They stopped waiting after they took the home pregnancy test.
Already, Melisa and Greg Premer’s small home in the Belle Vista neighborhood strained with constant activity. When the couple learned they were going to have a third child, they jumped into the community’s expensive and tight housing market.
“In this neighborhood, we couldn’t find anything not on the water,” Melisa Premer said of their search for a larger home.
“We couldn’t afford it,” her husband added. “We still can’t.”
Instead of house hunting, they started shopping for contractors. Instead of minor repairs, they prepared for major renovations. More than two years later, construction is complete, and the family is settled into their new second floor.
But the dust hasn’t settled.
In June, the Premers learned they are one of 127 property owners whose remodeled homes and businesses are under Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) scrutiny. Next month, FEMA will release its findings.
At the heart of the investigation is just how consistently St. Pete Beach officials have permitted renovations to island buildings such as the Premers’ home. The community is still under FEMA’s review, and the issue is not only St. Pete Beach’s. The agency conducted a similar review in St. Petersburg this month; FEMA’s decisions about St. Pete Beach re-development may indicate what other communities could face.With 1.8 million flood policies and 429 communities participating in the agency’s National Flood Insurance Program, Florida is a flood insurance mega-state.
FEMA’s investigation began a year ago when the agency conducted the city’s first community audit in nine years. The agency reviewed permits, looked at area homes and buildings and gathered community questions about certain remodeling projects.
Brad Loar, the regional chief of FEMA’s community mitigation program, said the primary goal of the investigation is to determine whether St. Pete Beach officials have a pattern of neglecting federal building codes. Did property owners violate federal construction guidelines meant to protect homes and businesses from floods, and did building officials know about it or fail to enforce the law?
If so, the agency could instruct the city to make property owners bring structures up to federal standards. It could be as simple as adding flood vents. It could be as complicated as elevating the structure anywhere from 10 to 17 feet above sea level, depending on where the building is located.
FEMA also could remove the citywide 10 percent insurance discount that saves property owners $48 on flood insurance. In the worst case, it could kick the city out of the National Flood Insurance Program, and the Premers could lose their flood insurance completely. Though flood insurance policies are often sold through private carriers, every flood insurance policy is subsidized through the national program.
To federal officials, the problem may hinge on whether past building inspectors permitted projects that violated the “50 percent rule,” a law that restricts property renovations on structures built before 1971 to less than half the building’s value. If the proposed renovation costs more than 50 percent of the value, the business or home owner must then make the property meet current standards, including raising its elevation.
“There appears to be well over 100 structures that are questionable as to why they were allowed to be built out,” Loar said, though he would not comment on the agency’s findings.
“We are going to disagree with the building official who was doing the math, so to speak.”
Some island residents said that local officials -- along with property owners and contractors who may have underbid projects in order to meet the 50 percent requirement -- are ultimately responsible for the investigation.
“I think the elected officials on St. Pete Beach have been in denial about this for years,” Ralph Lickton, a local residential designer, said.
“These concerns about these things have been expressed to the mayor and city officials from time to time, and I believe it’s fallen on deaf ears.”
“I like to think that the way the city permitted the projects was proper,” said Michael Bonfield, city manager. “But until we hear back from them (FEMA) and hear what their interpretation is, we just don’t know.”
What can well-intentioned residents do when they’ve tried to follow the law and trusted building officials to get the law right? Melisa asked.
“We didn’t want to go outside of what we got approved,” she said. “We didn’t want FEMA to come and make us tear it down or clean it out. There’s nothing they (building inspectors) haven’t seen; there’s not a piece of paneling, a window, not even a paint job.”
Not everyone blames FEMA, but the Premers may.
Sitting in the family’s remodeled den, she laughed when her daughter Saralynn ran into the room. She pointed to the blond-haired little girl.
“She’s the instigator of all this,” Melisa said. “Go ahead FEMA, attack this 2-year-old.”
