[0:00] Good evening. I would like to welcome
[0:02] everyone to the town of Lexton council
[0:04] work session this evening, August the
[0:06] 17th, 2026.
[0:09] Work [snorts] sessions are less formal
[0:11] business meetings that enable council to
[0:13] obtain information regarding issues from
[0:16] staff members and/or consultants.
[0:18] Citizens are encouraged to observe work
[0:20] sessions. However, they do not include
[0:23] public hearing comments. Council does
[0:26] not take an action vote during a work
[0:28] session other than to place an item on
[0:30] the next council meeting.
[0:33] I am Hazel Livingston, the mayor of the
[0:35] town of Lexon, and I'd like to introduce
[0:37] my fellow council members. To my left is
[0:39] council member Ron Williams.
[0:41] >> Good evening.
[0:42] >> To his left is council member Todd Lau.
[0:44] >> Good evening.
[0:45] >> To his left is council member Jenny
[0:47] Michaels.
[0:47] >> Good evening.
[0:48] >> To my right is Mayor Pro Tim Todd KS.
[0:51] >> Good evening. To his right is council
[0:53] member Gavin Smith.
[0:54] >> Good evening.
[0:55] >> And to his right is council member Will
[0:57] Allen.
[0:57] >> Good evening.
[0:58] >> At this time, I would ask Mayor Proim KS
[1:01] to lead us in our invocation for
[1:03] tonight.
[1:05] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Let's pray.
[1:09] Father, we uh pause a moment here before
[1:12] you before we
[1:14] try to handle the business of this town
[1:16] and ask for your favor on this town. ask
[1:19] for your favor on us as leaders and uh
[1:23] we want a great, prosperous, peaceful,
[1:28] just town and we definitely need your
[1:31] wisdom to pull that off. So we ask for
[1:33] that. Thank you for all the things you
[1:35] provided thus far and we pray for these
[1:38] things not only for our town but for our
[1:41] state and our nation and our world. We
[1:44] pray this all in Jesus name. Amen.
[1:47] >> Amen. At this time, I'd like to ask
[1:49] Council Member Smith to lead us in the
[1:51] pledge.
[1:55] » I pledge algiance to the flag of the
[1:58] United States of America and to the
[2:00] republic for which it stands, one nation
[2:04] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[2:07] justice for all.
[2:14] » At this time, I will call the meeting to
[2:16] order.
[2:18] Council met in executive session prior
[2:21] to this meeting where we discussed the
[2:23] following matters. [snorts] Three
[2:25] personnel matters. Discussion of two
[2:27] contractual items related to information
[2:30] technology.
[2:32] Discussion of a contractual item related
[2:34] to parks and community services and
[2:36] discussion of potential property
[2:38] acquisition. No vote was taken. Do I
[2:41] hear a motion to ratify this report?
[2:44] >> So moved.
[2:45] >> Councilman
[2:47] Williams makes the motion.
[2:49] >> Second.
[2:50] >> Mayor Proim seconds it. Is there any
[2:52] discussion?
[2:55] Hearing none. All those in favor, raise
[2:57] your right hand. [snorts] And it is
[2:59] unanimous.
[3:01] Are there any deletions of items from
[3:03] tonight's work session agenda?
[3:08] Okay, moving right into our business
[3:10] items tonight. Our first business item
[3:13] is from planning and building director
[3:16] Jessica Libran.
[3:19] [snorts]
[3:20] First of all, welcome tonight and
[3:22] congratulations on your big passing your
[3:24] test today.
[3:25] >> Thank you very much.
[3:26] >> Oh, congrats. [clears throat]
[3:28] >> Um, good evening. Hope y'all are doing
[3:30] well. The Gates family has submitted the
[3:33] attached request that was in your packet
[3:35] regarding future development of their
[3:37] property. The primary request is for
[3:39] town council to consider allowing a
[3:41] [snorts] future residential developer of
[3:43] the property to access town water and
[3:45] sewer utilities without annexation into
[3:48] the town. The family has also identified
[3:50] other potential options for council's
[3:52] consideration related to the future use
[3:54] and development of the property. These
[3:56] options are outlined in the attached
[3:58] correspondence and the family and their
[4:01] representatives are here tonight should
[4:04] you have any questions or discussion
[4:06] with staff.
