By Steve Cook
April 4, 2019 11:25 a.m.
As you probably know, the City of Fernandina Beach is considering changes to the ordinance governing flood hazards. (Ordinance 2018-18) The ostensive reason for this is to theoretically allow for some savings on flood insurance. The amount of these savings is under debate, but what is not in question is that there are serious additional dollars, extra effort, and additional complexity that these changes would bring.
Sometimes in our efforts to move forward, we create more complexity and costs. As an Architect and General Contractor, what I have always believed is that we need to simplify our laws, provide clarity, and enforce evenly what already exists!
FEMA encourages local communities to modify the original boiler-plate ordinance to fit local conditions. The attempt to modify this ordinance was well intended, but developed by a severely understaffed building department with the help from a $30,000 contract to a FEMA Bureaucratic consultant.
When this was brought up to the Commission, it turned out that these changes had not been vetted with our local citizens, building owners, architects, realtors or even the local industries. The Commission wisely postponed the adoption of this ordinance and is currently seeking input from our community.
There are potential significant costs to the community if this ordinance is adopted as presented. Review this ordinance and let your voices be heard.
To email city commissioners, click here.
Editor’s Note: Steve Cook is a retired Architect and Licenced General Contractor who recently moved to Fernandina Beach. Previous to retiring, he handled planning, design and construction as a VP for the 8th largest non -profit Retirement Community Organization in the US, working in over 21 communities in Florida.
Mr. Cook states that “here are potential significant costs to the community if this ordinance is adopted”. Rather then throw out such an ambiguous statement, if Mr. Cook has identified the ‘significant costs’ he should list them. If not ,what makes him believe that there will be significant costs?
He also states that “The ostensive reason for this is to theoretically allow for some savings on flood insurance.: That is probably a true statement as the FEMA rating system gives ‘points’ to communities for various changes to their flood /building requirements. and as the community accumulates more points, our premiums are reduced (ie: requiring the floor elevation to be higher then the flood zone, better record keeping by Community Development staff etc). Many of the requirements have previously been adopted by the City, which has lowered everyone’s Flood Insurance premiums. I understand that the revised ordinance provides a further reduction. I applaud the Community Development Dept staff for attempting to help the citizens lower their premiums and make us a bit safer from flood damage….which we know will only get worse with rising sea levels. .
City staff may want to develop a comparison chart that shows the costs/benefits of the proposed changes vs. savings. We had a similar issue with developers when the City raised the minimum floor elevation requirements…. it was going to cost more to build a house. It did cost more…one time for a significant savings on premiums forever.
If the ordinance passes as initially proposed, and you want to insure your home properly, for existing homes the ordinance applies to, it would overall cause an increase in insurance premiums, not a decrease. Also lowering the flood rating does not affect flood premiums for the majority of property owners.
It would also prevent some existing homes from being able to do basic remodels.
I spoke against this ordinance the night they were going to approve it, and do not know any of my fellow insurance agents that think, in its proposed form, is a good idea for our community.
If you or anyone else wants to discuss I will be happy to explain why. My cell is (904) 556-3142.