|
<br />A Closer Look: Jefferson City
<br />
<br />Allen Garner, city attorney for Jefferson City, reflects on the difference
<br />between the 1993 flood and the 1995 event:
<br />"When the 1993 flood occurred, our first response was trying to protect
<br />people and their possessions, both from the river and from vandals. We
<br />spent hours and hours in overtime, sandbagging and patrolling. In the '95
<br />flood we had no overtime. Part of it was because the flood waters didn't
<br />,
<br />get as high. Another factor was the lessons we learned in '93... what to do,
<br />how to do it and when to do it.
<br />"But, equally important, says Garner, was the buyout program, which
<br />removed hundreds of people from a floodplain area known as Cedar City.
<br />"You can look over and see where there were 400 or 500 people living in
<br />1993," says Garner. "Now, we have 6 people there. We could make
<br />personal phone calls to those people and say 'What do you need?'"
<br />Garner says that of the 115 structures bought out, most would have
<br />experienced significant flood damage again in 1995.
<br />"If you just do the math, you can see the wisdom of the buyout program,"
<br />he says. "Suppose, after 1993, we had done nothing to solve the problem of
<br />repetitive flooding. We would have had the same people in the same
<br />situation again this year.
<br />"Garner estimates the amount of flood insurance and disaster assistance
<br />would have totaled more than halfthe cost of the $2.6 million allocated to
<br />Jefferson City for the residential buyout project.
<br />But, buyouts are about more than just dollars.
<br />"If you look at it from a people standpoint, there was a lot of personal
<br />attachment to these properties," says Garner. "Some people were skeptical
<br />at first about whether they should participate in the program.
<br />"For those who did, says Gamer, a second l00-year flood two years later
<br />convinced them they made the right decision.
<br />"There were no regrets this year," says Garner. "Most of the folks ended
<br />up in better housing. They were looking forward to relocating far from
<br />harm's way.
<br />
<br />TABLE:
<br />Individual Assistance in Jefferson City (as of 7/14/95)
<br />Number of Disaster IndiViduaV SBA
<br />Applicants Housing Family Grants
<br />473 $602,512 $338,837
<br />53 $41,378 $ 4,215
<br />
<br />loans
<br />1993
<br />1995
<br />
<br />$493,800
<br />$131,300
<br />
<br />Jefferson City participated in the buyout program, with about $3.7 million
<br />in federal, state and city funds to spend on $2.6 million on residential and
<br />$1.1 million commercial property.
<br />So far, nearly $2 million has been spent to buy about 115 homes and four
<br />commercial properties in north Jefferson City. A handful of other residen-
<br />tial property owners - some spurred by this year's flooding. are in the
<br />process of selling to the city.
<br />Demolition of the old Cedar City community is under way, and the city
<br />eventually plans to use the land for recreation purposes.
<br />Allen Gamer, acting city administrator, said the wisdom of the buyout
<br />was proven this year. If all north Jefferson City residents had returned to
<br />their homes after 1993 and been hit by this year's flood, the amount of flood
<br />insurance and disaster assistance paid this year would have totaled more
<br />than half the cost of the buyout, he said,
<br />
<br />IV. Local Control
<br />through Collaboration
<br />
<br />As Congress authorized the
<br />buyout program, the stage was set
<br />for an opportunity to showcase
<br />intergovernmental partnerships.
<br />With federal money administered by
<br />FEMA, the states were able to
<br />develop their own policies and tailor
<br />the program to meet their own
<br />specific needs. County and munici-
<br />pal governments could then assess
<br />their own needs and design a
<br />program that would assist them in
<br />mitigating future flood disasters. At
<br />all levels, the singular goal was
<br />breaking the expensive cycle of
<br />flooding and rebuilding in high-risk
<br />areas.
<br />Sharing the Challenge, (known as
<br />the Galloway Report), was a White
<br />House exploration of the govern.
<br />ment response to the flood of 1993.
<br />It had this to say: "Implementation
<br />of buyouts has not been without
<br />problems. Federal agencies had to
<br />overcome significant obstacles to
<br />make the initiative work...Since no
<br />federal or state agency had ever
<br />attempted buyouts on this scale,
<br />agencies had to invent policies and
<br />procedures and establish relation.
<br />ships between programs. They had
<br />to create mechanisms to coordinate
<br />programs and provide technical
<br />assistance to small communities
<br />with limited resources and expertise.
<br />They also had to develop expedited
<br />procedures for compliance with the
<br />National Environmental Protection
<br />Act (NEPA), historic preservation
<br />and other federal mandates.
<br />"In spite of the problems consis-
<br />tent with the start-up of such a
<br />massive program, the Missouri
<br />program has been a timely success.
<br />Because it was expedited, it accom-
<br />plished a purpose (articulated in the
<br />Galloway report) of reducing the
<br />uncertainty of property owners and
<br />avoiding needless expenditures for
<br />repairs to houses that were subse.
<br />
|