Weaker stormwater standards still possible

Weaker stormwater standards still possible

By Deborah Nelson
May 25, 2009

Santa Rosa Commissioners recently tabled a proposal to weaken stormwater permitting standards.

But commissioners left the option open for revisiting portions of the existing standard.

“I think that we need to go ahead and get proposals to see if there’s any excess requirements that we could be a little more lenient on, but at this time I’m really not in favor of changing the ordinance…” Commissioner Jim Williamson remarked at the May 15 regular meeting.

Commissioners had been considering changing the stormwater volume to which developers must prepare new construction for.

Currently, that standard is a 100-year flood. The proposed modification would have changed the requirement to a 25-year flood. Supporters said the changes would reduce construction costs, thus reducing housing costs and promoting “economic development.”

High county standards may have been established as a reaction to problems caused by early-1990’s era subdivisions that were not subject to any stormwater permitting requirements, Commissioner Gordon Gooden remarked.

“It was kind of a reaction. It was like we had no standard. So we’re going to move them to the most intense standard, so we don’t ever have to think about it again. And in the process, common sense got lost. And changing conditions and different soils got lost,” he said at the May 11 Committee meeting.

“And with the 100-year standard we’re well served. But there’s some places where it frankly has made the cost of housing more expensive.”

Goodin argued that some places in the County, including where the new GEO group prison will be constructed, could get by with lower permitting requirements.

“We certainly have driven up the cost of building that prison with that 100-year standard,” said Goodin.

Commissioners voted to approve $2.5 million in various taxpayer subsides for the new, private-profit prison at an August 2008 meeting.

Commissioner Lane Lynchard argued against weakening existing standards, which are the same as Florida’s Department of Transportation.

“The 100-year design standard was adopted [in 1996] by the Board of Commissioners in response to the number of severe rainfall events we were experiencing,” Lynchard pointed out.

“In fact, we’ve had eleven 100-year rainfall events over the past 20 years, including 5 100-year rainfall events in the last five years. The developments that have been constructed using the 100-year standard have fared very well in the recent storms. The 100-year design standard greatly reduces the potential impacts downstream, such as roadway overtopping and property flooding.”

Construction cost savings are hard to predict, said Lynchard.

“…it’s not a linear relationship,” he noted. “If you have a 100-year design standard, you don’t have to build a holding pond that’s four times as large as a 25-year design standard. It may be 20 percent or 18 percent larger.”

Lower standards could mean higher flood insurance bills for residents.

“One other important consideration is the National Flood Insurance Program community rating system,” Lynchard remarked.

“This system allows communities to obtain credits and qualify for discounts if they meet certain criteria, including design storm. In order to get the maximum credit, a community has to use a 100-year design storm as the standard.

“The question then becomes will we lose our Class Six rating, which gives Santa Rosa County residents a discount of 10 to 20 percent on their flood insurance if we lower our standards?

“For that reason I don’t support lowering our standards at this point. In my mind the potential cost savings for construction does not outweigh the increased potential for storm damage.”

Several residents spoke against weakening existing stormwater rules.

“There’s an overwhelming majority that do not want any changes or tweaking to the stormwater standards,” noted area resident Etta Lawlor.

“Tweaking the standards to benefit a few special interest projects would be a bad decision. It would only decrease some of those special interest up front costs slightly, but in the long run, the recurring costs will increase for the homeowners through insurance, etc., flood damage, and the taxpayers of this county through the road and bridge budget.”

Milton resident Ginny Garrett pointed out the current higher standard reduces her family’s flood insurance bill.

“Because of our community rating system that we have, we save $329 dollars a year personally on our flood insurance,” Garrett remarked.

“So that’s the points that Santa Rosa has going for them. We’re above and beyond and we get great points and discounts on flood insurance.”

Higher flood standards may carry their own economic development benefits, she noted.

“That’s money that I spend in our local economy to help our businesses and it generates sales tax revenue as well, for our county,” said Garrett.

Garrett also took issue with the argument that helping developers lower their costs of doing business in turn lowers housing costs.

“Affordable housing, when we look at the price per square foot, that’s only one part of affordable housing,” she observed.

“We have to look at taxes and insurance. And the money we save on insurance is, of course, money that local people spend in the local economy.

“So this is a very big deal as far as flooding, pollution or the money the people have to maintain a home.

“Getting them in a home is one thing. But letting them afford the home throughout the 30-year mortgage is another thing. We have to look at all the costs of housing, not just the costs per square foot.

“And it saves us quite a bit of money as far as flood insurance.”

Several residents said privately that they fear the issue may resurface in the future, in a less publicized way.

Land Development Code changes that do not originate in a Commission hearing would have to be introduced in a County Planning Board meeting prior to a final Commission hearing.

The $2.46 million in subsidies for the private East Milton prison owned by GEO Group includes: $1.8 million in water and sewer infrastructure to the site; a $128,779 discount on $198,122 owed in Transportation Impact Fees; $540,000 worth of sludge disposal for the City of Milton, in exchange for waiving City impact fees; and other considerations.