HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-1997 Meeting
I
I
I
ILLEGAL DUMPING
SUBCOMMITTEE
COMMITTEE ROOM - February 25, 1997
9:00 A.M.
PRESENT: Hons. Todd, Chairman; Beard, Bridges,
Administrator; J. Wall, Attorney; Steve Smith,
Department; David Smith, Landfill; Harry Hartley,
Department.
R. Oliver,
Marshall's
Sanitation
ALSO PRESENT: Rosemary Forrest, Metro Spirit; Paul Garber, Augusta
Chronicle.
Mr. Todd: We are here today to discuss illegal dumping clean-
up. I have copies of the recommendations and proposals. I pulled
some ,suggestions together from the meetings we had on the mandatory
sanitation service delivery and added the funding source to that.
Mr. Bridges:
I think this summarizes everything I've heard.
Mr. Greene: On the $25,000, for the clean-up, would this be
used for the clean-up of illegal dumping on private property?
Mr. Todd: No sir, this is proposed to be used for the clean-
up on right -of -way and public property, and we have a lot of
illegal dumping that's on the city-county right-of-way. Looking at
the urban district where they pile it up in front of a vacant lot
on the right-of-way in the areas where someone is living there we
have a way of somewhat policing that and getting them to move it,
or making a case and moving it and using the monies that we get
from the case to pay for it. But this would be on public properties
and right-of-ways in the urban and suburban district.
Mr. Hartley: On private properties, how is that going to be
turned over to us as far as letters giving us authorization to go
on these private properties?
Mr. Todd: We would do it through code enforcement at the
License and Inspection Department. The person out there would go
out and investigate it, do the proper notification to the property
owner and after the time line to handle it, would make a case and
we take them into the courts, and at that point, if they haven't
cleaned it up we would hopefully get a favorable ruling from the
court system and go from there.
Mr. Oliver: What are we proposing on private property?
Mr. Wall: It's part of the code and part of the County
ordinance which is included in the part that was given preliminary
approval and will be going forward in the next two meetings for the
Commission to approve. (1) is through criminal enforcement and that
notification process is posted on the property, (2) the process of
notifying the property owner to clean-up and if they fail to do
that, County forces are authorized to go in there and clean it up
and attach a lien against the property.
Mr. Oliver:
are talking about,
is cleaned up in
illegally dumping.
So people will basically under the proposal we
be responsible for insuring their own property
the absence of there being someone caught
I
Mr. Wall: That's right. The cost is going back against the
private property owner.
Mr. Bridges: On this private property, will this be like a
one time shot for a thirty day window for somebody to report where
someone has illegally dumped on their property and for county
forces to go in and clean it up and take it to the landfill,
without any fee to the land owner. Since we have the deputies out
there enforcing, go ahead and clean up these areas that have been
reported to us that you can't see from the shoulder of the road.
Clean it up, with no penalties.
Mr. Oliver: We will be totally overwhelmed and the problem
will be that we can't do it in a short period of time when it comes
back, and I think that the ladies sofa and chair is a good example.
I went out and cleaned that up, and within three days, it was
another one back. And we wouldn't be able to keep track of where
we have been and where we have cleaned up, and it will start
appearing again.
Mr. Beard:
very massive.
Do we really realize the problem we have. It is
I
Mr. Todd: I'll agree as far as private sector clean-ups,
going on private property. What's out there on the right-of-way now
with good code enforcement with the Marshal's Department citing
those that have it out in front of property and cleaning up what's
in front of vacant lots on the right-of-way where you have an
answer property owner or the government owns the property, I think
it could work.
Mr. Beard: I think we have two problems here; you have a
right-of-way problem and you have the private property dumping. I
you have to deal with each of these as separate entities and that
is the only way to get it straightened out. Just in the urban
areas you have a lot of dumping on vacant lots. The problem I have
is with charging people for their lot. I know that everybody is
responsible for their own lot. I am also aware, and I think Harry
is too, that in the urban area you have a lot of people dumping on
these lots and it's a continuous thing, and I don't see how you can
continuously fine property owners when other people are dumping on
their lots, when it's being done in the urban and suburban areas.
