At the September Meeting of the Mendenhall Mayor and Board of Aldermen it was revealed that the agreement between the City and McGuffee Drugs on the use of the city’s use of parking lot has yet to be resolved.
In July after the new board took office the city moved forward with the parking lot agreement. At that meeting it was discussed that the parking lot agreement between the City and Joe McGuffee needed to be amended to include the new owners of McGuffee Drugs.
The agreement as it stood did not call for any monthly payments for the use of the parking lot, but the city was required to maintain and clean the lot and possibly make any necessary repairs. It was brought to the board’s attention that the city could not legally maintain a privately owned parking lot.
Instead they would need to establish a contract and pay a monthly fee for the use of the lot, leaving maintenance, repair, and upkeep to the owner.
The item was left on the agenda through the election process because it was illegal for the board to enter into any new contracts until afterwards.
Booth explained to the board that in order to make the deal legal, a contract and dollar amount was needed.
He explained the terms and conditions which gave each party the right to terminate the contract with a 60 day notice to the other. The city will also not be limited to only night time use of the lot. Booth said that citizens can use the lot without any problems and that the maintenance should be less than $2,400 a year. Alderman Robert Mangum explained at that time, in terms of maintenance, that McGuffee was looking for the lot to be swept once a week and help with marking it off every three years. The Board unanimously voted in favor of signing the contract.
The subject was approached once again in September, and McGuffee countered the city’s initial contract with an amended one. Booth explained that McGuffee allowed his attorney to look over it and propose changes. The amended agreement limits the city on the amount of time the lot can be used and also adds maintenance cost. It was clear that the members of the board needed time to process the amendments. One suggested that the initial agreement was equal in terms of responsibilities to maintain the late, but it wasn’t the case with the proposed amendments. No action was taken.
Also during the meeting a discussion was held about establishing a testing fee. Booth explained that the city has been dealing with an influx of claims on faulty water meters last month. Booth said that this only happen occasionally. He stated that once citizens notice a spike in their water usage they blame the meter. He said, “If the water meter is reading high then something went through that meter, and 99 out of 100 times there is nothing wrong with the meter.”
The citizen then requests that the meter be tested, which consumes man hours and money associated with the testing. City Superintendent Red Lewis also suggested that it is almost never the water meter. Booth said the increase in charge may be associated with sewage. He said, “It is usually a toilet kicking on and off, and that leads to more usage.”
Booth said that the increase in water usage usually levels out after two months. To deter needless testing he suggested the board establish a $45 testing fee. If the meter is proven to be faulty then the city would refund the fee and naturally adjust the bill. The board took no action following the discussion.
