Loading...
06/12/1990 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL WORK SESSION June 12, 1990 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall, Tuesday, June 12, 1990, at 10:05 A.M., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Lee Regulski Commissioner William Nunamaker Commissioner Sue Berfield Commissioner Also present were: Ron H. Rabun City Manager Michael Wright Assistant City Manager M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order and the following item was discuss: Proposed Ordinance No. 5004-90 regarding Flood Regulations. This ordinance is being proposed in response to the Federal Emergency Management Agencies (FEMA) concerns regarding the City of Clearwater's flood regulations. The City Manager stated that the City Commission is seeking public input regarding the FEMA Regulation and how the City's Ordinance mesh with those. He stated this has been a long process. There are four (4) sets of regulations regarding building and flood sensitive areas: FEMA Regulations, State law, Pinellas County law, and City code. These agencies sometimes conflict and we have to change our ordinances in order to address all the regulations. FEMA had expressed dissatisfaction with the City's flood regulation ordinance and also in the enforcement of same. Michael Wright, Assistant City Manager and M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney, went to Atlanta to meet with FEMA staff to determine what the City needed to do in order to be in compliance with their regulations. The City Manager stated Ordinance 5004-90 is a result of that meeting. The second reading for this ordinance will be scheduled for the City Commission Meeting of June 21, 1990. He stated the regulations in the ordinance are to protect construction and enhance safety of individuals in flood areas and to keep intact the Federal Flood Insurance Program. Michael Wright, Assistant City Manager, stated FEMA officials visited the City of Clearwater in March 1990, and reviewed records and field inspected buildings in flood prone areas. A letter was sent to the City of Clearwater listing deficiencies found. He stated he felt the City was able to satisfy many of FEMA's concerns. He stated particular concern regarding the City's ordinance was the calculation of substantial improvement. FEMA regulations provide that you cannot add more than 50% of the value of a house over a certain time and in certain circumstances. State law limits that value to over the life of the structure on barrier islands. This would cover Clearwater Beach and Sand Key but not Island Estates. He stated the proposed ordinance contains the minimum standards that FEMA will accept. A concern was expressed that the City's original ordinance was in response to what the City Commission thought FEMA had wanted. It was indicated it is difficult to determine what the FEMA regulations are as they change from time to time. In response to a question, it was indicated that the 50% cap over the life of the structure is controlled by property being on a barrier island not in a flood zone. Areas in flood zones but not barrier islands are limited to 50% improvement over a one-year time period. In order to maintain participation in the Federal Flood Insurance Program, the City has to meet FEMA regulation. The City Manager indicated during the meeting with FEMA in 1988 there was discussion regarding substantial improvements. The City felt it had gotten guidance from FEMA that such things as wallpaper, paint, etc did not have to be counted in the value of the improvement. During the meeting at Atlanta, it was found that this is not the case. It was indicated that all costs associated with a permit would be counted towards the 50% cap. Discussion ensued regarding not including such things as wallpaper and paint in the cost reported on a permit thereby eliminating these being counted towards the 50% cap. It was also stated that if the repair or improvement addresses a life/safety issue it does not count towards the 50% cap. Discussion returned to how to calculate the 50% cap and whether or not it would be based on market value or appraised value. The ability to use a permit splitting process in order to reduce the cost shown on a permit was discussed. In response to questions in regard to the relationship between FEMA and the State, it was indicated that FEMA is the enforcement arm and they enforce State laws regarding flood plain regulations. Concerns were expressed that we thought we were responding to FEMA concerns previously. Frustration was expressed regarding the inability to have clearly defined FEMA regulations. This ordinance is no different from the ordinance passed in 1987. Last year the commission had tried to alleviate some of the enforcement regarding wallpaper, etc. in calculating the value of the improvement. It was stated it is a question of interpretation and administration. It was stated that there is another part to this problem in that if the City of Clearwater had a disaster and wanted to qualify for relief, we would need FEMA approval. In order to qualify, we must be part of the Flood Insurance Program. It was stated at risk are all peoples' investments, and infrastructure etc. Federal Aid would not be available if there was no commitment to the Flood Insurance Program. The question was raised regarding what process FEMA would follow in order to remove the City of Clearwater's Flood Insurance. It was stated this process was not discussed. It was also emphasized that this ordinance will need to be reviewed periodically. In reviewing the changes made, a question was raised as to why a date of 12/74 was included regarding manufactured homes. Mike Wright indicated that this is being required by FEMA; however, staff will check regarding this date and how the City's ordinance meshes with the County's ordinance. Concerns were expressed regarding FEMA's newly announced change in rules regarding independent or free-standing second stories. It was indicated that they were no longer allowing this as a way to improve the structure and not fall into the requirement to meet FEMA regulations. Concern was expressed that there are some individuals who have already started construction of such a building based on previous FEMA guidelines. It was indicated that the City would work with people already in the pipe-line to complete their construction. A concern was expressed that in the definition of substantial improvement, the word repair was struck out and yet further down in the ordinance repair is left in. It was requested that this be made consistent. Concerns were expressed regarding the use of pre-FIRM and post-FIRM in the ordinance as time frames. It was indicated that FIRM stands for Federal Insurance Rate Maps. These maps change from time to time and it is difficult to place an actual date in the ordinance. A request was made that repair and life/safety concerns be defined. Nine (9) citizens spoke in opposition to the ordinance citing the difficulty in improving their property causing devaluation of their property and decline in the quality of structure on the beach. It was felt by several that FEMA did not have the ability to remove the City of Clearwater from the Federal Flood Insurance program. It is a long process and in the meantime the City should go to the State to have them remove the 50% over the life of the structure requirement for barrier islands from the State law. Discussion ensued regarding concerns of the Commission regarding FEMA's ability to pull the City's flood insurance. It was stated the 50% over the life of the structure rule is in the current ordinance for barrier island properties; however, they had exempted such things as wall paper and paint in that calculation. FEMA is saying the City has to include these things. It was stated that the problem is the State law which imposes life of the structure restrictions on barrier island properties. In response to the citizens' comments it was stated that FEMA can remove the City's flood insurance and that while it is a long process and they may not get to that point, there are penalties in between such as surcharges for flood insurance for all people carrying flood insurance in Clearwater. Information was requested regarding whether or not any city's flood insurance had been pulled. The meeting adjourned at 11:53 A.M.