Good evening. I would like to welcome
everyone to the town of Lexton council
work session this evening, August the
17th, 2026.
Work [snorts] sessions are less formal
business meetings that enable council to
obtain information regarding issues from
staff members and/or consultants.
Citizens are encouraged to observe work
sessions. However, they do not include
public hearing comments. Council does
not take an action vote during a work
session other than to place an item on
the next council meeting.
I am Hazel Livingston, the mayor of the
town of Lexon, and I'd like to introduce
my fellow council members. To my left is
council member Ron Williams.
>> Good evening.
>> To his left is council member Todd Lau.
>> Good evening.
>> To his left is council member Jenny
Michaels.
>> Good evening.
>> To my right is Mayor Pro Tim Todd KS.
>> Good evening. To his right is council
member Gavin Smith.
>> Good evening.
>> And to his right is council member Will
Allen.
>> Good evening.
>> At this time, I would ask Mayor Proim KS
to lead us in our invocation for
tonight.
>> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Let's pray.
Father, we uh pause a moment here before
you before we
try to handle the business of this town
and ask for your favor on this town. ask
for your favor on us as leaders and uh
we want a great, prosperous, peaceful,
just town and we definitely need your
wisdom to pull that off. So we ask for
that. Thank you for all the things you
provided thus far and we pray for these
things not only for our town but for our
state and our nation and our world. We
pray this all in Jesus name. Amen.
>> Amen. At this time, I'd like to ask
Council Member Smith to lead us in the
pledge.
» I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
» At this time, I will call the meeting to
order.
Council met in executive session prior
to this meeting where we discussed the
following matters. [snorts] Three
personnel matters. Discussion of two
contractual items related to information
technology.
Discussion of a contractual item related
to parks and community services and
discussion of potential property
acquisition. No vote was taken. Do I
hear a motion to ratify this report?
>> So moved.
>> Councilman
Williams makes the motion.
>> Second.
>> Mayor Proim seconds it. Is there any
discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor, raise
your right hand. [snorts] And it is
unanimous.
Are there any deletions of items from
tonight's work session agenda?
Okay, moving right into our business
items tonight. Our first business item
is from planning and building director
Jessica Libran.
[snorts]
First of all, welcome tonight and
congratulations on your big passing your
test today.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Oh, congrats. [clears throat]
>> Um, good evening. Hope y'all are doing
well. The Gates family has submitted the
attached request that was in your packet
regarding future development of their
property. The primary request is for
town council to consider allowing a
[snorts] future residential developer of
the property to access town water and
sewer utilities without annexation into
the town. The family has also identified
other potential options for council's
consideration related to the future use
and development of the property. These
options are outlined in the attached
correspondence and the family and their
representatives are here tonight should
you have any questions or discussion
with staff.
» Does anyone have any questions of staff?
» Yes, madame mayor.
>> Yes. Jessica,
have we ever received a request like
this [snorts] previously to your
knowledge and you just passed your uh
your big uh national certification?
Uh are there any are there any
standards? I mean certainly we we
haven't in my 14 years. So I just is
there any context there that you can
deliver from your planning and zoning
background? I have not received any
requests um like this during my time
here or previously before here. Um
typically those will would follow
um a request for annexation. Utilities
are would require that.
>> Thank you,
>> Madame Mayor.
>> Yes, sir. In the correspondence we
received uh it states that international
paper company had made a somewhat a
similar request uh requested water and
sewer utility access without annexation
and was uh granted such is that
accurate.
>> Um I actually looked into that just so
that I would have some historical
knowledge. Um based off of their utility
account they opened the account in June
of 1993. Um, I did pull a copy of our
annexation map that's available online
and it appears that we were not
contiguous at the time that they
connected to services. Um, based off of
the information that I have just from
speaking with other um, staff members, I don't believe at that time we were
making people sign annexation
agreements. I don't have that like a
written policy on when that started, but
I believe that that is why we have not
that's why they were not annexed at the
time that they signed on for our
utilities.
>> And I know that it that annexation
policy that we required people to sign
came shortly after I came on council. It
>> okay.
>> It was actually caused probably of Hope
Perry Plantation is what caused us to
have that letter. Okay.
>> So, we started putting the letter in
place then. and Gavin to where they had
to [snorts] sign that they would come in
if they were contiguous.
