§ 38-106. Evaluation of potential remedies.

A number of possible activities could be implemented by the city to provide to its citizens increased flood protection. Some of these are discussed below. These activities are in addition to those already in place as described above.

(1)

Upgrade regulation of new development detention. Several changes could be made to existing development regulations to provide increased flood protection. Such changes could include a requirement that all new developments provide detention to maintain post-development runoff to predevelopment levels. This requirement would help to prevent potential increases in flood hazards downstream of the development. While a detention requirement would impose a cost to developers, which would then be passed on to consumers, it would not impose a significant new cost to the city. However, aerial photographs show that Haltom City is largely built out, except for the northern portion of the city. Detention would have little or no impact on peak flows on the major streams. It is conceivable that detention could have a positive impact on some existing developments downstream of the undeveloped area but upstream of the major streams, however, this would be somewhat limited.

(2)

Elevation based on full development. Another regulation gaining widespread acceptance is to require that new construction be elevated at least one foot, or even more, above the 100-year water surface elevation based on fully developed watershed conditions rather than existing conditions as regulated by FEMA. This requirement primarily benefits the users of the new development, in that these users are provided a greater degree of protection from possible increases in water surface due to future development. This regulation would only benefit the users in such new construction, but would come at virtually no cost to the existing residents and/or businesses in the city, and could prevent problems in the future. One obstacle to such a policy, however, is the need to prepare hydrologic models to establish the fully developed conditions water surface elevations. Given the size of the watersheds for Big Fossil Creek and Little Fossil Creek, extending far beyond the city limits of the city, these studies would likely be quite involved and expensive. There is a strong likelihood that these studies could be incorporated into work being done by the Corps of Engineers (Little Fossil Creek) and the consortium (Big Fossil Creek). On smaller streams and tributaries, these models could be required of developers as part of the development process.

(3)

Prohibit floodplain development. Still another regulation being enacted in other cities is to prohibit all new development in the floodplain. A naturally functioning floodplain can have many benefits to a community, including the storage and conveyance of floodwaters, the recharging of groundwater, the maintenance of surface water quality, the provision of habitat for both plant and animal wildlife, as well as providing recreational opportunities and scenic value. New construction or development within any floodplain can be considered to have a negative effect on flood conveyance capacity. In addition, because floodplains frequently provide habitat for both wildlife and plant species, such development decreases the available habitat. Development regulations that completely prohibit new development in the floodplain can serve to provide many of the benefits derived by the community from a naturally functioning floodplain. Floodwater conveyance capacity can be preserved, eliminating the creation of potential new flooding risks. In addition to reducing the loss of life and property, preservation of the floodplain can also protect critical natural and cultural resources, and provide a source of community pride and identity. This approach attempts to change the behavior of people rather than trying to change the behavior of a stream system. Rather than trying to control floodwaters, these communities are encouraging people to avoid development in flood hazard areas. However, because Haltom City is nearly built out, because it is so urbanized, and because such a restrictive policy has been considered by some to be a "taking" of property by the city, this policy may not be appropriate for Haltom City. This approach could be considered relatively radical, and introduces some controversial legal issues. In municipalities where this type of policy is being employed, zoning and other concessions are generally offered to developers to make the policy more defensible. While such a policy may be the best approach to development from an environmental and hydrologic perspective, it can be a legally and politically difficult policy to support.

(4)

Public education program. The city may find that an ongoing public education program could benefit its citizens and make them better prepared for flood related emergencies. Regular articles in the city's bimonthly newsletter, the Proud and Progressive, could be used to provide information regarding flood protection and emergency procedures. These articles would probably be most effective during the Spring and Fall rainy seasons. In addition, these articles could be used to encourage property owners to purchase flood insurance. According to FEMA records, there are currently 243 flood insurance policies in force within the city. Review of FIRM maps indicates that there are approximately 950 insurable structures within the floodplain as it exists today. Continued development upstream of the city can be expected to generate increased runoff and higher water surface elevations. As a result, it is entirely possible that additional structures will be affected by potential flooding in the future. The official web site of the city would also be a good place to post floodplain information important to citizens. This activity will require input and effort from the floodplain administrator and/or a staff member, but given the amount of material available from FEMA and the publication schedule (bimonthly), it would not need to be extensive. While little direct costs would be involved (unless a consultant is used to provide the educational materials), it will increase the workload of the existing staff.