[4:10] » Does anyone have any questions of staff?
[4:17] » Yes, madame mayor.
[4:18] >> Yes. Jessica,
[4:20] have we ever received a request like
[4:22] this [snorts] previously to your
[4:24] knowledge and you just passed your uh
[4:27] your big uh national certification?
[4:30] Uh are there any are there any
[4:34] standards? I mean certainly we we
[4:35] haven't in my 14 years. So I just is
[4:38] there any context there that you can
[4:40] deliver from your planning and zoning
[4:42] background? I have not received any
[4:44] requests um like this during my time
[4:46] here or previously before here. Um
[4:49] typically those will would follow
[4:53] um a request for annexation. Utilities
[4:56] are would require that.
[5:00] >> Thank you,
[5:03] >> Madame Mayor.
[5:04] >> Yes, sir. In the correspondence we
[5:06] received uh it states that international
[5:09] paper company had made a somewhat a
[5:12] similar request uh requested water and
[5:14] sewer utility access without annexation
[5:17] and was uh granted such is that
[5:19] accurate.
[5:20] >> Um I actually looked into that just so
[5:22] that I would have some historical
[5:24] knowledge. Um based off of their utility
[5:27] account they opened the account in June
[5:29] of 1993. Um, I did pull a copy of our
[5:32] annexation map that's available online
[5:35] and it appears that we were not
[5:37] contiguous at the time that they
[5:38] connected to services. Um, based off of
[5:41] the information that I have just from
[5:43] speaking with other um, staff members, I don't believe at that time we were
[5:48] making people sign annexation
[5:50] agreements. I don't have that like a
[5:53] written policy on when that started, but
[5:55] I believe that that is why we have not
[5:59] that's why they were not annexed at the
[6:01] time that they signed on for our
[6:02] utilities.
[6:03] >> And I know that it that annexation
[6:06] policy that we required people to sign
[6:09] came shortly after I came on council. It
[6:12] >> okay.
[6:12] >> It was actually caused probably of Hope
[6:14] Perry Plantation is what caused us to
[6:17] have that letter. Okay.
[6:18] >> So, we started putting the letter in
[6:20] place then. and Gavin to where they had
[6:22] to [snorts] sign that they would come in
[6:26] if they were contiguous.
[6:27] >> Based off the annexation map, Zinker
[6:29] Road was annexed in December of 1993,
[6:33] which would have been the closest to
[6:35] this property, but that was se several
[6:37] months after the utility accounts were
[6:40] established. [snorts]
[6:41] >> Okay. Thank you.
[6:47] » Any other questions?
[6:52] Madame Mayor. Yes, sir. Can
[6:53] >> I just ask one clarifying question? So,
[6:55] if we were as council to approve this,
[6:59] >> am I correct in stating that we would be
[7:01] creating an exception that had not been
[7:05] created before?
[7:07] >> In my time with the town, and to my
[7:09] knowledge, this has not been granted
[7:11] previously.
[7:12] >> Okay. And that is because currently it
[7:14] is contiguous with town boundaries.
[7:17] >> Correct.
[7:18] >> Okay. Thank you.
[7:20] >> And if we did that, we would be setting
[7:22] it up for everybody to be able to
[7:24] request and do this. Correct.
[7:27] >> Potentially. Yes.
[7:28] >> Okay.
[7:43] Does anyone
[7:45] want to make a motion or
[7:49] make a motion?
[7:51] >> So, I guess that it does for right now.
[7:58] Thank you, Jessica.
[8:01] Next up, we have the street light
[8:04] ordinance update from administrator.
[8:15] Thank you, Mayor.