>> Based off the annexation map, Zinker
Road was annexed in December of 1993,
which would have been the closest to
this property, but that was se several
months after the utility accounts were
established. [snorts]
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Any other questions?
Madame Mayor. Yes, sir. Can
>> I just ask one clarifying question? So,
if we were as council to approve this,
>> am I correct in stating that we would be
creating an exception that had not been
created before?
>> In my time with the town, and to my
knowledge, this has not been granted
previously.
>> Okay. And that is because currently it
is contiguous with town boundaries.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> And if we did that, we would be setting
it up for everybody to be able to
request and do this. Correct.
>> Potentially. Yes.
>> Okay.
Does anyone
want to make a motion or
make a motion?
>> So, I guess that it does for right now.
Thank you, Jessica.
Next up, we have the street light
ordinance update from administrator.
Thank you, Mayor.
Town ordinance
154.06.15 [snorts]
06.15
is related to street lights and it
establishes the requirements for
residential street light installation in
the process by which the town assumes
responsibility for the street light
operating costs. Staff is currently in
receipt of a couple requests for
subdivision street lights to be assumed
by the town and is working through those
processes. At the same time, staff
recognizes that the ordinance that
governs our street lights, it dates to
1986.
As such, it's about time for us to
update the ordinance uh to reflect
current lighting standards, technology,
safety considerations, and community
needs. And frankly, so that we can
evaluate the applications
um against modern standards.
staff at this time recommends a
comprehensive review and modernization
of the ordinance and we are willing to
bring an updated or a redlinined
ordinance for council to review as early
as the September 2026 council work
session for your review and
consideration.
In your agenda packet provided for you
is [snorts] the copy of the town
ordinance. It's rather short. Um, I'm
happy to answer any questions that you
all have related to the ordinance or any
of the um the thoughts that staff has
brainstormed to date related to updating
the ordinance.
[snorts]
>> With that, does anybody have any
questions? I think this one is just for
information for now and then you'll be
bringing it back for September work
session.
>> Yes, mayor. Okay. Yes. Does anybody have
any questions?
>> Yes, madame mayor.
>> Okay. Go ahead. I'm sure you suspected.
Um, so I look back in my email
correspondence and for transparency
purposes um I think and correct me if
I'm wrong that I'm where this originated
from. Um, I was serving in uh my
neighborhood [snorts] actually Sterling
Bridge uh was uh HOA president at the
time. We were going through our budget
and I noticed a line item for street
lights and that triggered my memory that
hey I believe we have an ordinance that
we actually pay for this. Also for
transparency I no longer serve in that
capacity. I'm not on the HOA board and I
am just [snorts] a resident. Um but
obviously um this has lingered. Staff
has continued to do work. Um as I stated
I brought this to staff last year
October 22nd, 2025 is this f first email
correspondence. So we're about a year
now. Um, I can speak only for uh the
Sterling Bridge neighborhood that we we
spend about 39 $40,000 a year. Um, and
um, we have never received any kind of
reimbursement. Um, and what I hear from
staff is that there are many
neighborhoods across town that may find
themselves in the same situation. Um, so
I understand that you'll be doing a
comprehensive audit to determine how
many neighborhoods that is, what are the
financial implications, but I would also
ask at this time, I mean, we've
obviously identified a few
neighborhoods. I understand.
Um, would we be tableabling
how we want to proceed with those? Um,
as far as I mean, I can speak for a
couple of neighborhoods. it appears that
we should have been paying for street
lights that we haven't been paying for.
How would how how does staff recommend
handling that in this moment?
>> Well, so okay, there's a number of
questions there. So, at this point, the
applications that we've received, we are
not taking action on now because they
wouldn't meet the [snorts] current
ordinance requirements. So, we wouldn't
take the lights because they don't match
what our ordinance states. So, one of
the there are many reasons that staff
wants to bring this back, and I can walk
through them for you. Um, first, as I
mentioned, um, this was established in
1986, and our standard street lights are
listed here. And I I don't know that
that's the standard that we need to
continue to have. It's 2026. There are a
number of neighborhoods that have
different types of lights and there may
be better lights. We need to look into
that so that we're making sure that
we're funding the most appropriate
street lights. If if our modern
neighborhoods don't fit the standards
from 1986,
then by ordinance, we wouldn't take in
any of the new street lights.
