Alberta Flood Watch 2013

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Note that it also does not include ceilings. Those can be whatever under new rules too. I was joking with a city inspector (who says off the record that the city thinks these new rules are poorly thought out, ineffective, and stupid) that I am going to carpet my ceiling just to spite them. Then I realized I'd have to live with a carpet ceiling.

Anyways, I am willing to bet that they either have not thought of that in their haste, or have and intentionally left that out for some reason. The rules are just really strange and do little to benefit the taxpayer or homeowner.

On that injury front, that one I doubt they have thought of or care about. It is all PR for the rest of Alberta who did not flood appear they are on top of things. As usual it is working as I have yet to see any negative media on these mitigation rules.

I've heard similar off the record comments from the city. It seems clear to me though that ceilings have the same rules as walls:

http://alberta.ca/Flood-mitigation.cfm

Re the stairs being a safety issue it appears they haven't thought of it, I was bounced around and finally ended up with someone who was responsible for the materials portion of the mitigation plan and his reply to my concern was "huh ... yea ... that's a good point" Then finally he passed it on to the city and said they are going to be doing the final walk throughs. I have the checklist that the city will be using and it seems pretty clear they are only to inspect floors, walls and ceilings.

I've found the city pretty good to deal with so far, but these Alberta employees are pretty out of touch, and don't really care if they have a workable plan or if things don't make any sense. When you point out problems they don't want to solve them, they basically just say ... ya that sucks.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Note that it also does not include ceilings. Those can be whatever under new rules too. I was joking with a city inspector (who says off the record that the city thinks these new rules are poorly thought out, ineffective, and stupid) that I am going to carpet my ceiling just to spite them. Then I realized I'd have to live with a carpet ceiling.

Anyways, I am willing to bet that they either have not thought of that in their haste, or have and intentionally left that out for some reason. The rules are just really strange and do little to benefit the taxpayer or homeowner.

On that injury front, that one I doubt they have thought of or care about. It is all PR for the rest of Alberta who did not flood appear they are on top of things. As usual it is working as I have yet to see any negative media on these mitigation rules.

Sounds to me like the rules actually harm the taxpayer.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

For those looking at the new mitigation rules:

All the content is about the floor, ceilings and walls. What if you already have untreated lumber as your staircase? Surely Alberta doesn't want that replaced? The scope is specific, and doesn't include stairs, yet its is specific in that it says no untreated lumber.

Also, if you don't have carpet on the stairs aren't they just shifting expenses from flood remediation to health care when people start splitting their heads on concrete or tiled stairs?

My understand from what Dough Griffiths said at our town hall meeting is they are not asking people to take out whatever they have that wasn't damaged. The focus was stuff that was damaged and needed to be replaced.

If you have untreated lumber that's fine. If your drywall and insulation needs to be replaced then it has to be done with the approved products. For example cement board as opposed drywall and foamed insulation as opposed to the batting.

As for myself, the insurance company said they would pay the first 4 feet and the govt would cover the rest. I don't want any taxpayer dollars and will only rebuild what the insurance company will pay for.

What the insurance companies are doing is trying to shift the responsibility to the govt by not fullfilling it's obligations. The word I got is don't worry, the govt/taxpayers will pay for what we won't cover. To me it's not right when the insurance company says remediate the first 4 feet and then the restoration company they hired says all the dryall etc has to go. Like why are you ignoring restorators?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Note that it also does not include ceilings. Those can be whatever under new rules too. I was joking with a city inspector (who says off the record that the city thinks these new rules are poorly thought out, ineffective, and stupid) that I am going to carpet my ceiling just to spite them. Then I realized I'd have to live with a carpet ceiling.

Anyways, I am willing to bet that they either have not thought of that in their haste, or have and intentionally left that out for some reason. The rules are just really strange and do little to benefit the taxpayer or homeowner.

On that injury front, that one I doubt they have thought of or care about. It is all PR for the rest of Alberta who did not flood appear they are on top of things. As usual it is working as I have yet to see any negative media on these mitigation rules.

What the govt is trying to do is minimise the damage and cleanup from possible future floods. If the have to spend taxpayer dollars in the future they want homeowners to minimise future flood damage as much as possible so they in return are not spending as much. As a taxpayer what they are doing is a good idea.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by SebC

Sounds to me like the rules actually harm the taxpayer.

How is it harming the taxpayer?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Dion

How is it harming the taxpayer?

It comes down to the net present value and effectiveness of the measures they are prescribing. For instance, tile is great in a flood in that you can take it out and wash, but is that better value than simply throwing away a carpet? Either way, if you get flooded, you need labour.

Furthermore, compared to the alternative (suggested by myself and by the Liberals, independently) of a government-run insurance program, the government's program places a far greater burden on the general taxpayer.

And finally, there's a good chance that collective mitigation (e.g. re-doing parts of our storm sewers) would be more cost effective than individual mitigation. If the government were to implement an insurance program, it could divert premiums to collective mitigation on a cost/benefit basis.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Ya, we figure that too. We haven't looked around but will try very soon. Worst case is we get a bunch of rejection letters, but for Hulse he maybe ok.