Mr. Todd: I think the prevention part of it will take care of
that. If you have $10,000 there, at $10.00 each for anyone that's I
reported, I think some folks would report illegal dumping. And I
think that we are going for legislation to do something about their
I
I
I
vehicles, even if it's to hold the vehicle until they do the
community service. I think the community service is going to be
part of the prevention or as far as the ordinance goes. So it's
not going to work just one side, just going in to clean up and do
nothing about the education side or the enforcement side. And we
have a situation that's on automatic pilot as far as the illegal
dumping issue goes. I feel we need to do something about the slum
lords, as far as building code enforcement goes.
Mr Beard: I think you have two different problems and I think
you have to deal with them separately. With the right-of-ways, I
think that can be controlled with the enforcement and if you have
someone out there continuously monitoring these right-of-ways. I
think that if you have the inmates and that type of thing
continuously policing the right-of-ways, you would at least keep
that pretty well occupied. I talked with the people from the Board
of Education and they were utilizing some people from RCCI, and
they turned that back in, that is another thing that we could start
with. If Randy can contact them at the Board of Education, they
have a bus, they have the guards and utilize the inmates. We could
start that somewhere, reasonably, and I'm sure that with the right
negotiation we could probably get that bus for $1.00.
Mr. Greene: As far as the right-of-way, we're working right
now with the courts and RCCI. We have a driver with a dump truck
that we make available every Saturday. Mr. Leverett at RCCI has
one of his officers working with the courts and the community
service people. They work eight hours every Saturday, picking up
litter and etc., on the public right-of-ways. What Steve has
recommended, is that we add two more drivers and he can get the
community service people to do this every Saturday, the only cost
would be for fuel and overtime for the drivers of the dump trucks,
,as the people pick up the litter go ahead and put it on the
vehicles.
Mr. Todd: We are not only talking about litter, we're talking
about white goods and furniture, tires and the big stuff.
Mr. Greene: Even on the right -of -ways, people are dumping
wherever they pull up, it's not even on private lots.
Mr. Oliver: We need to catch a couple of these and bust them
good. And we need to make a big issue in the media with it. And
the judge has got to cooperate. $1,000.00 fine, if they lose their
vehicle, thirty days of community service picking up trash. If we
can get a couple of high profile cases to start, I think we can get
perhaps get a shot at it.
Mr. Todd: Is everybody in agreement on the funding source
that we start with $35,000.00, $10,000, for prevention and $25,000,
for the initial clean-up. $10,000 is to be reward money for folks
that turn in individuals for illegal dumping that are arrested and
convicted.
Mr. Oliver:
public Works has
Landfill.
I would like to do one thing, the cost that
to do the clean-up should be charged to the
I
Mr. David Smith: As we said before $25,000 isn't going to go
very far. We may as well put $50,000 in there to begin with.
Mr. Todd: We can do the $50,000 and if we don't need it we'll
put it back in the contingency fund.
Mr. David Smith: We might want to consider the spring and
fall clean-up by residents with some kind of incentive to bring it
to the Landfill.
Mr. Todd: We can work with the Augusta Clean & Beautiful
Committee as far as the prevention side goes and get them involved
as far as putting the trailers out or whatever. We may want to use
some of that $50,000, to go that route on the neighborhood clean-
ups so it wouldn't end up on the streets. We need to have a
procedure and a policy, so we all agree on the $50,000 we are
proposing, with $10,000 going to the reward money for prevention,
using the hot line number, and paid upon conviction. Let's move to
where the case will go.
Mr. Wall: Let's talk about the minimum fine. Right now I
think that is also the maximum fine that there can be absence of
additional legislation. $1,000.00, is the maximum on misdemeanors I
absence of additional legislation. You will need additional
legislation in so far as confiscation of the vehicles. It will take
state legislation, in so far as the maximum fine, and is that
something that you want to address to both get a higher maximum
fine than a $1,000.00, as well as the authority to confiscate. I
have some concern about it being cost effective to confiscate the
vehicle, the deterrent effect may be worth the cost.