[8:19] Town ordinance
[8:22] 154.06.15 [snorts]
[8:23] 06.15
[8:24] is related to street lights and it
[8:27] establishes the requirements for
[8:28] residential street light installation in
[8:31] the process by which the town assumes
[8:33] responsibility for the street light
[8:35] operating costs. Staff is currently in
[8:38] receipt of a couple requests for
[8:40] subdivision street lights to be assumed
[8:42] by the town and is working through those
[8:45] processes. At the same time, staff
[8:48] recognizes that the ordinance that
[8:50] governs our street lights, it dates to
[8:52] 1986.
[8:54] As such, it's about time for us to
[8:56] update the ordinance uh to reflect
[8:59] current lighting standards, technology,
[9:02] safety considerations, and community
[9:05] needs. And frankly, so that we can
[9:07] evaluate the applications
[9:10] um against modern standards.
[9:13] staff at this time recommends a
[9:15] comprehensive review and modernization
[9:17] of the ordinance and we are willing to
[9:20] bring an updated or a redlinined
[9:22] ordinance for council to review as early
[9:25] as the September 2026 council work
[9:27] session for your review and
[9:29] consideration.
[9:31] In your agenda packet provided for you
[9:34] is [snorts] the copy of the town
[9:37] ordinance. It's rather short. Um, I'm
[9:40] happy to answer any questions that you
[9:42] all have related to the ordinance or any
[9:45] of the um the thoughts that staff has
[9:49] brainstormed to date related to updating
[9:51] the ordinance.
[9:54] [snorts]
[9:55] >> With that, does anybody have any
[9:57] questions? I think this one is just for
[9:58] information for now and then you'll be
[10:00] bringing it back for September work
[10:01] session.
[10:02] >> Yes, mayor. Okay. Yes. Does anybody have
[10:05] any questions?
[10:06] >> Yes, madame mayor.
[10:07] >> Okay. Go ahead. I'm sure you suspected.
[10:09] Um, so I look back in my email
[10:11] correspondence and for transparency
[10:13] purposes um I think and correct me if
[10:16] I'm wrong that I'm where this originated
[10:19] from. Um, I was serving in uh my
[10:23] neighborhood [snorts] actually Sterling
[10:24] Bridge uh was uh HOA president at the
[10:27] time. We were going through our budget
[10:29] and I noticed a line item for street
[10:31] lights and that triggered my memory that
[10:33] hey I believe we have an ordinance that
[10:35] we actually pay for this. Also for
[10:37] transparency I no longer serve in that
[10:39] capacity. I'm not on the HOA board and I
[10:40] am just [snorts] a resident. Um but
[10:43] obviously um this has lingered. Staff
[10:45] has continued to do work. Um as I stated
[10:48] I brought this to staff last year
[10:49] October 22nd, 2025 is this f first email
[10:52] correspondence. So we're about a year
[10:55] now. Um, I can speak only for uh the
[10:58] Sterling Bridge neighborhood that we we
[11:00] spend about 39 $40,000 a year. Um, and
[11:05] um, we have never received any kind of
[11:06] reimbursement. Um, and what I hear from
[11:09] staff is that there are many
[11:11] neighborhoods across town that may find
[11:14] themselves in the same situation. Um, so
[11:16] I understand that you'll be doing a
[11:19] comprehensive audit to determine how
[11:22] many neighborhoods that is, what are the
[11:24] financial implications, but I would also
[11:27] ask at this time, I mean, we've
[11:28] obviously identified a few
[11:30] neighborhoods. I understand.
[11:32] Um, would we be tableabling
[11:35] how we want to proceed with those? Um,
[11:38] as far as I mean, I can speak for a
[11:40] couple of neighborhoods. it appears that
[11:42] we should have been paying for street
[11:43] lights that we haven't been paying for.
[11:47] How would how how does staff recommend
[11:48] handling that in this moment?