LOL, my TD renewal letter I got was pretty funny. Basically the renewal was done up with a reduction in sewer back up to $15K. But there was a cover letter on top of it that said basically said "we recognize this is a bad time to do this, so for this year we will honor our old coverage limits".

Basically it was a "heads up for next year letter". Works out well as I'll likely be switching to someone with decent sewer backup coverage next year if they do drop coverage. The extra year will let the dust settle as to what insurer is covering what.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by SebC

It comes down to the net present value and effectiveness of the measures they are prescribing. For instance, tile is great in a flood in that you can take it out and wash, but is that better value than simply throwing away a carpet? Either way, if you get flooded, you need labour.

Labour is unavoidable. To me cleaning tile or linoleum would be cheaper than the cost to remove and reinstall carpet and the underlay. I removed soaked carpet and underlay from my basement and it wasn't as easy as just cutting out a huge piece and rolling it up to be hauled out. We had to cut the carpet into small strips and that took alot of time and effort - something I don't ever want to do again. FWIW I'm not putting carpet back in the basement but instead will have linoleum is some parts and painted concrete in other parts.

Furthermore, compared to the alternative (suggested by myself and by the Liberals, independently) of a government-run insurance program, the government's program places a far greater burden on the general taxpayer.

And finally, there's a good chance that collective mitigation (e.g. re-doing parts of our storm sewers) would be more cost effective than individual mitigation. If the government were to implement an insurance program, it could divert premiums to collective mitigation on a cost/benefit basis.

The Redford govt did say they were looking at collective mitigation. They finally realise that floods are going to happen again and they have to be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. They want to help people first and then do measures that minimise future flood damage and possible tax dollars being spent. In the past they wouldn't help High River with collective mitigation and this time they are.

That's the message I got from the govt from our town hall meeting.

Slava will be shocked to hear me defending the Redford govt

[Dion]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

LOL, my TD renewal letter I got was pretty funny. Basically the renewal was done up with a reduction in sewer back up to $15K. But there was a cover letter on top of it that said basically said "we recognize this is a bad time to do this, so for this year we will honor our old coverage limits".

Basically it was a "heads up for next year letter". Works out well as I'll likely be switching to someone with decent sewer backup coverage next year if they do drop coverage. The extra year will let the dust settle as to what insurer is covering what.

From talking with other residents here in High River reducing sewer backup to 15k is probably going to be close to same with all insurance companies. I can't remeber the insurance companies but residents were getting similar reductions.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Dion

Labour is unavoidable. To me cleaning tile or linoleum would be cheaper than the cost to remove and reinstall carpet and the underlay.

Likely that's true. But the question is whether the initial purchase of linoleum pays for itself over the lifecycle of the product. I'm far from an expert on this stuff, so maybe it will.

Originally Posted by Dion

The Redford govt did say they were looking at collective mitigation.

That's good do hear. But it doesn't address the concern that if we do collective mitigation where we've already done individual (but taxpayer funded) mitigation , we could be blowing taxpayer money on individual mitigation that the collective mitigation may render unnecessary. If the government is going to do collective mitigation, then IMHO it should put a hold on individual mitigation in areas that might not be in the "Red Zone" once the collective mitigation is done.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by SebC

Likely that's true. But the question is whether the initial purchase of linoleum pays for itself over the lifecycle of the product. I'm far from an expert on this stuff, so maybe it will.

That's good do hear. But it doesn't address the concern that if we do collective mitigation where we've already done individual (but taxpayer funded) mitigation , we could be blowing taxpayer money on individual mitigation that the collective mitigation may render unnecessary. If the government is going to do collective mitigation, then IMHO it should put a hold on individual mitigation in areas that might not be in the "Red Zone" once the collective mitigation is done.

There's a lot of residents around me (fringe area) that are not rebuilding their basements. The sentiment is i'm not going to rebuild until the govt and town has done the collective measures and I know that those collective measures will protect me from future flooding. This latest flood has scared residents and they are very hestitant about doing anything beyond the restoration stage.

[macker]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

LOL, my TD renewal letter I got was pretty funny. Basically the renewal was done up with a reduction in sewer back up to $15K. But there was a cover letter on top of it that said basically said "we recognize this is a bad time to do this, so for this year we will honor our old coverage limits".

Basically it was a "heads up for next year letter". Works out well as I'll likely be switching to someone with decent sewer backup coverage next year if they do drop coverage. The extra year will let the dust settle as to what insurer is covering what.

Most, if not all, insurance companies were working towards reducing sewer back up and hail exposure prior to the flooding. It is actually not a bad gesture that TD is making in this case based on them likely having this planned out before the flooding. The top three claim exposures the companies face in Alberta are 1.Hail 2.Water 3.Fire and they need to add caps and increase deductibles to try to keep up to the increased frequency and severity of these three primary risks. It gives you extra time to shop around but none of these companies are trying to attract new business based on offering more for any of the above. In fact if you have a couple claims for any of the above none of them will take you on. They are all gun/hail/water/fire/ shy.

