Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disaster Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances 'Strengthen Mississippi Homes' mitigation program funded by insurer fee increase
Summary
The Senate Insurance Committee advanced Senate Bill 2413, renaming and revising the hurricane‑mitigation program to fund home and commercial property wind‑strengthening using an increased insurer‑paid agent fee; debate centered on eligibility, building codes and contractor certification.
The Senate Insurance Committee on May 20 advanced Senate Bill 2413, a multi‑part mitigation measure that would expand and rename the state’s hurricane‑mitigation effort to "Strengthen Mississippi Homes" and fund it by raising a per‑agent insurer fee.
Under the committee substitute described by sponsors, the bill removes earlier proposed diversions from the state wind‑pool and focuses on grants and retrofits aimed at reducing wind damage to homes and eligible commercial property. Committee discussion said the state wind‑pool holds roughly $440 million in assets and that last year the Legislature appropriated $5 million into the mitigation fund.
The bill would increase a company‑paid per‑agent fee from $25 to $50; the sponsor said the additional $25 per agent would be dedicated to the mitigation program and that, based on current counts of approximately 720,000 agent entries, the change would generate roughly $18 million annually. Sponsors said the program expects to reserve $15 million as an annual spending target and any funds in excess would lapse to the general fund.
Mitigation measures described in committee include roof sheathing repairs (decking waterproofing and screw fasteners), window fortification with shutters or strengthened glazing, and other retrofits that conform to IBHS (Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety) standards. The sponsor said the program prioritizes homes, but may include commercial properties such as poultry houses, where modest expenditures could reduce catastrophic loss.
Committee members pressed the commissioner and sponsor on program design questions: whether eligibility should be limited to jurisdictions that have adopted and enforce modern building codes or “code‑plus” standards (an approach used in neighboring states), how contractors would be qualified and selected, and whether mitigation dollars would be reimbursed to homeowners or paid directly to contractors. The insurer commissioner said approved contractors and third‑party inspectors would be used and that the state has started mitigation pilots on the Gulf Coast; he opposed an amendment that would restrict eligibility to jurisdictions with adopted codes, advising such changes be handled separately.
IBHS‑approved contractors: the commissioner said three contractors had IBHS approval at the time of the hearing and additional applicants were in process. Sponsors stressed workforce and contractor availability limit the annual number of retrofits.
Motion and procedural action: the committee adopted a motion ‘‘Title sufficient to pass, committee substitute’’ and SB 2413 was reported from committee.
Why it matters: supporters said targeted mitigation reduces losses across neighborhoods, encourages insurers to return to the market and protects lives and property; skeptics argued broader code adoption and enforcement would produce larger, systemic risk reductions than the program’s initial scope of roughly 1,000 homes a year.
Next steps: SB 2413 was reported and will proceed for further Senate consideration.