>> [snorts]
>> Furthermore, um it states that it should
be installed at a rate of one light per
six lots. If you think back into 1986,
the subdivision lots were larger than
what they are today. Most newer
neighborhoods, you might be looking at
a/4 acre um per lot. And so if six lots
previously were a halfacre each, you'll
have fewer number of street lights than
if you look at quarter acre lots. Um so
we want to look at that and make sure
are we lighting appropriately. We don't
want to overlight nor do we want to
underlight for safety purposes. Um
furthermore, we need to look at how we
define a subdivision or a neighborhood.
Um, most folks think of a larger
subdivision with an HOA, very clearly
defined and signed. Um, but we have
other areas that were once a large
parcel that were subdivided into maybe
five, 10 homes or town homes. Does that
constitute a subdivision? Would we uh
would the town take over those lights?
So, those are the number of things that
we need to look at and make
recommendations for. In addition to your
point um taking into consideration
cost consideration uh we can bring that
and we will let staff evaluate make
recommendations uh so we can move
forward. Our intent in doing this as
well is so that we have an ordinance
that generally fits most neighborhoods
as opposed to have to coming back with
oneoffs or special exceptions. If we
have an ordinance where we're always
having to make exceptions, is it really
an effective ordinance? That's that's
the other aspect. The goal would be that
we have an ordinance that fits the
general purpose of what council wants
for the community and we're not having
to come multiple times um in front of
you on an annual or other regular basis
to request you all to make an exception.
>> Understood. Thank you. Um and then one
follow-up question. Um, so I understand
that some of the neighborhoods have more
ornamental uh fixtures as opposed to the
standard uh light, which I believe is
called a HPS, high-pressure sodium
light.
>> Um, and
>> it uh cost uh a little bit more to
operate that light. Yes. Um, so have we
set a precedent um in any other
neighborhoods for funding a portion of a
higher or more ornamental light and then
the neighborhood being responsible for
the difference?
>> Not to my knowledge. No, that that was
definitely an area that needed to be
addressed. We recognize that.
>> Okay. All right. Um well, I know we'll
look forward to receiving information
back on this. Um,
>> and and I do want to acknowledge, I know
you said the time frame of the email
that the first correspondence and stuff.
We also had to depend on Dominion and
their time frame of getting us back all
of the lights of physically checking all
of the lights and making sure we're
responsible for all of them and what was
on and what wasn't as far as our system.
So, that is some of the reason it took
so long. I do believe
>> that's correct, mayor. And based on just
an initial review, if there's any
council comments of things that you
might like to see adjusted, I'm happy to
hear them now. Um, or if you'd like to
subsequently send an email, for example,
if you think it should be one light per
seven lots or five lots, any sort of of
red lines like that, we're happy to take
that into consideration as we prepare
the recommended red lines.
>> Madame Mayor,
>> yes, sir. I would be in favor of us not
paying for street lights of
neighborhoods. I think they can pay for
their own street lights.
>> Okay. Thank you,
» Madame Mayor.
>> Yes, sir.
>> So, I guess for a point of
clarification, and we can come back with
this later, but would that council
member Lau pertain to all the
neighborhoods that we currently pay for
and we stop paying for those or we're
just not taking any new ones? Yeah, I
was not aware until this recently that
we were paying for any of those. And I
feel like that's a a due that is
uh easily collectible and more rightly
collectible by the members of that
neighborhood. So just like any new
neighborhood that's got amenities, they
can collect a few extra dollars to pay
for their street lights and not the
taxpayers who choose not to live in a
neighborhood with street lights.
Feel like it's more appropriately born
by those who would benefit from it and
not from everyone. [snorts]
Is it not a developmental standard
though?
>> I don't believe it is.
>> I believe it was incorporated with our
>> to be paid for.
>> Um
I can't speak to that, but I I believe
it was incorporated and we may have to
ask Jessica the um the number of street
lights per lot,
>> right? But that's not a requirement that
we pay for. So just like we require a
developer to put sidewalks in a
neighborhood, we're not going to offer
to pay for them. We're just going to
make that a requirement.
>> Correct. So, we can require street
lights, but that doesn't mean we have to
pay for it. It's a decision the
developer makes. And just like a pool,
if you don't want to pay for a
neighborhood pool, you don't buy a house
in a neighborhood with a pool. Or if you
don't mind paying for one, you buy one
that has a pool and you don't mind that
cost. But I just don't think the
taxpayers who don't live in a
neighborhood should pay for the street
lights of [snorts] others.
