A property owner whose building application was denied by the city told Emmons County commissioners the city required an expensive engineering certification to allow construction in a mapped flood area, and he asked the county for assistance in resolving annexation and tax assessment questions.

Donovan, the property owner, told the commission that the city denied his recent application and asked him to hire an engineer to produce a certificate of non‑interference or a no‑rise study; he quoted engineer estimates ranging from $5,000 to $15,000. Donovan said a previous elevation survey from a 2014 application showed the intended house site and attached garage were above the flood base, and he recounted conversations with city staff about moving the building site to a location roughly 3 feet lower to avoid the requirement for the engineer study.

County officials explained the statutory and practical limits: the county has a floodway ordinance that prohibits building in the floodway absent a no‑rise certification. Commissioners told Donovan the city and FEMA can affect whether nearby property owners keep federal flood insurance and that permitting decisions often require coordination between city, county and federal authorities. The county’s preliminary engineering feedback, discussed in the meeting, advised building in a different location if possible.

Donovan also raised a separate concern about taxation and special assessments. He argued parts of his property are outside the city limits and therefore should be taxed by the county rather than the city; he said comparable sales used to set taxable values appeared to be city properties rather than comparable county transactions. Commissioners and staff pointed to recorded city survey lines and said the burden of proof to prove a boundary or tax error rests with the property owner; county staff and the county attorney said they would review the survey history and the legal record to confirm boundaries and assessment applicability.

Why it matters: allowing construction in a mapped floodway without the appropriate certification can risk community flood‑insurance status and violate local floodplain regulations. The meeting clarified that a no‑rise study is the accepted technical path to demonstrate a building will not increase flood risk; if Donovan cannot obtain a certification, the ordinance prevents construction in that portion of the floodway.

Ending: Donovan said he will continue working with city staff and FEMA; commissioners directed staff and the county attorney to investigate the annexation and assessment questions and to report back.