Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Payment dispute over demolition work triggers extended council debate and legal questions
Loading...
Summary
Council members, staff and residents debated payment to contractor Mary Hawkins for demolition work on adjudicated property; attorney guidance and differing claims about contract signatories left the matter unresolved.
A lengthy public discussion on Sept. 11 focused on whether the city should pay Mary Hawkins for demolition and property-cleanup work at a house on Mick Street and other locations. Hawkins and supporters said she performed the work in good faith after assurances from city staff; legal staff and the mayor's office said contract and tax paperwork required for payment had not been completed by the person listed as the contracting party, Carolyn (Caroline) Harris.
Staff reported that the original contract (referred to as a CEA/contract) was between the city and Carolyn Harris, who purportedly signed as the authorized landowner agent; the city's paperwork, however, did not include a completed W-9 or a signed contract from Harris in a form that would allow direct payment to Hawkins. Attorney guidance in the packet said an "easy remedy" would be for Ms. Harris to sign the already-approved contract and provide required tax forms so the city could reimburse the authorized contracting party, who in turn could pay Ms. Hawkins.
Speakers in the meeting said Hawkins carried out manual demolition and cleanup work and believed she would be reimbursed. Several councilmembers and public commenters called the situation unfair and urged the council to find a way to pay Hawkins. Staff and the city attorney cautioned that retroactive contract modifications could create precedent and legal exposure; they advised following the remedy of getting the contracting party to sign required paperwork or for Hawkins to pursue private legal remedies if necessary.
Council discussion also raised a complicating factor: some of the properties discussed were adjudicated to Morehouse Parish (tax-adjudicated), which raised questions about the city's authority to enter and pay for work on such properties. The transcript records a recommendation to verify the chain of title and to consult the parish attorney and to avoid reopening a wide set of prior contracts retroactively.
No payment authorization or final resolution is recorded in the meeting minutes or transcript. Council members asked staff to follow up, consult legal counsel and explore ways to resolve the matter that would be legally defensible and fair to the contractor.
