County Could Tweak Flood Ordinance

By David Howell
Editor

WATER VALLEY – Supervisors could take a second look at recent orders passed in conjunction with the county’s flood ordinance after scrutiny at the “first Monday” supervisor meeting on Monday.

    The matter surfaced after Jeff Davis Water Association board member Buster Jackson, accompanied by customers and other representatives of the association,  questioned the portions of the flood ordinance – specifically the $25 developer’s permit and an utility order requesting all utility companies in the county to have a copy of the permit before providing services.

    In July supervisors voted unanimously to adopt a flood ordinance that would allow the county to enroll in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). On Nov. 1, the ordinance was tweaked after supervisors voted 4-1 to require a $25 developer’s permit for any new home, mobile home, garage outbuilding, commercial building or home addition proposed in the county. District Three Supervisor M.H. “Butch” Surrette cast the nay vote for the new fee.

    During the following meeting, held Nov. 22, in a split 3-2 vote, supervisors took another step to ensure compliance with the ordinance in the county by requiring utility companies to have proof that  the county has issued a developer’s permit before connecting services. District Five Supervisor Frank “Bubba” Tillman and Surrette were against this provision.

    “We got some concerns about what we have been reading in the paper and the best thing to do is come before the board and ask a few questions,” Jackson told supervisors at Monday’s Dec. 6 meeting.

    Jackson told supervisors that the association understands that the county’s adoption of the flood ordinance would enroll the county in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide affordable insurance for people who want to build in the flood plain. Jackson also told supervisors that they understand that certain standards must be met to participate in the program if you build in the flood plain.

    “We understand there must be an on-site investigation and all of that. But reading in the paper, we also  understand there is a $25 fee that must be paid in order to get a builder’s permit,” Jackson told board members.

    “This is what we don’t understand. Is this builder’s permit just for those that are in a flood plain, or is it for everybody in the county outside of a municipality?” Jackson questioned.

    “The $25 is to offset the cost of the administrator of that plan,” District One Supervisor Tommy Vaughn answered. “That was brought before the board last time. We didn’t really have time to discuss it fully, on that $25 fee,“  said Vaughn, who was presiding over the meeting in the absence of Board President Amos Sims.

     “We put a fee on there of $25 for anybody getting a permit. Now I am sitting here in hindsight thinking about this. I don’t think the people who are not in a flood plain should pay the $25 permit fee,” Vaughn said.

    Instead, Vaughn suggested that the cost of the permit only be assessed if the proposed project is located in the flood plain.

     “We still got that on the books today, the $25 fee. As much as we’ve got today, I don’t think we need to get into it,” Vaughn continued, referring to a long meeting agenda. “We need all five people here to decide it. We will probably go back and re-address that,” Vaughn added.

    “People are confused… People think if they build anything or add on to your house it is going to be a $25 builder’s permit for each and every time,” Jackson told supervisors.

    “Let me tell you something,” Surrette weighed in. “If it is not changed, it is going to be like that, because that is the way it was passed the other day,” Surrette said, referring to the Nov. 1 vote to establish the $25 fee.

    “Now it might be changed, I think it should be and will be,” Surrette said.

    “This whole purpose of getting a permit is not to punish anyone. It is to make sure that we administer this program correctly. Because if you don’t you can be fined. A county can be fined, an individual that builds something that doesn’t adhere to the rules of the flood zone can be fined. We don’t want that to happen. Just go by and get a permit. But if you are in a flood zone, you pay $25,” Vaughn reiterated.
 

More Questions

    “Getting to our part as a utility, what is the penalty for non-compliance?” Jack-son then asked.

    “That was the whole purpose of asking the water associations and the power companies to work with us on this stuff. To advise them that they have got to have a permit. When they say we want some water turned on out here, you ask if they have a permit.  If they have a permit they can do what they want to do,” Vaughn answered.

    “Is there a fine in this ordinance?” Jackson asked.

    “There is a $100 fine,” Vaughn asked.

    “I want to ask another question. Does the electric power company go along with this?” Jackson asked.

    “This isn’t something we are going to tell TVA or somebody to do because they are not going to listen to us. We are not going to tell y’all to do it. But as a courtesy to the people who are building or buying something in Yalobusha County, we would ask that y’all would tell them they need a permit. We want them to know what they need to do,” Vaughn answered.

    “Well Jeff Davis is very concerned with this,” Jackson responded, citing numerous agencies that already regulate the association.

    “Now the board of supervisors are telling us that we need to make sure they have a permit before we hook the water up,”  Jackson said.

    “No, we are just asking to help us implement this program,” Vaughn said.

    Jackson then explained that the water association boards in the county will have to meet and adopt the provision before it will become part of their rules and regulations.