[11:51] >> Well, so okay, there's a number of
[11:53] questions there. So, at this point, the
[11:56] applications that we've received, we are
[12:00] not taking action on now because they
[12:03] wouldn't meet the [snorts] current
[12:05] ordinance requirements. So, we wouldn't
[12:07] take the lights because they don't match
[12:09] what our ordinance states. So, one of
[12:12] the there are many reasons that staff
[12:15] wants to bring this back, and I can walk
[12:17] through them for you. Um, first, as I
[12:20] mentioned, um, this was established in
[12:22] 1986, and our standard street lights are
[12:26] listed here. And I I don't know that
[12:29] that's the standard that we need to
[12:31] continue to have. It's 2026. There are a
[12:35] number of neighborhoods that have
[12:37] different types of lights and there may
[12:39] be better lights. We need to look into
[12:41] that so that we're making sure that
[12:44] we're funding the most appropriate
[12:46] street lights. If if our modern
[12:48] neighborhoods don't fit the standards
[12:51] from 1986,
[12:53] then by ordinance, we wouldn't take in
[12:55] any of the new street lights.
[12:57] >> [snorts]
[12:57] >> Furthermore, um it states that it should
[13:00] be installed at a rate of one light per
[13:03] six lots. If you think back into 1986,
[13:08] the subdivision lots were larger than
[13:11] what they are today. Most newer
[13:13] neighborhoods, you might be looking at
[13:15] a/4 acre um per lot. And so if six lots
[13:19] previously were a halfacre each, you'll
[13:22] have fewer number of street lights than
[13:24] if you look at quarter acre lots. Um so
[13:28] we want to look at that and make sure
[13:30] are we lighting appropriately. We don't
[13:32] want to overlight nor do we want to
[13:34] underlight for safety purposes. Um
[13:37] furthermore, we need to look at how we
[13:40] define a subdivision or a neighborhood.
[13:43] Um, most folks think of a larger
[13:46] subdivision with an HOA, very clearly
[13:49] defined and signed. Um, but we have
[13:53] other areas that were once a large
[13:55] parcel that were subdivided into maybe
[13:58] five, 10 homes or town homes. Does that
[14:01] constitute a subdivision? Would we uh
[14:04] would the town take over those lights?
[14:06] So, those are the number of things that
[14:08] we need to look at and make
[14:10] recommendations for. In addition to your
[14:12] point um taking into consideration
[14:15] cost consideration uh we can bring that
[14:18] and we will let staff evaluate make
[14:22] recommendations uh so we can move
[14:24] forward. Our intent in doing this as
[14:27] well is so that we have an ordinance
[14:30] that generally fits most neighborhoods
[14:33] as opposed to have to coming back with
[14:35] oneoffs or special exceptions. If we
[14:38] have an ordinance where we're always
[14:39] having to make exceptions, is it really
[14:41] an effective ordinance? That's that's
[14:43] the other aspect. The goal would be that
[14:45] we have an ordinance that fits the
[14:47] general purpose of what council wants
[14:49] for the community and we're not having
[14:52] to come multiple times um in front of
[14:54] you on an annual or other regular basis
[14:57] to request you all to make an exception.
[15:00] >> Understood. Thank you. Um and then one
[15:03] follow-up question. Um, so I understand
[15:05] that some of the neighborhoods have more
[15:09] ornamental uh fixtures as opposed to the
[15:12] standard uh light, which I believe is
[15:15] called a HPS, high-pressure sodium
[15:17] light.
[15:18] >> Um, and
[15:21] >> it uh cost uh a little bit more to
[15:24] operate that light. Yes. Um, so have we
[15:28] set a precedent um in any other
[15:30] neighborhoods for funding a portion of a
[15:34] higher or more ornamental light and then
[15:37] the neighborhood being responsible for
[15:38] the difference?
[15:39] >> Not to my knowledge. No, that that was
[15:41] definitely an area that needed to be
[15:43] addressed. We recognize that.
[15:44] >> Okay. All right. Um well, I know we'll
[15:48] look forward to receiving information
[15:50] back on this. Um,
[15:52] >> and and I do want to acknowledge, I know
[15:54] you said the time frame of the email
[15:57] that the first correspondence and stuff.
[16:00] We also had to depend on Dominion and
[16:03] their time frame of getting us back all
[16:07] of the lights of physically checking all
[16:10] of the lights and making sure we're
[16:12] responsible for all of them and what was
[16:13] on and what wasn't as far as our system.