(5)

Participate in the CRS program. The Community Rating System (CRS) is a program that was implemented in 1990 as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to recognize and encourage community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP standards. The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 codified the Community Rating System in the NFIP. Under the CRS, flood insurance premium rates are lowered to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community activities that meet the three goals of the CRS: (1) reduce flood losses; (2) facilitate accurate insurance rating; and (3) promote the awareness of flood insurance.

The CRS recognizes 18 creditable activities, organized under four categories numbered 300 through 600: Public information, mapping and regulations, flood damage reduction, and flood preparedness. Specific guidelines are used to accumulate credit points, which are then used to classify the entire community. There are ten CRS classes: class 1 requires the most credit points and gives the largest flood insurance premium reduction; class 10 receives no premium reduction.

FEMA provides volumes of guidelines for establishing the CRS in the local community. A quick review of the creditable activities indicates that it may be possible for the city to qualify for the CRS without making substantial expenditures or changes in existing programs and procedures. For example, any of the possible development regulations listed above would earn credits under the CRS. In addition, certain activities currently in place would earn credits, such as maintaining a record of elevation certificates. Other current activities could earn credits as well, with some modification of the activity. For example, a regular program of inspecting and maintaining the drainage system can earn significant credits. The program does require some relatively significant documentation of activities, which must be weighed against the benefits of the program. For example, program documentation will occupy additional staff time, as will responding to citizen inquiries and implementing an outreach program.

Participation in the CRS program is entirely voluntary. While reduced flood insurance premiums for citizens are probably the most tangible reward of the CRS program, the activities required by the program will generally result in a better-educated community that is better prepared to minimize flood damage. In addition to reducing insurance premiums, the result of participation in the program generally is to actually reduce the community's exposure to flood damage.

(6)

Structural improvements. There are two significant areas in the city that experience flooding, as indicated in the foregoing evaluation of existing flood hazards. The first of these is the area in the southeastern portion of Haltom City along Little Fossil Creek. A remedy for this flooding situation is already underway. As a result of the impacts of the flooding described in the evaluation section of this FMP, the city is working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prepare construction plans designed to contain the 100-year flows within an improved channel from State Highway 121 to Belknap Street.

In addition, as identified by citizens at the public meetings, there are other locations in the city where culvert or storm drain improvements may be needed. Prior to undertaking a program that includes drainage structure improvements, it is recommended that a drainage master plan be developed to identify and prioritize the necessary improvements. A drainage master plan is also a possible vehicle for establishing fully developed watershed water surface elevations for establishing minimum finish floor elevations.

(7)

Expand drainage maintenance program. The public works department currently undertakes a limited level of drainage maintenance. As is typical in many municipalities, the drainage maintenance program is limited primarily by financial constraints. An expanded drainage maintenance program, including clearing and removal of trees, downed branches, weeds and other vegetation, as well as dredging and repair of erosion problems, could be developed. Such a program would help maintain the drainage capacity of streams and channels.

(8)

Purchase high-risk properties. As described in the evaluation of existing flood hazards, the second major area of flooding occurs along White's Branch, a tributary of Big Fossil Creek just west of Denton Highway (US 377) in northern Haltom City. The extent of this hazard at the Skyline Mobile Home Park is detailed in that section of this report.