Mr. Oliver: David tells me that in his opinion, that if it's
a commercial hauler that does it for more than one person and that
it's more than their own trash, that capability already exist, that
it is a felony. The question is proof, and what I would like to do
is set up a system that says, that if it's more than 200 or 300
pounds of trash or some number, how do we delineate between
commercial and residential, that gets tricky.
Mr. David Smith: If a person is in the business and dumping
a commercial type waste, such as we caught someone dumping out
waste one time, and we have caught several roofing companies, and
people of that nature, you know that those are commercial
instances.
Mr. Wall: I'm not sure the code provides it, but we should
revoke their business license.
Mr. Oliver:
Municipal Court?
Steve, do you have a problem with these going to
Because we have an issue there too, with there
I
I
I
I
not being enough activity in that Court, and if we are going to
step up enforcement, it may be a way to enhance activity in that
Court to meet our need.
Mr. Wall: The agency that writes the citations are the ones
who determine where it's returnable. The Marshal's Department
actually comes under the Civil Court, so the direction for him corne
through the judges and indirectly through you (Commission) You
will need to have the cooperation from the judges.
Mr. Todd: I would like to think that we could go to the lead
Civil Court Judge and say this is what we want to do or need to do,
and that we could probably work it out so that it would be a win-
win situation for everybody. The Civil Courts are constitutional
courts and through constitutional authority, and the Municipal
Court is not. But I think we can work something out as far as the
cases are concerned and there would be no additional work load.
Mr. Wall: The code enforcement in so far as licensing and
inspection, yes, those people work directly for you, (Commission)
so those cases could be written and cited in, Municipal Court,
county wide.
Mr. Steve Smith: I have spoken with Judge Jennings about this
already and he has agreed to work with us far as what we need to do
with cases. We have set up a schedule to cash bonds already for
these cases that oppose substantial bonds if the people decide to
forfeit on littering and no cover, and not corne to court. However,
we made dumping an automatic offense that you must appear in court
on, so the Judge and hear the details on the case and make a
determination on the punishment at that time. This is assuming the
cases go to Magistrate Court. Concerning the work load, until we
know what volume of cases we are talking about, it's really hard to
say, we have court ever Thursday, and sometimes we'll have 200
cases sometimes we'll have 300 cases on the docket. A lot depends
on whether or not the people that post the cash bonds forfeit or
corne to court or not.
Mr. Todd:
these cases are
manner.
My concern is that which ever court they go to
taken seriously and dealt with in an affirmative
Mr. Bridges:
their vehicle, if
of business. You
him to do what is
When we catch somebody dumping and we impound
that guy is a trash hauler, we could put him out
don't want to put him out of business, you want
right.
Mr. Todd: I disagree too, there are some folks that we'll
have to put out of business for things less than illegal dumping
for not having proper equipment, so we're giving them a warning
when this gets out there so if he's out there doing-it illegally
then he shouldn't be doing business in this community. There are
other situations where I think we can use some discretion, where
the guy does not have the proper equipment, where we give him some
time, give him a warning and work with him.
Mr. Bridges: I don't want fewer people out there picking up I
trash, we have enough dumping it now. But as far as a private
individual, rather than confiscate the vehicle and selling it
later, maybe we can confiscate the vehicle until they pay the fine
and do the thirty day community service and give the vehicle back.
Mr. Wall: I'm not sure we can confiscate the vehicle through
local or general legislation. I think that you can get legislation
to confiscate the vehicle and set forth a procedure to do this
through legislation, but I don't think that you can have
legislation that says, if we catch you we will hold that vehicle
until you do thirty days service. If they are convicted and you
confiscate that vehicle, you will have to go through the process to
foreclose on the vehicle and actually sell it. That would be up to
the judge. But I have a problem with that, and I put the
commercials haulers and roofing companies in a separate category.
