Aldermen Reverse Course, Approve Golf Cart Ordinance
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
WATER VALLEY – A month after rejecting the measure, city aldermen voted unanimously to approve an ordinance allowing the operation of golf carts that are modified with blinkers and headlights to be operated on certain streets inside the city limits. The 4–0 vote came during the Board of Aldermen’s monthly meeting on Oct. 7 at city hall, reversing a 3–2 vote against the same proposal in September.
The change followed a renewed appeal from city resident Eddie Foster, who urged the board to take action after more than a year of uncertainty surrounding the ordinance.
“People who don’t know what this is — it has lights, horn, seat belts, turn signals, flashers, things like that,” Foster explained, describing the safety equipment required for golf carts to be classified as legal on streets under the new ordinance.
Foster also recapped the ordinance’s year-long history, noting that Police Chief Jason Mangrum first presented a draft ordinance in August 2024, when the former board voted to approve the use of street-legal golf carts on designated roads.
“Since that time, a year has gone by, and no such ordinance was ever written or released to the public,” Foster said. “We thought the ordinance with restrictions was forthcoming. It has not been forthcoming. Apparently, the board wanted to change its mind last year — which was a different board.”
Foster said he and several others purchased street-legal golf carts after that 2024 vote, believing the ordinance was in effect. He again asked aldermen to formally adopt the measure so residents could legally operate their carts on city streets.
During the Sept. 5 meeting, Alderman Grant Thompson and Alderman Joe Magnuson had made a motion to approve an ordinance that included a child safety seat requirement, but the motion failed on a 3–2 vote, with Alderperson Nicole Folson, Alderman Demetrius Ingram, and Alderman Herbie Rogers voting against it. Rogers, who had been the most vocal opponent, cited safety concerns as a first responder and said he had worked multiple fatal wrecks on side streets in the city.
When the board revisited the topic this month, Rogers was absent from the meeting.
Before the vote, Folson asked City Attorney Daniel Martin whether the city would face any liability if a crash occurred involving a golf cart.
“They are responsible for the vehicle they are driving,” Martin said, explaining that the city would not bear liability for privately owned street-legal carts operated on approved roads.
Mayor Tommy Reynolds reminded the board that the ordinance already includes safety requirements for children.
“The ordinance requires safety features as we do require for moving vehicles akin to automobiles,” Reynolds said.
“Children’s safety was one of the main concerns.”
Thompson then made a motion to revisit and approve the previously failed draft. Magnuson seconded, and the motion passed 4–0, with Rogers absent. The ordinance will take effect later this fall and restricts operation to city streets, not higher-speed highways inside the city limits.
Other activity in the October meeting:
Calhoun Street Resident Seeks More Time In Fence Dispute
Calhoun Street resident Elizabeth Smith requested additional time in an ongoing dispute over a fence she began erecting on her property.
Smith was notified of the problem by Building Inspector Will Carter, who determined that the fence encroached on a city right-of-way. During the September meeting, aldermen granted her a temporary stay of enforcement to allow City Attorney Martin time to research the issue.
“I am requesting another stay of enforcement on the fence that I started to erect on my property,” Smith told the board last week. She explained that the dispute centers on a portion of land along Judson Drive, which she described as a privately owned driveway shared by multiple property owners — including herself.
“Will tried to prevent me from putting it up, making claims that there was some sort of right-of-way or easement,” Smith said. “I realized that Judson Drive is a private drive. It is owned by multiple families.”
Smith said her main reason for building the fence was to prevent further erosion and flooding.
“The road is a gravel, sand-filled road that continues to wash into my ditch,” she explained. “I have already spent $1,600 cleaning it out a couple of years ago, and now it is filled up again. The city does not maintain any of the ditches around Water Valley and has not done any maintenance on the ditch behind my property in the last seven years that I have owned it.”
“If I move it back, it will be in the ditch, and it’s not going to hold,” she said. “I relied on the city permit and was told I didn’t follow the ordinance. My metes and bounds description supersedes any plat map. How can the city claim partial easement on a private driveway?”
Mayor Reynolds asked Martin to summarize his findings after reviewing city and county records. Martin said he examined city minutes, courthouse documents, and also conducted a site inspection.
“I did not see anything that jumped out at me as an easement,” Martin said. “But there is a Judson Drive sign at the end of the road. There are three dwellings on that road, and I saw mailboxes and trash cans there — meaning that the U.S. Postal Service and our trash collection services are using that road as public ingress and egress.”
Martin added that both the city and county have performed maintenance on the road for many years.
“For about 50 years, this has been used as a city street,” he said.
Reynolds agreed, noting, “It has been used as a public road.”
Martin emphasized that the city’s primary concern was maintaining access for emergency responders.
“We have certain requirements for the width of our streets or alleys,” Martin said. “That’s what our building inspector was trying to ensure — that we have enough width to get fire trucks or other emergency vehicles back to those homes.”
Smith told officials she has about a $3,000 investment in the project.
“If y’all push this, I am going to have to stand up for my property rights,” she said.
Discussions between Smith and Martin continued outside the board room to find a way to reach a resolution.
Wagner Lots Discussion
A lengthy discussion during the meeting centered on city-owned property on Wagner Street, where aldermen reviewed a proposal to declare four front lots surplus and offer them for sale. The lots would be sold through a competitive open-bid process.
Mayor Reynolds and City Attorney Martin explained potential conditions for the sale of the lots, noting that the new residences would be required to reflect a southern architectural style, be at least 1,400 square feet in size, and feature a full-width front porch supported by columns. Each lot would carry a minimum sales price of $25,000.
Reynolds said the funding from the sale of the property could be needed if the city is awarded a $1.5 million sidewalk grant that was recently applied for and requires $300,000 in matching funds from the city if awarded.
“We would have the option to refuse all bids,” Martin added about selling the lots.
Alderman Magnuson said both a resident in his ward and a member of the planning commission had asked that the commission have an opportunity to review and offer input on the proposal.
“It has been unused for 34 years, and we are trying to get more residential property for people to live on,” Reynolds countered. “There is a desire to have this taken care of.”
Magnuson added that the planning commission had seen earlier plans for the potential development and may favor a denser housing concept.
“The mayor and I talked about the possibility of townhouses. But due to the current demographics of those wanting to move to Water Valley and invest here, the need appears to be single-family dwellings. Per that need, that is what we zoned it for,” Martin said.
Alderman Thompson said he had received similar feedback as Magnuson.
“The only comment that I really have is the same as Joe,” he said. “I had people from the planning commission reach out. They just want input.”
“If we lack matching funds, we just lack them,” Reynolds said about selling the property to generate income for the sidewalk grant. “But input is always welcome,” Reynolds said. “On any competitive bid, you do have the opportunity to reject any and all bids.”
Alderperson Folson also supported delaying a decision.
“I agree with Grant and Joe,” she said. “If the planning commission is wanting to review, I think we should allow them.”
“Why don’t we just table this?” Reynolds said. “It has been unused for 30 years. If it is unused for 30 more, it won’t be a change.”
“If the planning commission is allowed to review this in a timely manner, then we can move forward,” Folson added.
“Certainly, I think we have an excellent planning commission and I have confidence in them,” Reynolds said.
“There is a great need for housing opportunities in the city. We need more Water Vallians, and people want to come here.”
“I’m not saying that we should go with or against the planning commission’s plans,” Thompson added. “I’ve just had a lot of constituents come to me and say they at least want the planning commission’s input on what we do with the land.”
The issue was tabled.
