St. Petersburg launches monitoring of storm-damaged properties; city says inspections protect recovery and FEMA standing

City of St. Petersburg officials described a stepped-up monitoring effort for properties flagged as damaged in the recent storms and said the inspections are necessary to verify repairs, identify work done without permits and preserve the city’s standing with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

The monitoring process was outlined at the Feb. meeting by Joe Waugh, director of Codes, who said staff started a zone-based inspection program in January after receiving damage-assessment data from the county. "We were out there after the storms. We were going door to door throughout their neighborhood and the entire city. But we weren't there to issue violation notices. We were there to provide support, resources, and in many cases, a hug and some comfort during a difficult time," Waugh said.

City staff said the monitoring applies first to properties inside the special flood-hazard area identified in damage assessments and then to affected properties outside those zones. Officials said the objective is to confirm whether repairs that require permits were performed and to close the loop where work is already permitted and inspected. Properties with active post-disaster emergency permits (PDEP) will be tracked until permit inspections are complete and the permit is closed; properties with on-going work but without permits will be issued violation notices and monitored until corrected.

Why it matters: FEMA and the NFIP monitor local enforcement following disasters. City staff told council they had consulted FEMA and that agency responded positively to the city's process, calling it a path the city should continue. Staff warned that failing to enforce local regulations after a disaster can lead to NFIP probation or loss of Community Rating System (CRS) credit that reduces policyholders’ premiums.

What officials described: Waugh said teams completed roughly 4,500 inspections since late January and that the review has turned up examples of extensive work done without permits, including cases where remodeling and roof work were visible and the property was listed for sale. He described process changes made to manage volume: dividing the city into 18 inspection zones, assigning inspectors to zones, and creating a tracking case type in the codes system to allow FEMA-ready reporting.

Staff emphasized these points: an active monitoring case is not itself a code violation, monitoring cases are public records, and the presence of a monitoring case does not automatically place a lien or prevent a real estate closing. "An active case does not equal a code violation," Waugh said, and noted title companies contacted so far had not reported closings delayed by monitoring cases.

Resident concerns and city response: Several residents and real-estate professionals spoke during open forum and during the codes discussion. Matthew Widener and others pressed the council for more proactive oversight on separate utility-billing and permitting matters; real-estate agent Rachel Tenpenny urged enforcement of unpermitted repairs to prevent repeat sales of unsafe or noncompliant homes. A caller on Zoom, Joseph Sowers, said voluntary repairs performed by volunteers created confusion about whether permits were required.

Council members pressed staff on communication and customer service. Councilmember Gina Driscoll said the city needed better proactive messaging so residents would understand why monitoring cases were opened and what steps to take. Staff acknowledged a communications shortfall and said an FAQ and website updates have been posted; they said lessons learned include the need for clearer pre-rollout messaging for future large-scale monitoring efforts.

How homeowners can resolve cases: Staff said property owners who did work without permits should come to permitting and pull the appropriate post-disaster permit. The PDEP is intended to cover storm repairs; staff said they are not automatically pursuing increased fines when homeowners come forward to obtain permits. For owners who believe a case was opened in error, city staff said those requests are routed to management and are typically turned around within one to two business days when documentation shows no damage.

Next steps: City staff said they will continue monitoring properties in the special flood-hazard area and then begin monitoring properties outside that area that were flagged in damage assessments. The city reported FEMA has asked to schedule further meetings and that the city’s procedures will be provided to FEMA as a possible ‘‘best practice’’ write-up.

Ending: Councilmembers thanked staff for the work and urged continued emphasis on communications and customer service while the city proceeds with inspections and permit reviews. The city urged residents with questions or concerns to contact codes and permitting staff directly so individual cases can be resolved.