectivenes s, $/space Recommend Engineer Phase 1 funds? 34 Osceola Discovery Intermediate School Bldg 1 127 $54,590 3,753 8,262 $429.84 35 Osceola Narcoossee Community School Bldg 5 549 $125,184 3,753 8,262 $228.02 36 Osceola Narcoossee Community School Bldg 3 497 $125,523 3,753 8,262 $252.56 37 Osceola Narcoossee Community School Bldg 4 198 $41,186 3,753 8,262 $208.01 38 Osceola Poinciana ES Bldg 6 183 $106,579 3,753 8,262 $582.40 39 Osceola Kissimmee ES Bldg 6 183 $106,579 3,753 8,262 $582.40 40 Osceola Poinciana ES Bldg 2 183 $106,579 3,753 8,262 $582.40 41 Osceola Kissimmee ES Bldg 5 176 $99,929 3,753 8,262 $567.78 42 Osceola Poinciana ES Bldg 5 176 $99,432 3,753 8,262 $564.95 43 Osceola Kissimmee ES Bldg 3 153 $88,916 3,753 8,262 $581.15 44 Osceola Poinciana ES Bldg 3 152 $88,916 3,753 8,262 $584.97 45 Hernando DS Parrot MS all? 304 $70,000 (11,770) (51,337) $230.26 46 Okeechobee Okeechobee School Board Freshma n Campus Auditoriu m 197 $52,339 (16,757) (51,337) $265.68 47 Bay City of Parker City Hall/FD shelter City hall/FD 304 $26,134 (2,362) (20,867) $85.97 48 Lafayette Lafayette HS Classroo ms #3 & #4 213 $45,161 (604) (7,052) $212.02 49 DeSoto Memorical ES Bldg H (Bldg 15) 180 $24,717 (4,164) (51,337) $137.32 6 Table 1 Overall Priority Numbe r County Site/ Campus Bldg Estimated Spaces to be Gained @ 20 sq.ft./space Funds Requested under HB7121, $ County Hurr. Shelter Space Surplus/ (Deficit), spaces RPC Regional Hurr. Shelter Space Surplus/ (Deficit), spaces HB7121 Funding Cost- Effectivenes s, $/space Recommend Engineer Phase 1 funds? 50 Highlands Lake Placid HS main bldg 1,000 $1,315,846 (20,956) (51,337) $1,315.85 $10,000 51 Duval Chimney Lakes ES main bldg 2,862 $110,722 (14,041) (31,486) $38.69 $10,000 52 Duval Baldwin MS ? 1,635 $403,120 (14,041) (31,486) $246.56 $10,000 53 Duval Crystal Springs ES main bldg 2,862 $110,722 (14,041) (31,486) $38.69 $10,000 54 Duval Mandarin MS ? 588 $191,937 (14,041) (31,486) $326.42 $10,000 55 Duval Agnes Jones ES ? 790 $103,312 (14,041) (31,486) $130.77 $10,000 56 Putnam Middleton Burney ES Bldg 1 805 $289,000 (8,468) (31,486) $359.01 $10,000 57 Putnam Kelly Smith ES (SpNS @ 306?) Bldg 6 920 $493,279 (8,468) (31,486) $536.17 $10,000 58 Putnam Jenkins MS Bldg 5- Gen. Pop. Shelter 505 $538,000 (8,468) (31,486) $1,065.35 $10,000 59 Clay Orange Park HS B10 563 $120,000 (6,164) (31,486) $213.14 $10,000 60 Bay Fairgrounds 25 1,671 $303,937 (2,362) (20,867) $181.89 $10,000 61 Clay Clay HS B8- Dining/ Aud. 444 $150,000 (6,164) (31,486) $337.84 $10,000 62 Clay McRae ES (SpNS? @ 99) B2- Dining/ Aud. 297 $150,000 (6,164) (31,486) $505.05 $10,000 63 Bay Rutherford HS 13 515 $231,284 (2,362) (20,867) $449.10 $10,000 64 Baker Baker County Ag Center main bldg? 276 $325,000 (1,859) (31,486) $1,177.54 $10,000 65 Bay Rutherford HS 14 351 $156,528 (2,362) (20,867) $445.95 $10,000 66 Bay Waller ES 1 441 $111,311 (2,362) (20,867) $252.41 $10,000 7 Table 1 Overall Priority Numbe r County Site/ Campus Bldg Estimated Spaces to be Gained @ 20 sq.ft./space Funds Requested under HB7121, $ County Hurr. Shelter Space Surplus/ (Deficit), spaces RPC Regional Hurr. Shelter Space Surplus/ (Deficit), spaces HB7121 Funding Cost- Effectivenes s, $/space Recommend Engineer Phase 1 funds? 67 Bay Patterson ES 2 291 $71,679 (2,362) (20,867) $246.32 $10,000 68 Bay Rutherford HS 12 179 $67,846 (2,362) (20,867) $379.03 $10,000 69 Bay Rutherford HS 15 219 $70,520 (2,362) (20,867) $322.01 $10,000 Total: 42,071 $10,265,186 $200,000 Conclusion: The Florida Division of Emergency Management (DEM) recommends funding of the above 69 hurricane evacuation shelter retrofit project proposals. Overall, the 69 projects should generate 42,071 additional shelter spaces at an estimated cost of $10,265,186. However, please note that the Division recommends phase one engineering studies on the last twenty projects (priorities 50-69) prior to commitment of full retrofit grant funding, in order to verify the feasibility of these twenty projects. Such studies are estimated at about $10,000 each for a total of $200,000 in addition to the $10,265,186. It should also be noted that, in view of the current market trends (and recent experiences in shelter retrofit projects) of increasing costs of materials, that these prices may increase significantly over the next 6 months to a year. By the time the projects are underway, the leftover funds may well be required to cover the market trend gap of price increases. 8