Several alternative remedies have been considered for this area. The first is structural improvements to the channel itself. However, a review of the Flood Insurance Study profiles and the FIRM map show that White's Branch is controlled by the backwater from Big Fossil Creek all the way north to the mobile home park. Obviously, structural improvements to White's Branch would have little affect on the water surface elevations without significant structural improvements to Big Fossil Creek as well. In fact, it appears from the FIRM maps that the constraint on Big Fossil Creek is a major, highly active railroad crossing just west of Denton Highway (US 377). While the railroad crossing does not appear to be inundated on the FIRM map, there is a drop of 11' in the 100-year water surface elevation across the structure. The cost of upgrading this railroad crossing to reduce this head loss would be significant. In addition, because the backwater effect from Big Fossil Creek ends in the vicinity of the mobile home park, it is likely that even with improvements to the railroad crossing at Big Fossil Creek that structural improvements to White's Branch would also be necessary.

Because of the hazard in the Skyline Mobile Home Park described previously to property, citizens and emergency response personnel, and because of the likelihood of recurring problems in this area, it is likely that the most cost effective solution is for the city to purchase the lots subject to flooding in order to completely eliminate the threat of flood damage. Clearly, the hazard to the residents of Skyline Mobile Home Park, as well as to emergency response personnel, renders a "no action" alternative unacceptable.

In addition to the Skyline Mobile Home Park, FEMA has identified a total of 12 repetitive loss structures in the city. At least one of these structures is situated in the regulatory floodway, and may be a good candidate for buyout. Another location will be removed from the floodplain by the proposed Little Fossil Creek improvements project. It is expected that the project will also eliminate, or at least reduce, the risk of future losses at that particular location. Several other repetitive loss structures appear to be isolated from the floodplain, and may be experiencing damage from local drainage conditions rather than stream flooding. Development of a drainage master plan would identify the cause and possible solutions for the repeated losses experienced at these locations.

(9)

Funding considerations. A number of the possible mitigation activities addressed above will require the city to incur additional costs. It is important to consider funding possibilities if an action plan is to be developed. The following items could be considered as possible funding sources.

a.

Property tax increase. One obvious means of financing flood mitigation and drainage related activities is through the general budget of the city. This would require either raising tax revenues or cutting other budgets, or both. Generally, citizens are resistant to such measures, and politically raising taxes can be difficult to support.

b.

Drainage impact fee. A drainage impact fee is assessed against new developments to recover the cost to upgrade drainage facilities in order to accommodate such new development. Funds generated by this method may only be applied to the cost of additional facilities necessary due to the new development. Existing drainage problems may not be addressed with impact fees. Because Haltom City is nearly built out, drainage impact fees would not likely generate sufficient funds to make significant drainage improvements without having a serious negative affect on future development. However, a drainage impact fee has not at this time been ruled out as a possible means of funding drainage improvements

c.

Stormwater utility fee. A stormwater utility fee is essentially a user fee, and is a means of funding drainage projects that is rapidly gaining in popularity. The stormwater utility fee is based on the premise that all residents and businesses in the city contribute runoff to the public drainage system. Users of the system should contribute to the development and operation of the drainage system to the same degree that they contribute runoff to the system. Fees are generally collected with the monthly water bill. Rate schedules can be simple, with one fee for residential properties and another fee for commercial and business properties. Rate schedules can also be more complex, based on the acreage and land use of the property. Commonly, the rate schedules are a combination of the two extremes, using a single set fee for residential land uses, and a graduated or demand based fee for nonresidential land uses. Unlike a general tax, the money generated by the stormwater utility fee is dedicated to drainage infrastructure use. As a result, there is greater accountability for the use of the funds generated, and often the residents have a clearer understanding regarding the need for these funds. The generation of regular income dedicated to drainage and flood mitigation issues allows the city to implement a planned program of drainage and flood mitigation activities, or this income can provide a revenue stream to finance a bond issue for more expensive construction projects.

With the proper public support, a stormwater utility fee can be a key to making an effective action plan possible. Strong consideration should be given to this means of funding drainage improvements and flood mitigation activities.

(Ord. No. O-2002-017-16, § 1, Exh. A, 5-13-02)