In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council’s Planning & Procedures subcommittee, a meeting was held on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 8:30am at the offices of the CRMC, Stedman Government Center, 4808 Tower Hill Rd, Wakefield, RI.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Anne Livingston, Chair
Donald Gomez
Joy Montanaro

STAFF PRESENT
Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Jeff Willis, Deputy Director
James Boyd, Coastal Policy Analyst
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel

GUESTS
Dave Caldwell, President, Caldwell Builders & Vice President, RIBA
Craig Carrigan, Carrigan Engineering
Pam Rubinoff, URI CRC/RI Sea Grant

 

Call to Order. Ms. Livingston called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Ms. Livingston called for a motion to approve the minutes of the October 23, 2015 subcommittee meeting.

Item 4.A – Section 4.3.2 Schedule of Fees/(j) Beach Vehicle Fees; and, (l) Buffer Zone Alterations and/or Management Plans. J. Willis explained that these proposed changes are the first of several such fee revision proposals being brought to the subcommittee due in part to Department of Administration Budget Office recommendations that the agency increase its application fees such that the new revenues would offset probable specified missed targets that the Budget Office is requiring in the agency’s FY17 budget. These two sets of fees address areas of the agency’s application flow that generate either substantial revenues already (beach vehicle fees) or command significant staff review time and effort (buffer alterations). Ms. Livingston asked if the beach vehicle fees are equitable with neighboring programs. J. Willis noted that the annual fees for beach vehicles are equitable with Cape Cod communities and are not recommended for an increase; the increase is for new categories of beach vehicle fees, namely seven and 14 day passes to accommodate vacationing families, which is seen as a modest source of new revenue as much as it is an accommodating convenience for out-of-state visitors. Mr. Gomez noted the level of staff review effort for a number of application types and also noted that for buffers the Council seems to revisit these applicants again, when they are seeking additional variances to the original request.

Item 5.A – Fortified Building Standards. G. Fugate introduced Dave Caldwell from Caldwell & Johnson Custom Builders and Remodelers, who is Vice Chair of the RI Builders Association and a leading expert on the Fortified program, and Craig Carrigan from Carrigan Engineering who is an expert in the engineering issues associated with the Fortified program. G. Fugate explained that Fortified is a program that allows construction to meet various levels of coastal storm resiliencies. G. Fugate noted that Caldwell and Johnson have recently built the only Gold Level Fortified home in the state. G. Fugate explained that while Fortified is voluntary the current state building code regulations and standards meet or are close to meeting the requirements for having a dwelling achieve several Fortified levels. He concluded by stating that the building trades are seeking state leadership in moving the Fortified program in the state and have reached out to the Council in hopes that it can find ways to incentivize its regulatory programs for applicants that propose Fortified structures.

Mr. Caldwell presented that Fortified costs for new home construction are generally not a prohibitive issue in project development; costs for such can be higher for remodels and retrofits. The consumer in return could see reductions in their homeowners’ insurance fees. Ms. Rubinoff stated that while these fees do become lower (in her own case where she retrofitted her roof after storm damage) they are not yet significant; hers was 17%. Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Carrigan and Ms. Rubinoff expressed that the more widespread the Fortified program becomes, the more consumers will see better reductions to their homeowners’ fees. Ms. Montanaro asked how the insurance companies are being approached as to the benefits of the program. Ms. Rubinoff stated that in initial meetings with Amica she has asked that they push the Fortified program so that their claims would ultimately be reduced. Ms. Livingston added that municipalities would also benefit from less damage after storm events.

Additionally, Ms. Rubinoff stated that the Department of Business Regulation will be holding a meeting(s) with the larger insurance company association umbrella organization on this consumer issue. Ms. Rubinoff stated that in RI, three large insurance agencies that belong to this association are Amica, Liberty Mutual, and Allstate. Mr. Caldwell explained that if there was some incentive from the regulatory community that recognized the benefits to the state that a Fortified home brings then more consumers would demand that their projects be designed to the appropriate program levels which would ultimately lead to the insurance companies adjusting their fee schedules accordingly. Both Mr. Carrigan and Mr. Caldwell stated that while reduced application fees would be one such incentive, quicker application review/approval times would be a better one.

