Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-1997 Meeting I I I PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ROOM - March 24, 1996 3:30 p.m. PRESENT: Hons: Larry Sconyers, Mayor; H. Brigham, Chairman, Kuhlke, Mays, Zetterberg, Members; Handy, Beard, Todd, J. Brigham, Powell, Commissioners; R. Oliver, Administrator, J. Wall, Attorney, D. Atkins, Acting Fire Chief, R. Few, Fire Chief; M. Hicks, Utilities; Cpt. Jim Griffin, Sheriff's Dept.; Parsons, Board of Education; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission, and Belinda Brown of the Clerk's Office. ALSO PRESENT; Eskola, WJBF; Channel Sylvia 25. George Chronicle; Cooper, Augusta The Clerk: We have a request to add two addendum items: (1) Motion to approve 2 law clerks to be funded locally. (2) A communication from the Executive Director of the Planning Commission regarding Proposed Policy for Street Renaming. Was read. Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval. Mr. Zetterberg: Second. Motion adopted unanimously. A request to approve five additional school crossing guards. At A.R. Johnson and Lucy Laney only during the time of present construction. Tut t Middle School, Goshen Elementary and Glenn Hills Elementary, was read. Mr. Griffin: We're not here asking that any crossing guards be hired. I understand that the Sheriff's Department was approached by the Commission to look into it. The two main schools in question are A.R. Johnson, and Lucy Laney, on Laney-Walker. There are approximately 28 to 30 students that are crossing there. They are crossing from Laney in the afternoon to Mill Street. Most of the ones from A.R. Johnson cross in front of the library, I believe to cross the street. The rest of them kind of just disperse across the street or get into cars as their parents come to pick the up. There are two schools in the south part of the county, one on the south part and one in the west side. Tutt Middle and Goshen Elementary maybe an issue. There are some crossing from Tutt Middle to Joy Road that could become an issue. There are no problems existing to my knowledge. Mr. Kuhlke: request. If there are no problems, then who made the Mr. Oliver: The Sheriff's Office forwarded the request to me. I think we need a policy, and I have a basis problem with crossing guards at all at high school's, because, typically high school students pay no attention. So therefore, it doesn't serve a useful purpose. As it relates to elementary schools, I strongly agree, that it is necessary, middle schools kind of fall in a different I category. The one thing as I have noted here is that we need consistency and a policy, various communities have different arrangements for funding these, but anything we fund here will be an on going expenditure, basically forever. Mr. Parsons: As you noted, we have not, typically in the past, had crossing guards at the high schools, because they do not pay attention to where the crossing guard is, they cross where they want to. Dr. Larke asked me to convey to you that whatever the Commission decides, we will fully support, of course, with our 50% co-payment for any expenditures that are incurred. Mr. Mays: You have two crossing guards at Josey, one at Eagles Way, and one at 15th Street where the red light is, and that's every morning, it's been that way since '67, 68 and it's always been a high school, never an elementary school. Captain Griffin: Let me stand corrected on that about Laney, now that you mentioned it, there was one at what point it was removed, I'm not sure, but there was one right there at the library. Mr. H. Brigham: I think that the other issue was that there is some major renovations going on there now, and that had something to do with it. I'm almost sure there are more than 28 I people that walking to those schools. Basically, I imagine, except A.R. Johnson that transport most of theirs, I don't know what the ratio is at Laney that walk to school, but a lot of children walk up and down the street. Mr. Zetterberg: Do we need a traffic light with a button on it? If that's the case it would be a lot cheaper than $33,000.00 a year forever. Mr. H. Brigham: When I talked with Dr. Larke, he said the same thing that Mr. Parsons is saying, that if that is what they want, certainly, they would do half of it, if that is for the rest of the year, then re-evaluate it when the construction is complete. If you don't believe it, just ride through there, and the polls that we had, when we had the lottery in our building, we had 20,000 cars coming through there, if you say that's not a lot of traffic. Captain Griffin: I stand corrected Commissioner, there are approximately 42 Laney students, 8-10 on A.R. Johnson. Mr. Kuhlke: I would like to make a motion that we take the recommendation of the Administrator which is; After observing the traffic and conditions at each site, listed above, we recommend that 5 additional guards be approved. Let him take a look at this, and see if we can come up with a consistent policy as far as school I crossing guards go, in particular, look at the five schools and let . him come back to us with a recommendation after consulting with the Sheriff's Department and the Board of Education. Maybe he can do I I I that by our next Committee meeting. Mr. Zetterberg: I'll second that. Mr. Wall: Crossing guards work for the Sheriff's Department. Basically this is a responsibility of the government as opposed to the Board of Education because, Georgia law basically limits the jurisdiction of patrols for the Board of Education. Once they get off school property they do not have jurisdiction. So therefore, the jurisdiction really falls on the Sheriff's Department. For a number of years there has been an agreement between the County and the Board of Education as well as the City and the Board of Education. You all may recall that back in February 96, that you all approved a new agreement between the Board of Education and Richmond County, which basically provided for a 50/50 split of the cost of these school crossing guards, with the exception of those that were funded under the school Lunch Room Program, where the Board of Education basically reimbursed 100%. So, that has been the contractual agreement between the Board of Education. Quite frankly, it has worked well, from the stand point that we were recovering some of the cost from the Board of Education that there has been some litigation in other counties about whether the County