But, most of the people I suspect that are out there illegally
dumping, are the economically disadvantaged, and you're talking
about going through the process and expense of confiscating that
vehicle and selling it, I don't believe you'll accomplish anything,
other than possibly the deterrent effect, I think it will be
costly.
Mr. Todd: What I heard, out there is leave my garbage man
alone unless he is violating the law or doing illegal dumping, I
unless he does not have the proper vehicle, then make him get the
proper vehicle to do the business with. We don't want you
mandating on us, do it on the individuals to go by the law. There
is a possibility that we can't do any of the above as far as the
minimum fine and the vehicle. But, what I would like to do is go
for general legislation through perhaps the County Attorneys office
doing a rough draft and pushing it through ACCG or the Georgia
Municipal Association or through one of our local legislators and
I can assure you that this thing will be turned every which way but
loose, before anyone passes legislation on it. But certainly I
think that we need to take a tough stand on illegal dumping.
Mr. Oliver: As I understand something that Steve said, a
couple of weeks ago, the average fine that the judge levied was
$400.00. Is there a way to make it so that there is a mandatory
minimum, through home rule of a $1,000.00 and 30 days of community
service.
Mr. Wall: You can do it through ordinances. I think the
judge will always have some discretion, even if you have a minimum
fine, if he doesn't want to impose that fine, you're defeating
yourself. If he thinks that there are enough mitigating
circumstances that he shouldn't have to pay a $1,000.00 fine, that
he has enough discretion and put him on probation and avoid the
fines. So I think the best thing to do is use the ordinance as I
written, given the authority to go up to a $1,000.00 fine let's
talk to the judges who will be trying the cases and let them know
I
I
I
of our concern and that in the appropriate cases that the maximum
fine be imposed.
Mr. Oliver: I also think that one of the most significant
deterrents is the community service. I don't know what the
thoughts are by the judges to impose community service.
Mr. Steve Smith: Most of the judges would prefer to sentence
to community service.
Mr. Wall: I think everything can be accomplished with the
code we have proposed, in all of these things. I don't think we
need to change anything, other than talk with the judges, about
where the cases are written.
Mr. Steve Smith: We started at the landfill and got a list of
all the haulers that have a business license that do not have an
account at the Landfill. We have the ones that do have accounts at
the Landfill, but do not have a business license, so both ways, you
have a problem. We turned the ones with no business license over to
the License and Inspection Department, and we are working the other
side to see where those people are taking the things that they are
dumping.
Mr. Bridges: If they dump in the Landfill, do they need to
have a County Business License or say someone inside the city
limits of Hephzibah, would they get that from the city of
Hephzibah?
Mr. Steve Smith: You have to have a business license within
the state of Georgia. Under Georgia law, for example, if you have
a business license in Atlanta, you don't have to buy a license
here. That license is valid in the county, it's also valid
throughout the state of Georgia.
Mr. Todd: Is everybody in favor of taking the vehicles?
Everybody is in favor of taking commercial vehicles, so we will
push it on to one of our representatives.
After further discussion;
Mr. Wall: With the Business Tax Certificate, we can coordinate
through the License and Inspection Department, yard maintenance
companies, roofing companies and commercial haulers that have one.
I don't know whether you have problems with garages dumping tires
Anyone in those situations where they are business are taking the
cheap way out.
Mr. Oliver: I'll have the License and Inspection Department
send out a letter to all businesses that we believe will be
impacted, basically stating the consequences for any business
caught illegally dumping.
After further discussion;
Mr. Todd: This is what we have decided to do: six week target
date for clean up of the public right-of-way, that's in public I
view . Private property clean-up will be handled through the
existing ordinance. We will give property owners a fifteen day
notice to clean-up the property, if not done in that time frame, we
will go in and clean it up and submit the property owner with a
bill. The proposal to the Housing Authority is that they take care
of the sanitation service delivery, along with the percentage of
the rent they pay. This is a mandatory service delivery for that
household. We are requesting that Randy Oliver and Jim Wall meet
with the Housing Authority on this issue and bring back a
recommendation after their meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business to discuss,
adjourned.
the meeting was
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
bjb
I
I