Politics & Government

City Discusses FEMA Flood Maps, Insurance Issues

Some residents may be eligible for insurance refunds.

As the rain came down outside City Hall Thursday night, inside, Moorpark residents, city staff and representatives from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, met to discuss the agency’s January revisions to the city flood insurance maps.

More than 100 people came to view the revised flood maps (which are available on the city’s website), get caught up on events to this point and find out what comes next.

The concern began in 2005, when FEMA updated its 1986 flood maps and increased by 20 percent the area it identified as Moorpark’s flood plain, according to Massoud Rezakhani of MR Consulting, a company hired by the city to study the hydrology of the area.

Find out what's happening in Moorparkwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Whereas only 50 properties appeared within the flood zone in the old maps, more than 1,600 were on the updated maps, said Interim City Engineer/Public Works Director David Klotzle.

The city, after working with a consulting company and the Ventura County Watershed Protection Agency, filed a letter requesting an amendment to the map with FEMA, which approved the amendment in January, causing all but 241 properties to be removed from the flood maps. The changes will become effective on June 13, after a required 90-day appeal period.

Find out what's happening in Moorparkwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The city, now working with MR Consulting, believes another 80 or so properties may qualify to be removed from the map.

“We thought that the previous consultants’ models were wrong,” said Rezakhani. “We went back to the original FEMA maps and found some mistakes there."

In the revision, two residential structures, one business and some city-owned land (part of Arroyo Vista Park) were added to the flood zone.

The next step involves surveying the 80 additional properties the city believes can be removed from the map, to determine their actual elevations.

“Do I have it right,” asked Councilwoman Roseann Mikos, “you’re actually going to go out there and measure how high their house is as opposed to how high the water is supposed to go?”

“Absolutely,” answered Rezakhani.

“Immediately?” asked Mikos.

“Absolutely,” Rezakhani said again.

But why the big deal about who’s on the map and who isn’t? Basically, the FEMA flood maps are what mortgage lenders generally use to base their decisions about which property owners they’ll require to purchase flood insurance as part of the condition of the loan.

Frank Mansell, FEMA hazards program specialist, discussed insurance issues at Thursday’s meeting, explaining that insurance premium payments made for the current policy year may be eligible for refunds.

He said the two general exceptions are for those who purchased a discounted, low-risk policy and those who have a bank force-placed policy (which a lending institution may have forced a property owner to buy if the owners ignored the bank’s request to purchase it on their own).

Mansell went on to outline what property owners must do in order to get the refund. Here are the steps he recommended:

  • Go to the city’s website and print out the Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) and a copy of the revised map.
  • Make an appointment with your lender and bring the LOMA and map printouts.
  • Request the lender write a letter*—with the institution’s letterhead—that indicates you are no longer required to carry the insurance.
  • Take the lender’s letter to your insurance company so it can cancel the policy and you can get a refund.

*Mansell noted that most lending institutions are familiar with these types of letters, but they are welcome to contact FEMA for guidance. He said also the procedure is outlined in FEMA publication F083, Mandatory Purchase of Flood Insurance Guidelines.

Though Mansell acknowledged banks do not have to follow the advice of the FEMA maps, and thus the refunds aren’t guaranteed, he said, “Chances are very, very, very good that banks will take the advice and write that letter.”

But the refunds won’t be available to residents like Philip Ochoa, who addressed the council during the public comment period. Ochoa’s commercial property was in the original 2005 flood area and has since been removed; however, in the meantime, he has paid roughly $3,000 for both 2010 and 2011.

Because this was one of the reduced rates, he’s not eligible for a refund, and that's not sitting well with him—or with other residents, as witnessed by the applause he received when pointing out that FEMA based its original 2005 maps on the allegedly incorrect information provided by the original consulting firm, and the firm, therefore, should make amends.

“The company that created the data should be held accountable for the mess,” Ochoa said, and asked if there will be any attempt to recover costs of the original consultants’ mistakes.

Although no direct answer came, Councilman Keith Millhouse agreed the situation is difficult to stomach and the city would “do everything within our power” to help the property owners.

The City Council will recap the information presented Thursday night at its April 6 meeting, at which time it can direct city staff to take appropriate action.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here