Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Borough staff detail floodplain permitting rules, map updates would remove 2,300 structures from flood zone
Summary
Community planning Director Kellen Spillman told the Assembly Committee of the Whole that most borough floodplain rules mirror FEMA’s 44 CFR, explained permitting differences for floodway/fringe properties, and said new modeling and lidar data could remove about 2,300 structures from the flood zone, saving homeowners an estimated $24 million in premiums.
Kellen Spillman, director of community planning for the Fairbanks North Star (Borough), told the Assembly Committee of the Whole on Jan. 8 that Fairbanks’ floodplain regulations are largely drawn from federal rules and that updated mapping based on improved lidar and modeling could reclassify roughly 2,300 structures out of the flood zone.
Spillman traced the borough’s flood history to mid-20th-century disasters and said the borough’s 1971 floodplain code implements the National Flood Insurance Program and FEMA regulations (44 CFR). “Fairbanks is built in a flood plain,” he said, noting the 1967 event drove early local flood-control efforts and later construction of the Moose Creek dam and a borough-owned levee system.
Why it matters: Local floodplain designation affects whether owners must carry federally backed flood insurance, and the borough’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program preserves access to federally backed mortgages for homeowners, Spillman and Mayor Hopkins said.
Key permitting differences described: Spillman explained three common permitting pathways. A split-flood-zone application (where a parcel is partly outside the floodplain) is a simple one-page filing with a typical turnaround of about five days. New construction in the 100-year floodplain (flood fringe) requires elevation documentation and an elevation certificate after construction; the borough is required to process such permits within 30 days. Development in the floodway requires a hydraulic and hydrologic (H&H) analysis prepared by a registered hydrologist or engineer showing the project will cause no rise in community flood levels.
Spillman cited an engineering example in which 31,000 cubic yards of fill were modeled and shown to cause “zero” rise in the community’s flood elevations. He also recounted that a FEMA community assistance visit identified 30 previously unpermitted structures around 2009–2010; the borough worked with owners and brought those properties into compliance by 2020.
On mapping and savings: Spillman said a multi-year remapping effort using new lidar and external hydrologists has produced revised flood maps that would take about 2,300 structures out of the flood zone when adopted by ordinance. He estimated the change could save homeowners approximately $24,000,000 in flood insurance premiums.
Questions from members: Mayor Hopkins emphasized that the borough implements — but does not set — federal requirements and warned that failing to enforce NFIP rules could jeopardize homeowners’ ability to use federally backed mortgages. Ms. Wilson asked whether the borough or federal agencies issue permits; Spillman said the borough issues local floodplain permits unless work occurs in the river, which can require additional Corps or federal permits. He also noted the borough’s code generally mirrors CFR requirements, with a few technical clarifications (for example, crawl-space language).
Next steps: Spillman said the administration expects an ordinance this year to adopt revised maps for areas including Perkins Landing and the Salcha/Tanana corridors. The borough will use outreach tools (mailers, home-show booths, radio/TV ads) to notify affected property owners.
What remains unresolved: The presentation documented process and modeling outcomes but did not include formal action or a vote. The final legal status of revised maps depends on the ordinance the borough brings forward and any subsequent public review and hearings.
