The Webster Progress-Times

WALTHALL - Supervisors have agreed to repay the state part of the inspection fees Webster County received in a federally funded housing program but not without protest.

They and other officials discussed the matter at length during the Board of Supervisors' recessed meeting Friday.

The issue involved the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which is funded through federal block grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is administered by the Mississippi Development Authority at the state level and the Golden Triangle Planning and Development District in this area. The program constructs new houses for low- income homeowners who are living in substandard conditions.

Patsy Patterson, GTPDD housing specialist, said at the meeting that houses funded since 2005 were involved in a HUD review last year of grant programs administered statewide by MDA. This was the first such review in years.

Following field visits/monitoring of HOME structures statewide by HUD officials, she said the agency demanded that the Development Authority pay back the money designated for the original house inspections for construction mistakes which HUD claimed the original inspectors should have caught.

In turn, the MDA is seeking reimbursement for part of that money from recipient counties/cities. Additionally, the authority has declared that counties not complying will be ineligible to apply for other MDA grants until they do so.

Patterson said HUD found only cosmetic violations in two houses built in Webster County that did not violate any building codes and which have been corrected or resolved. She also said that some of the citations were for work done according to HUD plans and for changes made by the homeowners after they moved in.

However, because they did not meet HUD's housing rehabilitation standards upon inspection, the MDA is still requiring the county to repay $1,000. That amount represents one-third of the local inspector's fees for two houses.

The county board contracted with Randy Jones of West Point to inspect the five houses funded for construction here in the last HOME round. Patterson said Jones challenged the charges that his inspections were not thorough and MDA placing his name on a list of barred inspectors.

"We've been unable to get anywhere in our arguments with the state," said Patterson, adding later. "MDA felt HUD mistreated them and we feel MDA is mistreating us by trying to recoup some of its money."

Jones sat in on the discussion along with Steve Hardin, director of MDA'S Community Services Division; and Cynthia Wilson, executive director of the Webster County Development Council.

Patterson told Hardin that the main complaint Jones and the county had was MDA's contention that Jones' inspections were not thorough and did not meet HUD rehabilitation standards. Also, even though only three inspections were required for each house, Jones said he made 10 or 12 trips to inspect them.

"I feel like we've had poor guidance from HUD on standards," Patterson said. "They've never given us anything in writing. ... We don't feel like (the Webster County citations) were anything major."

Jones said he had not been told of any problems with his inspections until Hardin sent a letter dated Oct. 30 to the county board seeking the reimbursement.

"I'm not perfect (but) HUD needs to answer to somebody," he said. "It's grossly unfair the way they've treated this situation. ... I vehemently disagree with HUD's stand on this."

Hardin said he understood their position but that HUD's direction was that MDA must make the counties pay the money back. He also said Webster County had not been treated differently than any of the other counties. However, Hardin did add that he wished HUD had taken a "coaching approach" in its monitoring.

Board members eventually agreed that since HUD had already received its money back from the state, it would not change its position, and that the county could not afford to lose future grants over $1,000.

Charles McClellan (District 5) made a motion to repay MDA the $1,000 in response to Hardin's letter and Mart Salley (District 2) seconded it, with unanimous approval given.

Hardin said Jones could still inspect the houses not yet built locally. He also said that after the county pays the money to MDA, he would provide a letter stating that all issues are resolved and that Jones would be cleared to conduct inspections as it relates to Webster County as long as he was properly licensed.