    “I object to trying to tell  people what to do on their own property. I am all for flood insurance. I am all for whatever we have to do to get it, not withstanding telling people what they can do on their own property,” Surrette responded. “I am a little concerned about us shifting the burden from this  board to Tallahatchie Valley, Jeff Davis or whoever it is. By listening to Tommy, I think we might change some of that,” Surrette added.

    “I am all for changing the $25 fee for people who are not involved in it,” Vaughn said.

    “The other day it wasn’t like that,” Surrette countered.

    “You can’t just say that you are going to have the flood program because there are several counties in the state right now that are non-compliant and facing high dollar fines because they are not administering it right,” Vaughn responded. He also reiterated that the county is not demanding utility companies to require the proof of permit, but instead asking as a courtesy.

    “Still is that not going to take away from the water association denying folks to hook up the water,” Tillman noted.

    “Don’t deny it, just tell them they need the permit,” Vaughn responded.

    “Now that is different from anything we read in the paper,” Jackson said.

    “That is different from what it is. What we passed at the last meeting has got little resemblance to what we are talking about right now, but it is not exactly what we passed before,” Surrette continued.

    “We just don’t want anybody to slip through the cracks and be penalized for something they didn’t know about,” Vaughn added.
    

Looking Ahead

    “I feel the board needs to sit down and go back and look at what we need to do to correct it. I think some of that is going to be corrected,” Tillman told Jackson.

    “We wanted to know what the penalty was for Jeff Davis if we didn’t go along with what had been printing in the paper, advising people that we will not hook your water up until you get a proper permit from the county,” Jackson added, but told supervisors that Chancery Clerk Amy McMinn told him that the utility order did not include a fine if utility companies did not comply.

    Jackson then reiterated that the water association  understands the ordinance will help provide affordable insurance for people in the flood plain, but added that the program had escalated into a revenue source for the county with the $25 fee.    

    “Absolutely not, it won’t come close to paying the administration fee,” Vaughn countered.

    Vaughn then offered to immediately vote to amend the $25 fee, only charging people who have a project in the flood plain.

    “I am willing to admit I made a mistake,” Vaughn added later in the meeting, referring to the permit fee.

    After further discussion, supervisors agreed to discuss the matter and come back at a later meeting and make changes to the ordinance.

———————–

An Editorial
—–

There Is No Way To Avoid Intrusion With Flood Ordinance

There are only three counties remaining in the state that are not enrolled in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Yalobusha County is one of these counties. In July supervisors  adopted a county flood ordinance, and final approval from the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is pending.

Hopefully the county will soon become a member of the NFIP, and our county supervisors are working diligently to make this happen. It is vital that the county be enrolled in the NFIP. Affordable flood insurance will be available through the program, which allows homeowners to receive traditional low-interest mortgages if their home is in the flood plain. Enrollment in the program also allows the county to receive federal disaster aid if a tornado, earthquake, ice storm or other natural disaster strikes the county.

But you have to take the good with the bad. As is most things with the federal government, there are plenty of bureaucratic hurdles to jump through. As part of adopting the ordinance, the county is charged with identifying any new home, mobile home, garage outbuilding, commercial building or home addition proposed in the county.

To keep track of this, four out of five supervisors voted last month in favor of creating a developer’s permit that comes with a $25 price tag.

This is new ground for the people living in Yalobusha County. You have to receive clearance before you can start construction. Keep in mind the permit does not place ANY restrictions on your project if you are outside of the flood plain. The permit is an attempt by supervisors to track construction in the county, a requirement from MEMA and FEMA.

If your project is located in the flood plain, the permit will only be the start of government regulation in your project. At this point you will have to adhere to the detailed specifications in the county’s flood ordinance. Remember, the county must regulate construction in the flood plain to remain in the NFIP.

It seems that a bigger concern from Yalobushians is the cost of the permit for people living outside the flood plain. Initially a $25 fee was set for all permits.

After a contentious board meeting on Monday, supervisors appeared willing to only charge for the permit if your proposed project is located in the flood plain. The fee could be waived if you do not live in an area at risk for flooding. This is probably a good idea, but remember that the county is required to have a flood plain coordinator to oversee the program. This is only a part-time job, but it will cost the county and the $25 fee was going to be used for paying the coordinator.

It boils down to this, if you live in the county the flood ordinance will create more government intrusion in your life. This is not the fault of the supervisors, this is mandated by FEMA and MEMA.

It is the job of our supervisors to make this ordinance work with the least intrusion possible.

And that is the challenge.

Another thing – you can’t make everybody happy all the time or even most of the time. You can bet this will be part of the political scenery next year.