DRAFT Special Occupancy TAC Proposed Research Project

“Research on Code Considerations for Public Restrooms Below BFE”

Background

Florida has 100 million annual tourists and over 30 million residents most of which participate in some form of outdoor recreation activities at beaches, estuaries and lakes and rivers. Obviously, use of restrooms is a human need as common as consuming food, obtaining protection from elements, and obtaining rest in a safe and protected space. Yet, neither the Florida Building Codes nor International Building Codes include a definition, or establish construction standards, for public restrooms or recognize the unique, single-use purpose of public restrooms in places where the public congregates to enjoy nature, participate in recreational activities, or to relax in natural areas. Since Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program in 1968, program administrators developed regulations designed to minimize loss to structures by requiring that they be elevated above a base flood elevation (BFE). And, not until 1990 did Congress adopt the Americans with Disabilities Act which requires universal accessibility to public and private facilities including public restrooms.

Florida communities struggle to meet the public need for public restrooms, and all communities face challenges for constructing facilities that comply with federal-imposed requirements for elevated, flood resistant and accessible buildings as is required by Florida Building Code. Communities must design and provide facilities that are flood resilient under the NFIP requirements and simultaneously meet the ADA requirements. The obvious solution is to determine whether it is feasible to design and construct public restroom structures below BFE that may withstand the combination flood and wind loads associated with the NFIP’s 1% annual base flood and that are more accessible as required by the ADA.

Research Need and/or Technical Enrichment

For nearly 50 years, the NFIP considers public restrooms as non-residential structures that must be constructed above the base flood elevation in special flood hazard areas (SFHAs), including coastal high hazard areas (Zone V). However, in Zones A, they may be constructed below the BFE if dry flood-proofed. By their nature, public restrooms are typically built with flood-damage resistant materials; ironically, the NFIP prohibits them from being built below BFE unless constructed to prevent flood waters from entering the structures.

According to the Florida Floodplain Managers Association (FFMA) in its white paper DRAFT Policy and Design Options for Public Restrooms in Special Flood Hazard Areas 2014, 60 percent of communities responding to FFMA’s public restroom survey of coastal communities reported having non-conforming or non-compliant public restrooms built below the BFE, in conflict with NFIP regulations. Communities’ staff has expressed to FFMA in the survey and at two statewide conferences and one national conference that the NFIP regulations are overly restrictive, lack a definition of allowable uses of public restrooms below BFE, and due to elevation requirements, are frequently too-costly to construct and maintain. Communities have stated that the regulations cause the need for costly, extremely long ramps (up to 300-feet in length) that are maintenance intensive and create additional obstructions to wave loads. Additionally, the excessively long ramps can be unsightly and create impediments for mobility-challenged people (and children and the elderly) who the ramps are intended to serve.

Communities are reluctant to engage design professionals to develop plans and specifications for affordable, accessible, and attractive public restrooms at or above grade, but below BFE, that can withstand the combination wave and wind loads to meet the intent of the NFIP, if the federal program finds such structures non-compliant because they are “below the BFE”.

The proposed study provides the following three elements:

1) Analyze the quantitative extent of public restroom compliance, document structural challenges, and assess the financial burden for communities to meet the Florida Building Code (and ASCE 24-14) requirements for construction of flood resilient and accessible public restroom facilities.

2) Develop example or prototypical design concepts and schematics for three or more building structural approaches that meet or exceed NFIP, ASCE and FBC flood and wind load requirements (with any exceptions noted) to verify if public restrooms may be built below BFE in either Zone V or Zone A flood zones and meet load requirements for the 1% annual base flood.

3) Conduct an analysis and listing of NFIP regulations, International Codes and Florida Building Code requirements that must be amended to enable the construction of flood resistant, accessible public restrooms designed to withstand the 1% annual base flood elevation loads that may be constructed below the base flood in Zones V and Zone A.

The research must specify the environmental and landscape site conditions upon which the design considerations are based and which must be representative of Florida’s coastal high hazard areas in V and Coastal A zones and in a riverine floodplains. Such research must include, but is not limited to, consideration of the following: the Florida Building Code, ASCE/SEI 24-14, FEMA’s Coastal Construction Manual FEMA P-55 (August 2011), and FFMA’s DRAFT Policy and Design Options for Public Restrooms in Special Flood Hazard Areas, March 26, 2014.

Urgency/Immediacy for Code Amendments

The Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM), Florida’s agency designated and charged with preparing for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating against natural hazard threats, proposed an amendment to address this matter in the 2015 I-Codes. The amendment recognized public restrooms as a limited use, unique facilities for which design professionals should be able to use performance-based codes to meet NFIP flood resilience and accessibility requirements. Except for the elevation requirement, the proposed amendment included design and construction requirements consistent with other design standards for non-residential construction.

As an alternative to FDEM’s proposed I-Code amendment, Staff of FEMA/FIMA asked FDEM to withdraw the proposed amendment and offered to work with the State to collaborate through a cooperative agreement to resolve the matter using a national-level Public Restroom Task Force. FDEM withdrew the proposed amendment favoring to work with FEMA. Staff of FEMA later refused to follow through on forming a cooperative agreement with FDEM, but did facilitate four meetings of a loosely organized Task Force before abruptly ending the endeavor without resolution. FDEM has repeatedly asked FEMA to resume the Task Force during the past two years to bring the matter to closure but FEMA has been unresponsive.

FDEM requests that the Florida Building Commission authorize and fund research on this matter to ensure that design professionals may develop reasonable and prudent design and construction requirements based on performance codes. This may result in better on-site relief to Florida residents and visitors, and afford communities alternatives to construct flood resilient, accessible facilities that meet the public need. Once the research is complete, a well-defined solution may be available that will result in potential amendments to the Codes and NFIP technical building guidelines that will benefit all communities in the nation with Special Flood Hazard Areas delineated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

Funding Needed

Exact costs for funding the research are unknown at this time, but the methods of procurement and availability of qualified organizations that could conduct the research may be the greatest factor on costs. FDEM recognizes that one of Florida’s major universities, the University of Florida, may conduct such a study since the university has several colleges or schools that have expertise considered useful for the study. These colleges or schools include expertise and research capabilities in building sciences and construction, engineering, planning, and recreation and tourism. The anticipated cost for the research is unlikely to exceed $150,000.