11

APPENDIX E

To Who It May Concern:

48 Town Way Ext.
Scituate, Mass.

November 2, 1993

Please be informed that the dwelling located at 48 Town Way
Ext., Scituate, Massachusetts, was rebuilt after the

Blizzard of 1978, in compliance with the specifications set
forth by regulatory agencies.

The specifications included, but were not limited to:

1.

2.

The structure be placed on pilings driven to a
minimum of five (5) feet below mean water.

The elevation of the first floor of the structure
be at twenty-one (21) feet above mean water.

Subsequent to the rebuilding, the dwelling located at 48 Town Way Ext. has not sustained any storm damage or storm related damage nor has any insurance claim been filed in relation to the said property for any reason.

Any increase in the premium cost for Flood Insurance on property rebuilt to Federal, State and Local specifications would be totally unjustified.

76-604 O

94

8

Sincerely,

P. DI

Ruth M. Slocum

William Slocum

William P. Slocum

APPENDIX F

RECOMMENDED EXPANDED REPETITIVE LOSS DEFINITION

We recommend expanding the definition of a 'repetitive loss structure' in S1405 by adding to the end of SEC.102 (a)(15) p.12 line 2 ...

"...or has incurred flood related damage on three or more occasions during a ten year period ending on the date of the last event in which the total cost of repair equaled or exceeds 100 percent of the value of the structure."

It is important to note that classifying as a repetitive loss structure triggers the payment of mitigation monies from the NFIP fund. The definition of repetitive loss must strike a balance between mitigating for repetitive loss and weakening of the financial soundness of the fund by paying out too much mitigation money too fast. It is with this consideration in mind that we recommended that the expanded definition to include multiple smaller losses use the 100% criteria rather that the 50% criteria.

We would also note that our recommended definition does not address the potentially serious problem of large condominium complexes classifying as repetitive loss structures. Elevating condominium complexes to meet the FEMA guidelines for rebuilding after a loss will, in most cases, be structurally impossible. If the condominium complex falls out of compliance with FEMA guidelines, then cost of flood insurance for the owners would become unaffordable. The costs to the nation's retirees, many of whom moved south and invested retirement funds in condominiums, would be devastating.

Not afraid

to

make

waves

By Carol Funderburk
MPG Newscacers

MARSHFIELD

-The voice of Marshfeld is being heard in the nacion's capital.

Two Marsheid residents. Kathy McCauley and Doris Crary, are making sure that Washington bureaucrats are hearing the voices of locai coastal residents. McCauley went to Washington. D.C.. ast month to testify before he subcommittee of housing und urban affairs, where tesmony is being heard on the :ational cod insurance re3 act authored by U.S. ien. John Kerry, D-Mass.

"We have no problem with No parts of his bul" said cCauley last week "Howver. the third part of the

the estabushment of 30 er erosion cones. will dev state the tax case of Mars ... 15 wel as other coastal

McCauley and Crary out component

■Making waves

Continued from page A1
of the bill:

if your mortgage is with a
bank that is federally regulated,
you have to have food insur-
ance. We have no problem
with this," said McCauley. "Ba-
Scaily, this tightens compliance
and it wil broaden the policy
base."

Flood insurance will cover
the cost of complying with new
building codes. Under the old
regulations," said Crary, if you
lost your home, the dood insur.
ance would cover the cost of
rebuilding, but not of elevaang
the home which is a new regu
Ladon Now, he premiums wil
be raised to cover the cost of
mutigadion. The dednition of re-

peative loss seeds to be ex-
panded to bring more people in.
but basically, were happy with
this provision."

30-year erosion zones would
be established along the encre
coastline.is is where we
said

have

McCauley. a addition to dou-
a problem."
bling premiums, at least, it wil
destroy the tax base of this
town who sul be able to seil
their house they have to tell a
prospective buyer that the
bome is in a 30-year erosion
zone. which according to the
reguation means that in 30
years. the home wil no longer
be here. It's not just a cou.c:-
dence that the number 30 was
picked for e erosion zone.
That's the average length of 1
mortgage.

The reas cst affected by
the bul are 3: Rock Green
Harcor and he rea along
ter Avenue sac McCauley an
Crazy Sunstar Kerry sees

All the way to Washington - Kathy McCauley (left)
and Cons Crary are taking the concems of Marsnñeld coastal
resicents all the way to Washington.

ail very differently," said
McCauley. "That's why I went
to Washington. We don't believe
the interests of coastal rest-
dents have been served by this
bull."