[16:16] So, that is some of the reason it took
[16:19] so long. I do believe
[16:21] >> that's correct, mayor. And based on just
[16:24] an initial review, if there's any
[16:25] council comments of things that you
[16:27] might like to see adjusted, I'm happy to
[16:29] hear them now. Um, or if you'd like to
[16:31] subsequently send an email, for example,
[16:33] if you think it should be one light per
[16:36] seven lots or five lots, any sort of of
[16:38] red lines like that, we're happy to take
[16:40] that into consideration as we prepare
[16:42] the recommended red lines.
[16:45] >> Madame Mayor,
[16:45] >> yes, sir. I would be in favor of us not
[16:48] paying for street lights of
[16:49] neighborhoods. I think they can pay for
[16:51] their own street lights.
[16:53] >> Okay. Thank you,
[16:58] » Madame Mayor.
[16:59] >> Yes, sir.
[17:00] >> So, I guess for a point of
[17:01] clarification, and we can come back with
[17:04] this later, but would that council
[17:06] member Lau pertain to all the
[17:08] neighborhoods that we currently pay for
[17:10] and we stop paying for those or we're
[17:12] just not taking any new ones? Yeah, I
[17:14] was not aware until this recently that
[17:16] we were paying for any of those. And I
[17:18] feel like that's a a due that is
[17:21] uh easily collectible and more rightly
[17:24] collectible by the members of that
[17:26] neighborhood. So just like any new
[17:28] neighborhood that's got amenities, they
[17:30] can collect a few extra dollars to pay
[17:32] for their street lights and not the
[17:33] taxpayers who choose not to live in a
[17:35] neighborhood with street lights.
[17:38] Feel like it's more appropriately born
[17:40] by those who would benefit from it and
[17:41] not from everyone. [snorts]
[17:43] Is it not a developmental standard
[17:45] though?
[17:46] >> I don't believe it is.
[17:48] >> I believe it was incorporated with our
[17:50] >> to be paid for.
[17:51] >> Um
[17:53] I can't speak to that, but I I believe
[17:55] it was incorporated and we may have to
[17:57] ask Jessica the um the number of street
[17:59] lights per lot,
[18:01] >> right? But that's not a requirement that
[18:03] we pay for. So just like we require a
[18:04] developer to put sidewalks in a
[18:06] neighborhood, we're not going to offer
[18:07] to pay for them. We're just going to
[18:08] make that a requirement.
[18:09] >> Correct. So, we can require street
[18:10] lights, but that doesn't mean we have to
[18:12] pay for it. It's a decision the
[18:13] developer makes. And just like a pool,
[18:15] if you don't want to pay for a
[18:16] neighborhood pool, you don't buy a house
[18:18] in a neighborhood with a pool. Or if you
[18:20] don't mind paying for one, you buy one
[18:22] that has a pool and you don't mind that
[18:24] cost. But I just don't think the
[18:26] taxpayers who don't live in a
[18:27] neighborhood should pay for the street
[18:28] lights of [snorts] others.
[18:30] >> Uh, I guess my follow-up question to
[18:32] that then would be I've [snorts] been on
[18:34] council for three years and every year
[18:36] comes before us. The next agenda item, what? Number four, I guess
[18:41] tonight or number three.
[18:43] >> And if I my recollection serves me
[18:45] correctly, we've all voted in the
[18:47] affirmative to pay for Pilgrim Point
[18:49] Street lights. So to say that we didn't
[18:52] know, I think we did know. Um we're not
[18:56] just paying for one neighborhood's
[18:58] street lights.
[19:00] Just wanted to offer that point of
[19:02] clarification.
[19:04] >> Understood. and um Pilgrim Point. The
[19:07] next item is a prime example of a
[19:10] neighborhood that does not meet the
[19:11] requirement or the the standard of the
[19:14] ordinance, if you will. Um it's a ne
[19:16] this neighborhood and then we have at
[19:17] least one others. They have privately
[19:19] maintained roads and at some point
[19:21] historically um the town has heard their
[19:24] request uh to provide reimbursement for
[19:26] lighting and because a formal exception
[19:30] was not carved out or the ordinance
[19:31] wasn't updated annually the neighborhood
[19:34] submits the request for reimbursement.
