The Eupora Board of Aldermen has rejected a proposed Environmental Nuisance Ordinance.
Leading up to last month’s decision, no action was taken when aldermen first considered the issue on June 6. That night, the Eupora Property Maintenance Committee had asked them to set the first public hearing to revise the city’s blight, litter, noise, exterior property maintenance and junk vehicle ordinances, and to create a comprehensive document titled “Environmental Nuisance Ordinance.”
The board did vote June 14 to set a public hearing to discuss revising the existing nuisance ordinances, combining them into the aforementioned one, on July 11 and to set a second public hearing, with consideration (board vote afterwards), on Aug. 1. No objections were heard at either hearing, which were held in conjunction with the more controversial Rental Inspection Ordinance.
On Aug. 1, the board voted to table the item until Aug. 15. After discussion on the latter date, the board voted to table the item again until Sept. 6. Mayor Blake McMullan, on Sept. 3, posted on Facebook that he had asked the board to table the proposal of the Environmental Nuisance Ordinance.
“With all the discussion on the rental ordinance (which was accepted Aug. 15), I wanted to give the public one more chance to speak on the Environmental Nuisance Ordinance. Whether you are for or against, we need your voice to be heard on this matter,” he wrote, and posted a link to the proposal on the city’s website.
During the time set aside for citizen comments at the Sept. 6 board meeting, Anne Ross, Evelyn Mann, John Mann and Jim Brown spoke against the ordinance. Ross, reading from a prepared statement, said the proposal did not need to be passed.
“It is a huge overreach of municipal power,” she stated. “Remedies are already available to Eupora’s Board of Aldermen under existing Mississippi statute. This radical ordinance, which may go over in a city like Madison, is not suitable for our small town.”
Ray Beeson, chair of the Property Maintenance Committee, spoke for the ordinance, stating that it clarifies all ordinances and needs to be enforced. Public Works Director Odie Avery, responding to some of the negative comments made, pointed out that the regulations in the proposal already exist in separate ordinances, but were not being enforced. His duties include serving as code enforcement officer.
“If you compare it to existing ordinances, they’re very similar,” said Avery, adding that it included an appeal process to the Board of Aldermen.
When the five aldermen later considered the proposal, Billy Tabb (Ward 2) offered a motion to reject the ordinance as amended. Robert Gibbs (Ward 4) seconded with all aldermen except Ricky Newton of Ward 3 voting aye, and the motion passed 4-1.
In making his motion, Tabb said it appeared that half the people wanted it and half didn’t (blight enforcement), but that he thought the ordinance was too strict.
“We spend too much time on this,” he said.
The day after, the Eupora Property Maintenance Committee posted this statement on its Facebook page:
“On Sept. 6, the board rejected passage of the proposed environmental ordinance which combines all property ordinances in one document and adds clarification and appeals process.
“You can read the proposed and the current ordinances, which remain in force, here: https://www.cityofeupora.com/ordinances
“These current ordinances do not have a grace period as was recommended with the new proposed ordinance to provide education to the public. These ordinances have been in force for several years, so the public has had ample time to know and understand, regardless of the lack of enforcement.
“The city will also apply Mississippi Code 21-19-11 where current ordinances require support.”
A link was provided to that code, which is summarized as follows: “Determination that property or parcel of land is menace; authorized municipal employee may make the determination that property or parcel of land is menace under certain circumstances; notification to property owner; hearing; cleaning private property; cost and penalty as assessment against property; appeal.”