McCauley and Cary, both
memcers of the town's coastal
advisory committee. said they
prepared a package to support
her argument watch included

in 1.000 feet of the seawall " said Crary. The beach areas Ccbute substancaily to the ax base of this town

Te bil is scheduled to go to euil committee on backing Cousing and urban airs on Cc. Crary said "We hope people will write Sen Kerry and

piain about this. Crary said "aidaily, the bil excluded food insurance for pecole living

Kathy McCauley and Doris Crary aro getting their points across concerning the nallorial flood Insurance reform act.

It's hard to get upset over
something like a 30 year erosion
zone because it sounds so far
away, and so far removed from
those residents who don't live
along the coastline. But Ernest
is glad at least two people are
worried about what's going to
happen if this erosion zone bill
goes through. Kathy McCauley
and Doris Crary have done
their homework on a federal bill
that could alter the nation's
coastline (not to mention food
Insurance premiums) and are
ralsing serious questions before
It becomes law and starts to
have a local Impact. They say
the biggest local Impact will be
the erosion of the tax base in
Marshfield. How many times
have we seen Washington sneak
something through and by the
time residents know what's hit-
ting them, they're already pay-
Ing for it?

Ernest has a feeling people
who own property along the
coast may be thanking these
two residents 30 years from

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS P. DELLA TORRE
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
TRANSAMERICA FLOOD HAZARD CERTIFICATION

JULY 27, 1992

Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on S. 2907—the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1992.

There is little doubt that the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) is not achieving the intent of Congress.

• A study by the General Accounting Office revealed that only about 15 percent of homes located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) are covered by flood insur

ance.

• Whenever there is a major flood, the Federal Insurance Administration finds that the majority of homes incurring flood damage are not covered by flood insurance. Uninsured property owners often seek relief from other Federal or local government sources, including the Federal Disaster Relief Fund, thereby exacerbating the budget deficit.

• Recent reviews that we have performed of portfolios of existing loans have revealed that many properties located in a SFHA (in some cases as high as 9 percent) are not covered by flood insurance.

• Events in Sacramento, CA, Minnesota and elsewhere have shown widespread noncompliance with the FDPA.

Moreover, studies by meteorological experts predict greatly increased storm activity in the future and warn us not to be lulled by unusually low activity in the recent past. The problem is likely to get much worse before it gets better.

In our prior testimony we have provided many of our first-hand experiences that illustrate the range and nature of the compliance shortcomings of some lenders. Today, I would like to speak to a few remaining issues for your consideration.

We believe that S. 2907 effectively addresses the major causes of non-compliance and will result in greatly increased protection for homeowners, lenders, and taxpayers. It has addressed nearly all of the concerns we have expressed in our prior testimony before this committee.

The compliance section adds very few new requirements on lenders and will not put a burden on those lenders currently in compliance.

Nor will it put a burden on borrowers with guaranteed flood hazard determinations ranging from $10-$40, by far the lowest fee among the closing costs incurred by borrowers.

The standard hazard determination form called for by the legislation, which formalizes what many regulators and lenders now do, will create consistent record keeping procedures and thereby assist examiners.

For all of these reasons, in our view, S. 2907 is needed to bring the Flood Disaster Protection Act in step with the lending industry of the 1990's. And we strongly recommend that it be passed even though it increases the liability of private flood hazard determination companies like ours who must guarantee their work.

When we perform a flood hazard determination for a lender, we, in effect, assume that lender's liability. Any legislative provision, therefore, that increases lender liability automatically increases ours.

Clearly, determining accurately the flood hazard status of a property depends largely in the quality of the flood map being used. A flood map is no better than the engineering study and the base map upon which the floodplain is depicted. Flood maps must be accurate and current and users must be advised when new maps are being issued and when changes to existing maps are made through Letters of Map Amendment (LOMA) and Letters of Map Revision (LOMR).

We believe that the emphasis must be on the quality of the maps rather than on the media (paper, fiche, digital, CD-ROM) by which they are delivered to users. We support those provisions in S. 2907 which are directed to improving the quality and currency of flood maps as well as the notice of flood map changes.

Flood compliance is largely a front-end issue; that is, if the flood hazard status of a property is accurately determined at the time a mortgage loan secured by improved real estate is made, increased, renewed, or extended, and appropriate flood insurance is purchased prior to closing, in approximately 72 years (the average life of a mortgage) the problem of non-compliance will be minimized.

A key question is how to assure that the flood hazard status of properties is kept up to date when new flood maps are issued. S. 2907 currently provides that whenever a loan is sold or transferred and the original determination is more than 5 years old, a new flood hazard determination must be performed.