>> Uh, I guess my follow-up question to
that then would be I've [snorts] been on
council for three years and every year
comes before us. The next agenda item, what? Number four, I guess
tonight or number three.
>> And if I my recollection serves me
correctly, we've all voted in the
affirmative to pay for Pilgrim Point
Street lights. So to say that we didn't
know, I think we did know. Um we're not
just paying for one neighborhood's
street lights.
Just wanted to offer that point of
clarification.
>> Understood. and um Pilgrim Point. The
next item is a prime example of a
neighborhood that does not meet the
requirement or the the standard of the
ordinance, if you will. Um it's a ne
this neighborhood and then we have at
least one others. They have privately
maintained roads and at some point
historically um the town has heard their
request uh to provide reimbursement for
lighting and because a formal exception
was not carved out or the ordinance
wasn't updated annually the neighborhood
submits the request for reimbursement.
So at any point in time council can
decide to
pay for it or council can decide to not.
So that would be another reason why
we're updating the ordinance. So, should
we hold the next item until we get this
ordinance updated so we can make sure
we're treating everybody the same?
[snorts]
>> You most certainly can. Yes. And I I
would like to point out that um this has
happened with this particular item
previously
>> as well. It was tabled until we could do
further research and have more
discussion. So, we can certainly do that
with this item as well.
>> Okay. And then the other thing is when I
was talking to you about this one day,
at first you didn't think there was a
president, but it is not uncommon for
municipalities to pay for street lights
in communities.
>> Correct. It's not uncommon. Every
community has their own standards um by
which they they set for payment of
lights. I I can't say off the top of my
head how we compare to others. Um, but I
did a a quick check on regional
communities and how much they pay. For
example, um, the town in this budget
year, FY27, we budget $400,000 for
expenditures of our street lights. Um,
so as we take a look at what more we
take on into the town system, that could
make a major budget impact into the
future. And based on my comparison to
other cities, we're fairly in line um
with what others are paying um
considering the size of city and number
of households.
>> Madam Mayor,
>> yes.
>> So that [clears throat] was going to be
my question is we we budgeted 400,000.
Do we know the cost that we've spent at
this point on street lights? And if so,
um as we add new neighborhoods,
obviously that goes up. But do we know
what that cost is exactly?
>> Well, so we we budget annually
essentially based on what we paid the
year prior. We have not brought on new
street lights aside from a town project
where we would have additional um street
lights or area lights probably not a
neighborhood for example for a number of
years. So we've been fairly steady and
we we just adjust. This year I believe
was the first time it broke 400,000. So
what we budget is based on what we pay
the prior year.
>> Gotcha.
>> Yeah.
>> And and I will say the the 400 does
include not only subdivision lights, but
also um lights on our properties or or
other areas that we would maintain.
>> Council member Williams.
>> So
I've received several calls from some
neighborhoods that want to add more
lights to their neighborhood and I
reached out to you. you know, what do we
do? Um
I going back to revisiting this
ordinance, I think we're going to have
to look at it more as of um we might
need need some guidance from the
Dominion on how far apart they ought to
be.
>> Yes.
>> Because to your point of lot sizes.
>> Yeah.
>> We certainly can't put this subdivision
with a light every six houses and just
apply that standard to every size
subdivision
>> because some of those lights will be so
bright you play football.
>> Yes. So, um
>> because they'd be LED or and I sorry to
interrupt, but furthermore, um we also
would need to define
>> that the lights need to be in the right
of way. Um we have some neighborhoods
where the public lights are actually on
personal property.
>> Why, I'm not sure. there there would be
more research into the specific
situations, but
the town should not be paying for a
light that's on someone's private
property. So, there's there's a number
of of issues related to that.
>> Well, I just I'll look for for y'all to
bring us back a bunch of information.
Sounds like it's going to open up uh
Pandora's box when we start on this one.
>> Madame Mayor.
>> Yes, sir.
>> I just want to ask one further thing.
So, we require by ordinance currently a
street light per six lights or per six
lots. Um, if I'm correct? Um,
and if we did away with the town paying
for said street lights and there's not
an HOA, who bears the cost of that?