[19:37] So at any point in time council can
[19:39] decide to
[19:41] pay for it or council can decide to not.
[19:44] So that would be another reason why
[19:45] we're updating the ordinance. So, should
[19:48] we hold the next item until we get this
[19:51] ordinance updated so we can make sure
[19:53] we're treating everybody the same?
[19:56] [snorts]
[19:56] >> You most certainly can. Yes. And I I
[19:58] would like to point out that um this has
[20:00] happened with this particular item
[20:02] previously
[20:04] >> as well. It was tabled until we could do
[20:07] further research and have more
[20:09] discussion. So, we can certainly do that
[20:11] with this item as well.
[20:12] >> Okay. And then the other thing is when I
[20:15] was talking to you about this one day,
[20:17] at first you didn't think there was a
[20:19] president, but it is not uncommon for
[20:21] municipalities to pay for street lights
[20:24] in communities.
[20:25] >> Correct. It's not uncommon. Every
[20:29] community has their own standards um by
[20:31] which they they set for payment of
[20:34] lights. I I can't say off the top of my
[20:37] head how we compare to others. Um, but I
[20:40] did a a quick check on regional
[20:43] communities and how much they pay. For
[20:44] example, um, the town in this budget
[20:47] year, FY27, we budget $400,000 for
[20:50] expenditures of our street lights. Um,
[20:53] so as we take a look at what more we
[20:56] take on into the town system, that could
[20:59] make a major budget impact into the
[21:01] future. And based on my comparison to
[21:04] other cities, we're fairly in line um
[21:07] with what others are paying um
[21:09] considering the size of city and number
[21:11] of households.
[21:13] >> Madam Mayor,
[21:14] >> yes.
[21:15] >> So that [clears throat] was going to be
[21:16] my question is we we budgeted 400,000.
[21:20] Do we know the cost that we've spent at
[21:24] this point on street lights? And if so,
[21:27] um as we add new neighborhoods,
[21:29] obviously that goes up. But do we know
[21:31] what that cost is exactly?
[21:33] >> Well, so we we budget annually
[21:36] essentially based on what we paid the
[21:38] year prior. We have not brought on new
[21:41] street lights aside from a town project
[21:44] where we would have additional um street
[21:47] lights or area lights probably not a
[21:49] neighborhood for example for a number of
[21:51] years. So we've been fairly steady and
[21:54] we we just adjust. This year I believe
[21:56] was the first time it broke 400,000. So
[21:59] what we budget is based on what we pay
[22:03] the prior year.
[22:04] >> Gotcha.
[22:04] >> Yeah.
[22:06] >> And and I will say the the 400 does
[22:08] include not only subdivision lights, but
[22:11] also um lights on our properties or or
[22:15] other areas that we would maintain.
[22:18] >> Council member Williams.
[22:20] >> So
[22:23] I've received several calls from some
[22:24] neighborhoods that want to add more
[22:25] lights to their neighborhood and I
[22:27] reached out to you. you know, what do we
[22:28] do? Um
[22:32] I going back to revisiting this
[22:34] ordinance, I think we're going to have
[22:34] to look at it more as of um we might
[22:38] need need some guidance from the
[22:40] Dominion on how far apart they ought to
[22:41] be.
[22:41] >> Yes.
[22:42] >> Because to your point of lot sizes.
[22:44] >> Yeah.
[22:44] >> We certainly can't put this subdivision
[22:46] with a light every six houses and just
[22:48] apply that standard to every size
[22:50] subdivision
[22:51] >> because some of those lights will be so
[22:52] bright you play football.
[22:54] >> Yes. So, um
[22:55] >> because they'd be LED or and I sorry to
[22:58] interrupt, but furthermore, um we also
[23:01] would need to define
[23:04] >> that the lights need to be in the right
[23:05] of way. Um we have some neighborhoods
[23:09] where the public lights are actually on
[23:12] personal property.
[23:13] >> Why, I'm not sure. there there would be
[23:16] more research into the specific
[23:18] situations, but
[23:21] the town should not be paying for a
[23:23] light that's on someone's private
[23:24] property. So, there's there's a number
[23:26] of of issues related to that.
