Dunn County committee tables hazard mitigation plan update amid federal grant uncertainty

Dunn County’s Judicial and Law Committee paused work on an update to the county’s hazard mitigation plan on a motion to table that passed at its meeting, after hearing a presentation from Chris Strait of the Regional Planning Commission about the plan’s benefits, scope and uncertain grant funding.

The mitigation plan guides county strategies to reduce disaster risk and is a prerequisite for several federal and state grants. Strait told the committee that the plans "are intended to be updated every 5 years," and that the county’s update work is on hold until FEMA and Wisconsin Emergency Management clarify whether grant programs such as BRIC will proceed as previously announced.

The vote to table allows the committee more time to see whether previously approved federal funding remains available and whether the state will step in to support mitigation planning. The committee discussed four options: do nothing for now, have the county fund the update, pursue a hybrid model where county staff take on parts of the work, or have county staff complete the update alone.

Strait, who represents the Regional Planning Commission, summarized why the plan exists: "Mitigation are you're identifying strategies to reduce or prevent the impacts from a disaster event," and said having a current plan makes local governments eligible for FEMA grant programs including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and previously the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grants. He explained FEMA revised its guidance and announced changes to BRIC, leaving some projects' status unclear.

Committee members repeatedly raised the funding and timing issue. One supervisor asked about deadlines; committee discussion identified the county’s current plan as expiring in late October (exact date not specified in the meeting). Strait advised the committee that, if needed, the Regional Planning Commission could propose a reduced-scope update that meets FEMA’s minimum requirements rather than a full, multi-hundred-page plan.

Strait described past local mitigation grants that led to project work including riverbank revetments and safe rooms. He said a typical local match has been about 25 percent but can be reduced for qualifying low-income rural communities, and that eligible projects range from safe rooms to buried power lines, flood elevation work and hydrological studies.

During the discussion county members and staff noted practical options to reduce costs, including hosting joint public meetings for multiple towns rather than visiting each jurisdiction individually and having county staff perform some tasks to reduce consultant costs. Strait said the planning product can be scaled: "We can cut back quite a bit and and look for some economies." He estimated prior full updates in the region commonly required extensive public outreach and multiple community appendices, producing plans of several hundred pages.

After extended discussion, a committee member moved to table the item and the motion was seconded; the committee voted in favor and tabled consideration until the committee’s next meeting so members could monitor federal/state grant decisions and evaluate a scaled or hybrid approach.

The committee was explicit that tabling is procedural and does not cancel the county’s ability to update the plan later. Committee members expressed concern about the risk of missing an upcoming grant opportunity if a municipality decides late in the year to apply and Dunn County has not adopted an eligible mitigation plan.

Strait asked committee members to return a short homework worksheet ranking hazards and to record meeting attendance and mileage; he said that staff and steering-committee time can be counted toward the grant match if the project proceeds. He also offered to produce a narrower update proposal should the county choose the scaled approach.

The committee’s decision to table came after the presentation and a period of questions; no binding local funding commitment was made at the meeting.

Closing notes: the committee scheduled follow-up conversation at its next regular meeting and asked staff to monitor FEMA and Wisconsin Emergency Management guidance.