>> That's something that we would have to
determine
>> because we require it. Somebody's got to
pay for it. I don't know who pays for it
and maybe there is a reasonable answer
to that. I I don't know. I'm not in the
development world. Um but I guess my
next question would be to follow up on
that moving forward. If [snorts] we have
new neighborhoods come into town, but
there is not going to be an HOA,
how do we enforce those street lights
being maintained? Do we require them be
on private property and we require that
property owner to pay for them? What is
our mechanism to make sure that
individuals are in compliance with the
ordinance? Um I I think that could be
opening Pandora's box as well. And then
you don't have to come up here and say
anything, Chief, but I would imagine
that there is some public safety
component to having these street lights
in neighborhoods. Um, I am certainly in
favor of evaluating where the lights are
located and what type of lights there
are because my neighborhood is a prime
example of lights actually being not in
the right of way and people's rooms
being lit up by street lights that they
have no control over. Um, so
I think I've made all the points that I
wanted to make on this, but
>> so with you saying that, and I'm not
picking on Sterling Bridge, but just
with him saying that, if when we rewrite
this and we decide to keep moving
forward and stuff, if they are in
somebody's yard, are they going to stay
there and that homeowner is going to pay
for it, which is what used to happen, or
it goes on the homeowner's bill, or do
they have to have them moved?
meaning
>> I would be very opposed to forcing a
homeowner to move a light that we as the
town approved and I I suppose and
Jessica you could tell me if I'm wrong
on this but we approved that in final
plot approval right where all those are
at and [snorts] I mean do we have any
say so in that do we look at that
now we're just forcing more cost on a
homeowner I feel like they should kind
going to be grandfathered in and fix
this moving forward.
>> To further open Pandora's box, um
this is in the land development
ordinance. It's been there since what 99
I believe. Um so we have always it's in
my time with the town have always punted
street lights to the transportation
department for review during final
review. I don't know that we have a plan
on file of where those were located and that's just being transparent and
honest. Um so that is something that I
would recommend in the future to avoid
having issues like because I personally
looked into that one that you're talking
[snorts] about. Um to avoid that.
>> Um this is definitely something we need
to look into.
>> So if it's in our land development
ordinance, it only relates to the number
of lights per households. Correct. So
that would that portion would go also to
planning commission.
>> The the Yes. So the street light
ordinance per state law planning
commission because it's in our land
development or ordinance planning
commission would need to provide a
recommendation to town council on any
changes to that ordinance. So then
essentially if we continue
the [snorts] process of paying for the
street lights, we would want to separate
that ordinance from
your
>> I would recommend that. Yes. If
especially if you're going to make it a
development
standard and then a town policy or
procedure for what they're willing to
take on for m regular repair,
maintenance, and paying for.
And then one last question for you. In
[snorts] the land development ordinance,
does it specify the type of street
lights or is it just the number of
lights per
>> it? It is that excerpt that you have.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you,
>> Madame Mayor.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Can I just ask whoever looks into this,
can uh can they take a look at solar?
>> Okay.
>> To be
>> solar lights
>> to to allow solar lights to be installed
in residential. Yeah. How How far is
that technology down the road? I would
think that technology is far enough down
the road that solar street lights would
be a a great long-term viable solution,
but I don't know, but we should look.
>> Okay, this is definitely a multi-dep
departmental task. Um, I know there's a
number of directors in the room and not
in the room who have all had opinions
and want the ability to weigh in on
this.
>> And I'm sure you're going to hear a lot
of opinions from up here.
So, do we have to make a motion to since
that that was an FY, but our next item,
do we have to make a motion to table it
or can we just table it or move it to
our work next work session to go along
with
the ordinance?
>> Madame Mayor,
>> this is asking for reimbursement, right?
>> Correct.
>> Yeah. I'm not in favor of retroactively
imputing some penalty on some
neighborhood.
>> [snorts]
>> any any recommendation that I would have
to shift that cost to the homeowners
would be some date in the future, give
them due process rights and then let it
carry forward. So I I don't know that we
need to punt this one because this is a
backay issue, right?
>> So this particular one is a neighborhood
that has private roads that would not
ordinarily would we pay for their street
lights. And so this particular
neighborhood, they bear all of the cost
for their street lights. And then every
once a year they submit to us a
reimbursement request for a portion of
the lights to be reimbursed
>> based on the ordinance or the policy.
>> Uh technically speaking it does it does
not meet our ordinance. At some point
historically this and another
neighborhood have come to council saying
hey we have private roads and there's a
benefit that you provide to town
residents that we don't get. Would you
be willing to at least reimburse a
portion? and council has historically
agreed to do that.
