County seeks options on 'X‑zone' rules after FEMA CRS review; staff to return with flexible options and LIDAR timetable

At a workshop the Board of County Commissioners reviewed Palm Beach County’s standing in FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) and debated whether to change the county’s higher regulatory standard for properties in county‑designated flood hazard areas outside engineered subdivisions (FEMA Zone X). Staff recommended against exempting X‑zone buildings and asked the board for direction to pursue administrative flexibility for agricultural structures instead.

Key points and context: County CRS coordinator Mary Blakeney said Palm Beach County has maintained a Class 5 CRS rating (2,967 points) and that moving to a Class 4 would require additional credits that staff expect the watershed master plan could provide. Blakeney said CRS participation reduces flood insurance costs for policyholders and that FEMA rolled out Risk Rating 2.0, which complicates direct calculation of paragraph‑level savings: “There’s no way … to know exactly how much you’re saving” under the new approach, CRS consultant Earl King told the board.

X‑zone elevation standard and agriculture: Building‑division staff and floodplain managers explained that county Article 18 requires elevation of all new or substantially improved buildings in county flood hazard areas — including FEMA X zones outside engineered subdivisions — and that the county historically implemented elevated standards dating to 1957. Jackie Anderson, certified floodplain manager, told the board “X zones are low risk, but not no risk” and that about 20% of the county’s repetitive‑loss properties were in X zones.

Farmers and the agricultural community raised concerns that elevation or full surveys are disproportionately costly for small farms and nursery operations. Farm groups asked the board either to exempt non‑residential agricultural structures from the county standard or to create a lower‑cost compliance pathway. County staff warned an exemption for agricultural buildings would forfeit the entire CRS credit tied to the X‑zone elevation requirement (currently about 66 points) and could jeopardize the county’s efforts to reach Class 4.

Board direction and technical steps: Commissioners asked staff to return with concrete, lower‑cost alternatives rather than a blanket exemption. Options requested include administrative variance pathways, using adjacent‑grade or LIDAR referenced elevations instead of full lot surveys, and clearer cost estimates for surveys versus alternatives. Staff also updated the board on LIDAR: the county’s new airborne LIDAR collection is complete; FEMA will receive first delivery for the Lake Okeechobee area next month and the rest of the county delivery is expected by January; staff said new LIDAR vertical resolution has improved from ±4 inches to ±2 inches.

What was not decided: The board did not alter Article 18 at the workshop. Staff will consult further with agricultural stakeholders, quantify survey costs, propose administrative options for wet flood‑proofing variances, and return with recommended code language and CRS implications.

Ending: County staff set follow‑up steps — provide cost estimates, draft administrative variance language, continue stakeholder consultation, and report back so the board can balance agricultural concerns with the county’s flood‑insurance credits and broader resilience objectives.