[Bigtime]

Okay CP, time to put yourself in the Bigtime's shoes and tell me what you would do in our scenario:

Info:

-Live in Sunnyside
-undeveloped basement received 5' of water in the flood
-basement height is about 2' above ground level, so we flooded pretty much to the outside ground level

Renovation options:

1) Leave the basement as is and leave it undeveloped. With an eye to the future that the province and city will take steps to mitigate future floods. This could potentially allow us to renovate the basement in a few years to a less spartan condition (with all the flood proofing we can do).

2) Raise the house up 5', and backfill our basement. In essence getting rid of a below grade basement level. We have the height allowance in our area to accommodate this. However the cost to do it is ~$115,000.

With proper flood proofing materials done and sandbagging we can probably flood proof this new floor very well.

Thing was we were going to start a reno here in September, essentially gutting the main and upper levels and building it to be our house that we will live in until my wife and I are in the cold ground or sent to the old folks home.

The wild card in all of this is what the province will do to mitigate future flooding. If we go ahead and spend $115,000 raising the house and then in a year or two we have great flood prevention measures in place I may feel pretty stupid, as that was money that could have gone to the reno proper.

So what do you think CP?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Okay CP, time to put yourself in the Bigtime's shoes and tell me what you would do in our scenario:

Info:

-Live in Sunnyside
-undeveloped basement received 5' of water in the flood
-basement height is about 2' above ground level, so we flooded pretty much to the outside ground level

Renovation options:

1) Leave the basement as it and leave it undeveloped. With an eye to the future that the province and city will take steps to mitigate future floods. This could potentially allow us to renovate the basement in a few years to a less spartan condition (with all the flood proofing we can do).

2) Raise the house up 5', and backfill our basement. In essence getting rid of a below grade basement level. We have the height allowance in our area to accommodate this. However the cost to do it is ~$115,000.

With proper flood proofing materials done and sandbagging we can probably flood proof this new floor very well.

Thing was we were going to start a reno here in September, essentially gutting the main and upper levels and building it to be our house that we will live in until my wife and I are in the cold ground or sent to the old folks home.

The wild card in all of this is what the province will do to mitigate future flooding. If we go ahead and spend $115,000 raising the house and then in a year or two we have great flood prevention measures in place I may feel pretty stupid, as that was money that could have gone to the reno proper.

So what do you think CP?

Quick question?

Did the water come overland or was it a back up? If there was no overland, do you need to address these issues?


Even without the answers to the above, if you can live with the basement as is, I would wait and see how it shakes out. The $115,000 is a lot of cake, that might not be needed. Trouble is you don't know yet.

[Bigtime]

It was the sewer backup that got us, at one point I could see the water above my windows in the basement, yet the window sills inside were nice and dry. So I didn't flood at all that way.

[Stay Golden]

I feel for all of you that have suffered through this. From what i have asked my wife who is in the insurance business for 20+ years. The Claims Adjuster's from the various Insurance agency's can immediately tell if a flood is sewer back up or overland by what color the water is and what is in the water and a simple PH test.
As for where my wife's works they covered all claims as sewer back up. In not all cases were the homes and business actual primary sewer back up but over land. However they decided for their clients benefit that the surge of river resulted in sewers backing up in the dwelling either directly or indirectly such as neighbors sewer.
They have had several instances where other Insurance companies 2 doors down did not cover the claims. Claiming overland what BS.
The real sad part is that the insurance companies will only cover losses of i believe 70% of content value and rebuilding the portion of the home/business that was destroyed.
Then there is the resale value of these homes for these people moving forward what a financial mess.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

i believe 70% of content value and rebuilding the portion of the home/business that was destroyed.
.

Please expand on this part of your post.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Please expand on this part of your post.

First of all i am not in the insurance industry so please excuse if this is not exactly accurate in translation.
From what i have asked and have had answered in the past is that when you Insure a home, a certain criteria determines how much your contents are worth with in a policy. Your possessions "contents" are 70% value of the home generally. Unless you get additional coverage for specific items. Such as collections, jewelry, paintings etc.
Lets say that fire burned down your entire home how do you prove what was lost.
The Insurance company uses this 70% content rule to establish the value of what was lost.
For a flood it could be different because many of the possessions are still there but ruined. So the adjuster can claim item by item lost maybe?
I will ask for a more accurate answer if you like.

[Rathji]

So if I have a $100k house, and it burnt down, the insurance company would, if they were using this rule, give me $170k?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

First of all i am not in the insurance industry so please excuse if this is not exactly accurate in translation.
From what i have asked and have had answered in the past is that when you Insure a home, a certain criteria determines how much your contents are worth with in a policy. Your possessions "contents" are 70% value of the home generally. Unless you get additional coverage for specific items. Such as collections, jewelry, paintings etc.
Lets say that fire burned down your entire home how do you prove what was lost.
The Insurance company uses this 70% content rule to establish the value of what was lost.
For a flood it could be different because many of the possessions are still there but ruined. So the adjuster can claim item by item lost maybe?
I will ask for a more accurate answer if you like.

Ah, I read you post as the insurer will only cover 70% of the limit of the particular coverage. IE: Contents limit of $100,000.00 they will only pay $70,000.00