>> Yeah. My my advice would be again based
on habit and custom that we should carry
that forward till we put them on notice
that we're not going to do that.
>> I understand
>> that that's my point. If we're going to make a sweeping
decision to update a 20 plus year old
ordinance based on changing the um
the electronic um means LEDs versus you
know incandescent or solar like all
these changes should be some line in the
sand going forward. So I don't my advice
would be that we don't punt on this. Uh
is this Pilgrim Point or is this
>> this is Pilgrim Point?
>> Yes, this is Settler's Point and Pilgrim
Point. That's the two neighborhoods I
believe
>> where Settlers Point has not been taken
in.
>> Moro Vis is new.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. So they we'd add them to the list.
I know that
>> this is Pilgrim's Point and they've been
being reimbured since 2009.
>> Yeah. So I I would be in favor of not
telling them surprise, you're not
getting reimbursed after the fact. I
think that should be a going forward
issue so they can make an informed
decision on whatever decision we make.
So, okay. Tonight, um the action
requested for you all because this is
work session um
>> is to put it on the agenda.
>> To put it on September.
>> Make that motion then.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Move to put that on the
agenda.
>> Do I hear a second?
>> Second.
>> Any discussion on this? You heard?
>> So, I guess Madame Mayor.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Yeah. So, I I don't necessarily disagree
with Council Member Lau. I mean, this is
the policy that's on the books. Uh,
we've made exceptions every year I've
been on council. But my question would
be, are we going to apply the same
standard to the neighborhoods such as
mine or the other neighborhoods that
have applied that are waiting for a
decision? I mean, I don't know when each
plat was approved for my neighborhood. I
could figure that out. But the the
ordinance is very clear that when the
plat is approved,
the town assumes responsibility for
operating costs. Uh, I can't remember
the exact language. Basically, for the
operating costs and [snorts] I think it
says maintenance costs. You could be
wrong on that. Um, are we going to take
up those applications and approve or
deny them? Because right now, I mean,
they're sitting before ours has been
sitting there since last October.
So, town staff would have to bring to
council the request uh to make a full
slate of exceptions and
we can do that um and council can vote
as they would like. The staff
recommendation was that we update the
ordinance so that we don't have a bunch
of one-off exceptions. depending on how
the ordinance is rewritten, you may not
need an exception.
>> So, from what I understand, Gavin, is
you would not meet this and I'm this is
what I've been listening and correct me
if I'm wrong, but [snorts] your
neighborhood would not meet the current
ordinance. So, you would have to request
say half just like they got approved in
2009
>> retroactively. Yes. But if we change the
>> but for yearly yearly. Yes.
>> But retroactively, there's an amount
arguably I mean, I'm sure someone
disputes it. Arguably [clears throat]
» that is owed to
>> many neighborhoods across town, not not
just one. Not this isn't just about my
neighborhood to be very clear. I mean,
I've heard from several neighborhoods uh
that didn't even know this existed, but
when you go look at the the code of
ordinances, it does. Now, I think you
make a very valid point. what is the
standard light now? Because back then it
was one light. Now in modern day times
that standard light is different.
>> So I apologize. I misunderstood what you
were saying. I didn't realize you were
referring to I believe what you were
saying was
the town would look retroactively for
how long your HOA has been paying for
street lights and if we would provide a
reimbursement [snorts] retroactively.
>> Just to be clear, it's not just my HOA.
any HOA that comes to the town and says,
"You you accepted our subdivision on
this date."
>> Yes.
>> But we have never received
reimbursement. And I I don't know.
There's probably some statute of
limitations or something there. I don't
know. But you accept it on this date.
We've never received the benefit of this
what the ordinance says. We'd like to be
reimbursed by that. Would this council
have to take up each one of those
decisions?
>> Um potentially. I I that that's the best
that I have right now is potentially um
>> this is not what this neighborhood did
is doing though, right?
>> No, Pilgrim Point that is not what Point
is doing.
>> I don't think we ever paid them
retroactive. We paid them starting from
2009. If I remember correctly,
>> I wasn't on it.
>> Their letter states that in 2009 they
appealed to the town council for the
first time. Um, and
we've been doing this since 2009 for
them. So, I would I think staff needs
to, as far as the rest of the
subdivisions need to go, staff needs to
figure out how many lights that would
be, what that would cost the town, and
the council would have to decide if we
had the funds to
>> or if we had the uh ability to fund
that.
>> So, I'll have to ask Kathy for
clarification.
