Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Maps topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Works committee weighs response after FEMA flood-map changes; staff to report number of affected properties
Summary
Committee members discussed significant expansions to FEMA floodplain maps that could raise insurance costs for residents. Staff and the village engineer outlined technical questions about modeling; the committee asked staff to return with a count of affected parcels and a cost estimate for a consultant-led appeal or review.
The Public Works and Highways Committee discussed changes to FEMA flood insurance rate maps and whether the village should pursue an appeals process after maps finalized earlier this year.
The topic was raised after Washington County and the Department of Natural Resources adopted updated maps. Matt, Public Works Director, said the county held outreach meetings and the initial 90-day appeal window is closed, and that the committee needed to decide whether the village should pursue a municipal-level review on behalf of its residents or leave appeals to homeowners.
Kevin Driscoll, the village engineer, reviewed technical concerns the committee flagged. He described large hydrology changes in some basins and how backwater at structures could have driven expansions on the new maps: “based on a preliminary review from some information going from 60 c f s to 600 c f s,” Driscoll said, pointing to how an increase in modeled flow can change where flood elevations are drawn.
Committee members noted they had received resident complaints but that staff had not yet produced a parcel-level count. “We’ve received a handful of complaints. I have not done a count,” Matt said. Several members asked staff to quantify how many properties the new maps place in the floodplain and to return with an estimated cost to hire a consultant to pursue appeals or to provide parcel-specific documentation for homeowners.
The committee also discussed the practical likelihood and cost‑benefit of a village-led appeal. Members observed that an appeal requires technical evidence and can be time-consuming, with uncertain odds of map modification, and that potential municipal costs should be weighed against the number of affected homeowners and the risk of higher insurance premiums.
No formal motion to appeal was made. Committee direction was limited to staff follow-up: return with (1) a count or estimate of properties newly impacted by the map changes, (2) a broad estimate of consultant costs to evaluate and, if appropriate, pursue appeals, and (3) options for whether the village would submit an appeal on behalf of residents or leave appeals to individuals.
Staff said they would supply that information at a future meeting; the committee indicated it wanted a follow-up discussion after receiving the data.
