Des Moines County reviews proposed updates to floodplain development ordinance

Jared Lasser, the county's land‑use official, opened the work session by walking supervisors through a redlined draft of a revised Floodplain Development Ordinance and the reasons for the changes: "the flood plan ordinance was first adopted in 93 after the the flood that year," he said, framing the update as a routine modernization tied to recent FEMA mapping and Iowa DNR guidance.

The draft makes several discrete changes supervisors should expect to see in the ordinance that will be readopted if approved: it would list individual FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map panels (and their effective dates) rather than a single index map reference; it inserts the insurance‑industry term "repetitive loss" and aligns the county's definition of "substantial damage" to allow two events of at least 25% damage within 10 years as an alternative to a single 50% event; and it clarifies that certain critical uses (hospitals, emergency response facilities and power installations) may require higher protection standards.

The draft also adds a new provision addressing campgrounds: any campground with overnight lodging sited in a mapped special flood hazard area would need an evacuation plan that identifies responsible parties, action stages tied to stream gauges or forecast triggers, and a detailed sequence for evacuating vehicles and occupants. Jared said the ordinance is intended to regulate new development and major modifications, not to retroactively force existing non‑conforming uses into compliance.

Supervisors pressed staff on several practical points. Brian Carter (county engineer) and others warned that flood‑elevation modeling can be expensive and that requiring modeling for relatively small projects could create an unfunded burden; Jared acknowledged the concern and said the county will seek clarification from DNR on when modeling is required and whether certain provisions should be limited to larger projects. On non‑conforming uses the draft states a use discontinued for six consecutive months loses its grandfathered status and that structures damaged with reconstruction costs at or above 50% of market value must conform to the ordinance rather than be rebuilt as non‑conforming. Supervisors asked staff to explore whether six months is an appropriate discontinuance window and to confirm how market value will be determined in practice.

The work session concluded with staff committing to follow up on a short list of clarifications (including whether some campgrounds and conservation facilities should be explicitly exempted, the mechanics of the FEMA reporting requirement, and the application of the six‑month discontinuance rule) before the board considers ordinance readings in April.