Mr. Gomez asked how flood damage plays into this program. Mr. Fugate explained that it did not and that that issue was a federal one. Ms. Livingston asked about wind v. flood damage and Mr. Fugate explained that each such insurance group trends to point the finger at the other and that the federal government deals with those groups for those issues. Mr. Gomez asked about the levels of certification for a Fortified program. Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Carrigan, G. Fugate and Ms. Rubinoff each explained the standards for Gold, Silver and Bronze levels. Ms. Montanaro asked how homeowners find out about the Fortified program. G. Fugate explained that in addition to the building industry efforts and those of the University, the CRMC uses its outreach outlets and the Beach SAMP outreach process to push the issues and the program.

Mr. Caldwell noted that the only home in the state to receive Gold level certification is located at 59 Teal Drive, South Kingstown. A lesson learned from this project according to Mr. Coldwell was that there was only one certified evaluator for the program assigned for New England that that person’s availability was questionable at best, which added to the length of time for project completion. The national Fortified program is working to have more certified evaluators available for this region.

Ms. Montanaro asked if homeowners have begun to see the advantages of the program. Mr. Caldwell explained that the industry is working hard to educate the consumer and that yes they are beginning to see the long-term benefits. He also noted that the industry is working to educate the builders (no significant additional costs/efforts especially for new construction) as well as the municipalities. Ms. Rubinoff added that workshops have already been held and are being scheduled with Building Officials and local professionals, and the same will be done at upcoming trade shows such as the Home Show.

Mr. Gomez thought that municipalities are already required to address resiliency issues. G. Fugate, J. Boyd and J. Willis explained recent state comprehensive community plan developments requirements, State Building Code requirements and freeboard, and how zoning and building codes need to be consistent. Mr. Caldwell explained the recent changes with the Freshwater Wetlands Act and the provisions that require consistency among regulations. He added that the Fortified program brings that consistency to coastal property management.

Ms. Livingston asked about repercussions if a structure is not ultimately built to Fortified standards even after receiving various incentives. B. Goldman and J. Boyd explained how permit stipulations/conditions could address that issue. Mr. Caldwell explained how bonding could be applied. Mr. Carrigan explained that it is unlikely that a structure would not be built to Fortified standards after having gone through the process. Mr. Caldwell concluded that by showing leadership the CRMC can create a clear, reliable and predictable process that will result in an easy path to consumers to follow and adhere to.

Mr. Gomez noted that for residential solar energy projects a process exists - however cumbersome - yet that the Fortified process is still a work in progress. Mr. Caldwell replied that while that is true it remains a time consuming process to undertake the physical Fortified inspections but that a good first step in developing the program’s process would be that the state show leadership and not only help to create a clear, reliable and predictable process but that it create incentives such as lower application fees and expedited application reviews, noting that “Time is Money.”

G. Fugate stated that the national insurance umbrella association believes that the Fortified program is a good idea and that it is notifying their local/regional carriers that Rhode Island will become the beachhead for this effort. He added that as the program builds momentum consumers’ property values would also benefit. Ms. Montanaro noted that it would be in the best interests of the insurance companies to support the Fortified program as they would make out financially on all aspects of the program.

Mr. Gomez asked that if there was a CRMC incentive to reduce application review times, what timeframes would we be looking at. G. Fugate explained current typical residential home structure applications have between four and six week turnaround timeframes. All things equal, reduced timeframes could be at the two to four week level. J. Willis agreed that while the reduced timeframes could be achievable for Fortified certified structures, the vast majority of residential home applications have issues associated not with the structure itself but with site constraints and/or variance requests to the agency’s buffer zone and setback requirements. These specified issues are more likely to hold up review times than is the house structure.

Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Carrigan thanked the subcommittee and added that having the CRMC address the benefits of the Fortified program through agency incentives would not only show collaboration and consistency but also leadership at the state level to help move the issue forward.

Ms. Livingston and Mr. Gomez asked what the agency’s process would be to address this request for incentives for Fortified certified structures. G. Fugate explained that staff will continue to work with the subcommittee to flesh-out, present and discuss any Fortified-related rules changes.

Item 5.B – Section 300.7 Revisions/Save the Bay Petition on same. This item was not discussed and the Chair directed staff to reschedule it for a future agenda.

ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Gomez, seconded by Ms. Montanaro, moved to adjourn the subcommittee meeting. All voted in favor of the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 9:46 a.m.

Respectfully submitted by

Jeffrey M Willis, Deputy Director

CALENDAR INDEX