LAGRANGE CITY COUNCIL FACES TOUGH DECISION ON CITY HALL SIGN

The LaGrange City Council convened on May 4, 2009 for its regularly scheduled monthly meeting. While many people refer to the meetings as a circus I see many positive things in the meetings. The Council seems to conduct more of its business at the meetings as opposed to the county Fiscal Court seemingly conducting a lot of business behind the scenes. I prefer the open style of the Council as it gives the public a clearer view of the government and is easier to understand.

City Attorney Graham Whatley revealed that the County Stormwater District alleges that the city owes $3000 in stormwater fees for the golf course while the city claims that it does not pay taxes on city property. The city will continue to refuse to pay the tax/fee.

Councilwoman Jean Knight wanted the Mayor to add a “New Business” section to the agenda which the mayor refused to do. She did state that in the future she will send the agenda to the council members prior to the meetings and they can request that particular items can be added to the agenda as long as they provide information to other members of the council and the Mayor regarding the issue. The Mayor stated that she wants to avoid items being placed on the agenda during the meetings because the council does not have sufficient information to discuss the issues.

When the Mayor refused to allow the “New Business” added to the agenda there was an attempt by Jean Knight and Jason Taylor to adjourn the meeting but that seemed to be defrayed by Councilman Tom Goldsmith. This was done in the form of a “Motion to Adjourn” and a “second to the motion. However, there was no vote on the motion.

The major issue of the evening was the new sign that was recently installed in front of City Hall by the LaGrange parks department. The sign replaced the original sign and was slightly larger. Blake Hazelton made a presentation in behalf of the parks department. Hazelton claimed that the sign met the requirements of the relevant ordinance. However, Gary Williams made an outstanding presentation in behalf of the Historical Society. He showed that the parks department failed to get approval of the sign, that the parks department failed to obtain the proper permit for the sign, and that the sign did not meet the requirements of the relevant ordinances. Above all, his presentation was even handed and well presented. The Historical Commission is lucky to have him.

The City Council is really caught in the middle of this issue and will likely receive bad publicity, no matter how they decide the issue. If they vote to allow the sign to remain, then other people will want to be given the same treatment and that would defeat the purpose of the Historical Commission. If the council requires the sign to be removed, it will be accused of wasting $11,000 of taxpayer money.

Frankly, the fact that cost of the sign was 11,000 seems like a crime to me. Some things never change – there must be enough money spent in projects to take care of everyone. Probably the best solution in this instance would be for the parks department to modify the sign enough to bring it within compliance with the relevant ordinances. That will likely cost some more money but it would be the only fair thing to do. The parks department certainly should not receive preferential treatment over average citizens. The council, at the urging of Councilman Tom Goldsmith, decided to hold a public hearing on the issue at the next regularly scheduled council meeting which will be on April 6, 2009.