should fund it or whether the Board of Education should fund it, and the County has always come up on the short end of it. It's worked, as far as identification for sights where guards are used and who does that, that typically has come from a joint recommendation the Sheriff's Department and the Board of Education. Mr. Oliver: The only thing I would like to get is a listing of the schools, whether elementary, middle or high school and how many guards are there to know. Mr. Mays: Was the request based on traffic in the area or was it based on public schools versus private schools. I think that if we are going to try and get a policy uniformed to deal with those schools we need to check into what the agreement was with the old City and see where the crossing guards were. Motion adopted unanimously. A motion to approve 2 law clerks to be funded from the General Fund Contingency in the amount of $44,000.00, was read. Mr. Oliver: The Judges, as you are aware have come in. There is 1 Law Clerk currently funded by the State and they have requested 4. I think that if the Commission is willing to undertake this, I think we need to look at the cases that they put through and see what this does as it relates to enhancing their ability to process cases. I would note that the amount this year that would be required from Contingency about $44,000.00, it would be $55,000.00 on an annual basis, it has to come from Contingency and we are eating away at Contingency. Mr. Kuhlke: Looking under the financial impact, it shows I $28,000.00 without benefits, on an annual basis, per clerk. And if you add benefits .to that it's about $35,000.00, and to me that equates to about $70,000.00 a year for 2 clerks. Mr. Oliver: We have to then take the reimbursements that we will get back from columbia and Burke Counties. Mr. Kuhlke: Is that something that should be finalized before we take any kind of action. Mr. Oliver: I can't answer that, Jim, suppose they say they don't want to participate in these law clerks, can they do that? Mr. Wall: I suppose they could. I don't think they will. This has been a formula that we've used on the District Attorney's office and other things and I do not think that we would have a problem with the other 2 counties. I'll be glad to speak with them. Yes, theoretically they could. Mr. Kuhlke: So that could be reduced by about 35%. Mr. Oliver: 33.75%, and I figured roughly, that would cover the benefits. Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval of the 2 law clerks subject to I the cooperation of Columbia County and Burke County based on the same percentages that they are participating now. Also, to look at the personnel structure as it stands today, to see if there are funds within that we have not hired back all of the people that we have had to hire. Mr. Zetterberg: Second. After further discussion; Motion adopted unanimously. A Communication Commission regarding read. from the Executive Director of the Planning Proposed Policy for Street Renaming, was Mr. Oliver: There seems to be increasing interest in the renaming of streets, roads and highways in Georgia. Several of the State routes have been renamed by Georgia DOT, and we have had several requests to rename local streets. While renaming may be appropriate to commemorate a person, place or event, it is also certain to cause problems. Some of the problems that are caused are as follows:. -problems related to the loss of name continuity for emergency 1-' vehicles, service providers, tourists and others; -problems for residents related to accounts, stationary, advertising and others; I I I -problems related to the meaning of the current name, which might be due to its historical significance, or the "tradition",'(i.e. the role in the structure or identity of the community); -problems related to the proposed name (i.e., would the name be accepted); -the public cost of renaming-signage, map changes, address changes and record charges. For these reasons, I believe that a policy should be adopted for considering all future requests to rename streets, roads, and highways within Augusta-Richmond County. I recommend that an evaluation of each request against three criteria serve as the basis for this policy. The first criteria would relate to the significance of the existing name. If the existing name has local (areawide), state, or national significance, or if the name strongly relates to the structure or identity of the surrounding community, then I believe that a change should not be considered for 100 years after the original naming. The second criteria would relate to the proposed name. At a minimum it should commemorate a person, event, or place or areawide, state or national significance and it should be acceptable to a majority of the owners of property adjoining the street. A petition containing the signatures of 51 percent of such property owners should be required to accompany the request. The third criteria would relate to continuity. If the proposal involves a street or a street segment in a continuous street system ) i. e ., Berckmans Road/Highland Avenue/Wheeler Road/Ruby Drive) then it should not be considered. If it is a free standing street with defined terminus, or if it is an entire street system, then it could be acceptable, pending an evaluation of the other two criteria. I recommend that the procedure for this evaluation be as follows: -name change request is submitted to Administrator, who passes it on to Planning Commission; -Planning Commission informs proposer of information needed and upon receipt perform evaluation based upon the criteria; -If the minimum requirements of the criteria are not met, then the petitioner is so informed and no additional action is taken. If the criteria are met, then the Planning Commission holds a public hearing in the area where the change is proposed; -a report is written summarizing the evaluation and the public hearing and presented to the petitioner and the Administrator; . -request is considered by the Engineering Services Committee, and forwarded to the Commission for final decision. Mr. Kuh'ke. 1 mocion ChaC we accepC Chi' aa informacion and maybe puc on che Agenda for our nexC committee meeting to conaider. Just giving us a ~hance to look it over. I Mr. zetterberg: second. Motion adopted unanimouslY. """0-' with no further bu,ine" to di'cu'" the meeting was adjourned. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of commission bjb I 1