[23:29] >> Well, I just I'll look for for y'all to
[23:31] bring us back a bunch of information.
[23:33] Sounds like it's going to open up uh
[23:35] Pandora's box when we start on this one.
[23:38] >> Madame Mayor.
[23:39] >> Yes, sir.
[23:39] >> I just want to ask one further thing.
[23:42] So, we require by ordinance currently a
[23:47] street light per six lights or per six
[23:50] lots. Um, if I'm correct? Um,
[23:54] and if we did away with the town paying
[23:59] for said street lights and there's not
[24:01] an HOA, who bears the cost of that?
[24:05] >> That's something that we would have to
[24:07] determine
[24:07] >> because we require it. Somebody's got to
[24:09] pay for it. I don't know who pays for it
[24:12] and maybe there is a reasonable answer
[24:13] to that. I I don't know. I'm not in the
[24:16] development world. Um but I guess my
[24:19] next question would be to follow up on
[24:21] that moving forward. If [snorts] we have
[24:26] new neighborhoods come into town, but
[24:28] there is not going to be an HOA,
[24:31] how do we enforce those street lights
[24:33] being maintained? Do we require them be
[24:35] on private property and we require that
[24:39] property owner to pay for them? What is
[24:42] our mechanism to make sure that
[24:44] individuals are in compliance with the
[24:46] ordinance? Um I I think that could be
[24:50] opening Pandora's box as well. And then
[24:53] you don't have to come up here and say
[24:55] anything, Chief, but I would imagine
[24:56] that there is some public safety
[24:58] component to having these street lights
[25:00] in neighborhoods. Um, I am certainly in
[25:03] favor of evaluating where the lights are
[25:06] located and what type of lights there
[25:07] are because my neighborhood is a prime
[25:09] example of lights actually being not in
[25:11] the right of way and people's rooms
[25:14] being lit up by street lights that they
[25:16] have no control over. Um, so
[25:20] I think I've made all the points that I
[25:21] wanted to make on this, but
[25:23] >> so with you saying that, and I'm not
[25:26] picking on Sterling Bridge, but just
[25:28] with him saying that, if when we rewrite
[25:31] this and we decide to keep moving
[25:32] forward and stuff, if they are in
[25:35] somebody's yard, are they going to stay
[25:37] there and that homeowner is going to pay
[25:39] for it, which is what used to happen, or
[25:43] it goes on the homeowner's bill, or do
[25:45] they have to have them moved?
[25:48] meaning
[25:50] >> I would be very opposed to forcing a
[25:54] homeowner to move a light that we as the
[25:58] town approved and I I suppose and
[26:00] Jessica you could tell me if I'm wrong
[26:01] on this but we approved that in final
[26:03] plot approval right where all those are
[26:04] at and [snorts] I mean do we have any
[26:07] say so in that do we look at that
[26:12] now we're just forcing more cost on a
[26:15] homeowner I feel like they should kind
[26:16] going to be grandfathered in and fix
[26:18] this moving forward.
[26:19] >> To further open Pandora's box, um
[26:24] this is in the land development
[26:25] ordinance. It's been there since what 99
[26:28] I believe. Um so we have always it's in
[26:32] my time with the town have always punted
[26:35] street lights to the transportation
[26:38] department for review during final
[26:40] review. I don't know that we have a plan
[26:43] on file of where those were located and that's just being transparent and
[26:48] honest. Um so that is something that I
[26:51] would recommend in the future to avoid
[26:54] having issues like because I personally
[26:56] looked into that one that you're talking
[26:58] [snorts] about. Um to avoid that.
[27:02] >> Um this is definitely something we need
[27:03] to look into.
[27:04] >> So if it's in our land development
[27:06] ordinance, it only relates to the number
[27:09] of lights per households. Correct. So
[27:12] that would that portion would go also to
[27:15] planning commission.
