Council holds first reading of updated floodplain ordinance after Community Rating System briefing

Port Richey City Council on Jan. 14 completed the first reading of Ordinance 25‑711, a revision of Chapter 109 that would update the city's floodplain management regulations, and received a staff presentation on the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System, which provides discounts on flood insurance premiums to communities that go beyond the federal minimums.

The Community Rating System presentation was led by Veronica (building department staff). Veronica said Port Richey currently sits at CRS Class 7 and has 1,789 credit points; she said work underway (GIS, four‑runner software and outreach plans) could move the city to Class 6 and possibly Class 5 if additional documentation is accepted by the CRS reviewer. "We have been working with the county for the past several months to establish a program for public information," Veronica said during the briefing, describing a stakeholder committee scheduled to meet Jan. 22.

Why it matters: The CRS score directly affects how much residents pay for National Flood Insurance Program premiums and is driven by dozens of activities — outreach, mapping, open‑space preservation, regulatory changes and flood‑damage reduction programs. Council members framed the ordinance discussion against the potential CRS points.

Key provisions discussed: Ordinance 25‑711 would move certain flood‑related rules from Chapter 110 into Chapter 109, revise definitions for "substantial damage" and "substantial improvement," require nonconversion agreements for enclosed areas under elevated buildings, adjust minimum building elevation (freeboard) requirements and clarify prohibited permanent placement of recreational vehicles. Staff said the changes also would require a higher standard for foundations and anchoring in coastal A zones and add requirements for registered design professionals on certain foundation designs.

Points of debate: Council members and staff spent the most time on three topics: - Nonconversion agreements: Staff said the agreements are a FEMA‑recommended tool that must be recorded and can provide CRS credit. Several council members and staff recounted the practical and legal challenges: the agreements would be recorded against property and could be intrusive because they reference occupant health/medical information in limited circumstances. Council consensus was to remove the requirement that all owners sign a recorded nonconversion agreement; instead the item will be revised to rely on education and targeted use of the agreement for new enclosures only. Staff noted the city had used nonconversion clauses for some new development but not across existing stock. - Freeboard height and CRS tradeoffs: Council discussed raising minimum freeboard (the height above base flood elevation). Staff presented CRS point values (for example, 1 foot of freeboard yields a modest credit while 2–3 feet yields larger amounts). Council members expressed interest in pursuing higher freeboard mainly in future construction and as part of mitigation work that would produce CRS points. - Look‑back period for cumulative improvements/substantial improvement: The draft ordinance removes the multi‑year look‑back and instead applies the substantial improvement threshold to each event. Staff said removing a multi‑year cumulative look‑back reduces CRS points in that category but can be offset by gains from higher freeboard and other regulatory standards.

What the council decided: Council completed the ordinance's first reading and asked staff to revise the draft to remove the mandatory, broadly applied recorded nonconversion requirement and to return with clarified language on implementation and cross‑references to state code. No final adoption occurred at this meeting; the ordinance will return for additional edits and future readings.

Background and next steps: Veronica urged continuing work on a county‑coordinated Program for Public Information (PPI) and said the city will collect five years of documentation for the next CRS on‑site review. Staff said a formal "CAP (Class Action Plan)"‑style effort and a dedicated staff time commitment are required to maximize CRS credits; council discussed whether to create or fund additional building/floodplain staff to support that work.

Ending: Council members asked staff for a tracked‑change version that removes the broad nonconversion recording requirement and documents the CRS point tradeoffs for proposed regulatory options; staff said it will return with the revised ordinance and supporting materials.