Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fema Buyout topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County lawyers say FEMA buyout program would require local purchase, leaving county on hook for 25%
Summary
County Attorney told commissioners that a FEMA mitigation program would reimburse 75% of a buyout but requires the county to purchase property at fair market value, pay 25% and demolition costs and accept permanent deed restrictions; staff and a homeowner urged more time to evaluate costs and deadlines.
County Attorney Morrison told the Suwannee County Board of County Commissioners on Dec. 16 that a FEMA land-purchase mitigation program that removes repeatedly flooded properties from the tax rolls reimburses about 75% of the combined cost but requires the local government to buy the property at fair market value and pay the remaining 25% plus demolition costs.
Morrison said the FEMA paperwork treats acquisition as an arms‑length purchase, which means the county would have to pay fair market value even if earlier discussions assumed homeowners would contribute the 25% match. He warned that any attempt to understate values or have owners 'kick back' the 25% on the FEMA application would be fraudulent, and that accepted grants would carry long deed restrictions turning the land into permanent green space.
The explanation came after residents and commissioners raised concerns about the program’s financial implications. Resident Vicki Waters described a brick house on two acres that flooded repeatedly and said she gathered photos and videos documenting the damage. Commissioners asked whether state programs such as Elevate Florida could cover the local match; staff said Elevate Florida had limited windows and that some mitigation money had been set aside but that the FEMA land-purchase program’s rules differ.
County staff and contract consultants said the grant process includes rapid request‑for‑information (RFI) timelines and that deadlines could sometimes be extended; staff recommended seeking additional time and more analysis before committing the county. Commissioners asked staff to return the issue at a subsequent meeting with estimates of potential county exposure and available state matches.
Next steps: the board directed staff to research options, check whether state or mitigation funds could reduce the county’s 25% obligation, and return the topic to the next meeting for further consideration.