What I believe happens with Pilgrim
Point is they pay throughout a calendar
year for their street lights. At the end
of that year, they take that total. They
provide us proof of payment and the
formula that the town council has
approved of previously. We use that to
provide a reimbursement after they have
proven that they've paid all of their
private street lights. Is that correct,
Kathy? You
>> put it right.
They don't provide payment. They tell us
they have so many lights and they ask
for reimbursement. The letter they sent,
it's all they send. They don't send a
copy of it.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> I thought Kathy, they used to years ago.
They may not anymore, but
>> hadn't in a while.
>> Okay. But but they they pay their bill
for a calendar year
>> and then at the close of that calendar
year, at the start of the new calendar
year, they submit the letter to us
saying, "Hey, this is what we paid last
year. This is the agreed upon amount
that the town has reimbured previously.
>> We pay them for the number of lots. I
don't know how many lights they have. I
don't know how many likes they have per
lot. We pay them based on six lots per
light and we pay the standard rate.
So I don't know,
>> okay,
>> what type of light they have.
>> I don't know if they're paying $50 a
light. We pay $26 per light for six lots
for 12 months. And that's the
calculation and that's what we send
them. I believe that they pay more than
that to Dominion.
>> Yes, I think so. I think you're right. I
I've seen that somewhere. Or maybe it
was the other neighborhood that had
private roads. Maybe that's what I'm
thinking of. They have shown us the
backup. Yes.
>> So, [snorts] I'm thinking, Gavin, maybe
we're confusing these two. Is do we hold
this up since we've done it since 2009
while we're getting all the other
straightened out so we can do the other
neighborhoods because this is not a back
payment here.
>> I have no objection to moving forward
with Pilgrim Point. Okay.
>> Although we haven't advanced to that
agenda item to the best of my knowledge,
[snorts] I would say I have no objection
to that. I just would like to make a
point here that we did not we have to
the to your knowledge, Kathy, and sorry
to put you on the spot, we haven't gone
out and evaluated if their street lights
are HPS instead of LED, right? We just
they've made a request for
>> We pay them the the minimum the standard
rate.
>> Okay. I do think they were evaluated
years ago and they were
>> their roads are not we don't own their
roads. So, it's private property. We
don't own any of their roads and that's
one reason we do it this way is because
they're a private subdivision. The roads
are private. We don't own it. I don't
know if somebody went out there and
evaluated the lights or not. I [snorts]
didn't evaluate the lights.
I mean that's all I can tell you.
[snorts]
>> So I guess I was think saying g that the
back pay or the retropay or whatever
that would be discussed at a later time
not with this one right here.
>> Yeah. I mean I don't miss out at all.
>> Okay. Okay. I was just making sure we
were clear on that. Yes.
Mayor, we've made a motion in a second
to put this on the agenda, but um
la last point of discussion I'd like to
make is that could we possibly reach out
to them and ask them for a copy of their
bill so we can see what they actually
spent on uh for this particular
neighborhood that we are considering at
our next council meeting.
>> Yes, we can do that.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other discussion? And if not, I'm
going
ask for the all those in favor of
putting the Pilgrim Point reimbursement
for street lights on the agenda, raise
your right hand.
And it is unanimous.
Item number four, utilities director
David Wyman, discussion of proposed
cross connection control program.
Hopefully it will go one.
Um,
» good evening, Madame Mayor and Council.
Um, cross connection control program
helps protect the town's public drinking
water system by preventing contaminants
from entering the water supply through
backflow. Adoption of the program is
necessary to comply with federal and
state drinking water regulations, South
Carolina Department of Environmental
Services
>> requirements and applicable plumbing
codes. The proposed cross connection
control program included in the agenda
packet establishes the town's
requirements and procedures for
protecting the public water system. And
I am requesting review and approval to
place on the September 8th agenda.
» I'll make a motion. I should say does
anybody make a motion? Gavin makes the
motion.
>> I'll second.
>> Councilman Michael seconds it.
So to clarify, let's see. I see your
in here about 6 months.
They can get their own person though and
just give you proof, right?
>> They can. And then if their irrigation
is not going through or coming from the
town water, do they have to have one?
>> No. As long as the their personal
irrigation system is not connected to
the house plumbing.
>> Okay.
Anybody have any other questions?
» Well, you got off easy this time. All
those in favor of putting this on the
agenda, raise your right hand.
and it is unanimous.
Next up, you're up again is proposed
updates to town ordinance governing the
cross connection control program.
All right, [snorts] so in support of the
program, revisions to the town code are
necessary to ensure the ordinances are
consistent with the newly adopted
program and current regulatory
requirements. The proposed amendments
remove obsolete language, eliminate
references to agencies that no longer
exist, and update procedural
requirements to align with the revised
program. The proposed ordinance
amendments include revisions to section
50.12
A13 A and B and revisions to section
15163B
which is in the agenda packet.
Um,
does anyone make a motion to put this on
the agenda?
>> So moved.
>> Mayor Pro Tim makes the motion.
Councilman Smith seconds it. Is there
any discussion on this?
Hearing none. All those in favor raise
your right hand and it will go on the
agenda.
>> Appreciate the painlessness.
>> Thank you, Madame Mayor. I'm sorry. I
have a procedural question um actually
for attorney David, not related to this
item. When we did the item number two
about the straight light ordinance
update, it was for information. Does
council need to take a vote for
information received or
>> we never have before? No.
>> Taking it as Okay.
>> Take it as information.
>> Okay. Thank you. [snorts]
With that, any questions from the public
regarding items listed on the agenda?
>> We got one more.
>> Huh? Did I miss one?
>> One more.
>> Kathy's got a counsel one for me.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Why did I miss that?
>> Just kind of
>> Kathy, come on up here and tell us what
you got.
>> Um, this is just for your information.
We got the quote for the rate study. The
rate study was approved in the budget.
And this is Bill Zeberts. He's done our
rate studies in the past. I'm sure y'all
have all met him. He does a good job.
He's working with Carter and Schloop
now. The quote is for $69,000 and it is
budgeted in 27 budget. And I just want
to let y'all know that it was done
and I have
>> Anybody have any questions?
>> Um, yeah, just give me a second.
>> [laughter]
>> Yeah, that u I guess it's
forformational, so it's not anything we
vote on. Um I'd just be curious to know
what that what that fee was in 2021.
Last time we did it,
>> it was $90,000.
>> Um that's the one thing that went down
since
>> co [laughter]
or we he
moved closer. I'm not sure. I didn't ask
him why it went down. I was happy it
went down.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Don't mention it.
>> Um
>> don't bring
>> All right. Yeah. I mean that it's just
that's a big deal. So I want I don't I
don't want to be in a position where he
walks in here one night and throws all
this up on the board and we're asked to
make some kind of decision. I I would
respectfully request that this gentleman
do his work and make some kind of
presentation to us that's forformational
purposes only and 30 [clears throat]
days later we'll take up
>> some type of conversation about it and
maybe 30 days later we actually take
action on it. Just don't it's always
rushed. We only do it every six years
and it's, you know, it's going to be a a
harder decision. So, I just respectfully
asked for that timeline to work out that
way.
>> Absolutely. I understand. Kathy, how
long will it take him? And I apologize
if it's in here. How long will it take
him to perform his work?
>> It will probably take him several
months. He's already given us the
information request, [snorts] so I just
need to sign the contract and start
getting the information together for
him. So we should probably I mean I
think he said 3 to four months but
>> but that's good to know that as well as
in conjunction to the request because um
the study I assume will propose rates
starting with FY28
the the next budget year and we'll want
to make sure that we time it in line
with that.
>> Right.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
[snorts]
Now, any questions from the public
regarding the items listed on the
agenda?
Questions from the news media, which we
don't have
from council,
from staff,
mayor. Story time in the park is
tomorrow, August 18th, at 10:30 a.m. We
have a fun late morning plan for
families with story time, a phone party,
and a special visit from Chick-fil-A
cow. We'd love to see families from
across our community come out and join
us for a morning of stories, smiles, and
fun. If you haven't been, you need to
come join us. It's a lot of fun. A
reminder that the market at Ice House
takes place every Saturday morning. stop
by to shop local vendors offering fresh
produce, flowers, handmade goods, and
more. There will be another vision plan
public input meeting on August the 25th
at 5:30 at town hall. We invite everyone
to attend and share your input. If you
cannot attend, you can still participate
by completing our vision plan survey,
which will remain open through the end
of August. The survey is available on
our social media pages, website, and
other town communication channels. Your
input helps shape the future of our
community. And with closing, that
concludes our business for tonight's
work session. We thank you for watching.
And without objection, we're adjourned.