[27:17] >> The the Yes. So the street light
[27:18] ordinance per state law planning
[27:20] commission because it's in our land
[27:22] development or ordinance planning
[27:23] commission would need to provide a
[27:24] recommendation to town council on any
[27:27] changes to that ordinance. So then
[27:31] essentially if we continue
[27:34] the [snorts] process of paying for the
[27:36] street lights, we would want to separate
[27:39] that ordinance from
[27:42] your
[27:43] >> I would recommend that. Yes. If
[27:45] especially if you're going to make it a
[27:46] development
[27:48] standard and then a town policy or
[27:51] procedure for what they're willing to
[27:53] take on for m regular repair,
[27:55] maintenance, and paying for.
[27:58] And then one last question for you. In
[28:00] [snorts] the land development ordinance,
[28:03] does it specify the type of street
[28:05] lights or is it just the number of
[28:06] lights per
[28:08] >> it? It is that excerpt that you have.
[28:10] >> Okay.
[28:11] >> Thank you,
[28:13] >> Madame Mayor.
[28:13] >> Yes, sir.
[28:14] >> Can I just ask whoever looks into this,
[28:16] can uh can they take a look at solar?
[28:19] >> Okay.
[28:20] >> To be
[28:22] >> solar lights
[28:23] >> to to allow solar lights to be installed
[28:25] in residential. Yeah. How How far is
[28:28] that technology down the road? I would
[28:29] think that technology is far enough down
[28:31] the road that solar street lights would
[28:33] be a a great long-term viable solution,
[28:37] but I don't know, but we should look.
[28:38] >> Okay, this is definitely a multi-dep
[28:42] departmental task. Um, I know there's a
[28:45] number of directors in the room and not
[28:47] in the room who have all had opinions
[28:48] and want the ability to weigh in on
[28:51] this.
[28:51] >> And I'm sure you're going to hear a lot
[28:52] of opinions from up here.
[28:58] So, do we have to make a motion to since
[29:01] that that was an FY, but our next item,
[29:04] do we have to make a motion to table it
[29:06] or can we just table it or move it to
[29:08] our work next work session to go along
[29:10] with
[29:12] the ordinance?
[29:13] >> Madame Mayor,
[29:14] >> this is asking for reimbursement, right?
[29:16] >> Correct.
[29:17] >> Yeah. I'm not in favor of retroactively
[29:20] imputing some penalty on some
[29:22] neighborhood.
[29:23] >> [snorts]
[29:23] >> any any recommendation that I would have
[29:25] to shift that cost to the homeowners
[29:27] would be some date in the future, give
[29:30] them due process rights and then let it
[29:32] carry forward. So I I don't know that we
[29:33] need to punt this one because this is a
[29:35] backay issue, right?
[29:37] >> So this particular one is a neighborhood
[29:39] that has private roads that would not
[29:42] ordinarily would we pay for their street
[29:44] lights. And so this particular
[29:46] neighborhood, they bear all of the cost
[29:48] for their street lights. And then every
[29:50] once a year they submit to us a
[29:52] reimbursement request for a portion of
[29:55] the lights to be reimbursed
[29:57] >> based on the ordinance or the policy.
[29:59] >> Uh technically speaking it does it does
[30:02] not meet our ordinance. At some point
[30:05] historically this and another
[30:07] neighborhood have come to council saying
[30:09] hey we have private roads and there's a
[30:11] benefit that you provide to town
[30:12] residents that we don't get. Would you
[30:14] be willing to at least reimburse a
[30:16] portion? and council has historically
[30:18] agreed to do that.
[30:19] >> Yeah. My my advice would be again based
[30:21] on habit and custom that we should carry
[30:23] that forward till we put them on notice
[30:24] that we're not going to do that.
[30:25] >> I understand
[30:26] >> that that's my point. If we're going to make a sweeping
[30:29] decision to update a 20 plus year old
[30:32] ordinance based on changing the um
[30:39] the electronic um means LEDs versus you
[30:43] know incandescent or solar like all
[30:46] these changes should be some line in the
[30:48] sand going forward. So I don't my advice
[30:50] would be that we don't punt on this. Uh
[30:52] is this Pilgrim Point or is this
[30:54] >> this is Pilgrim Point?
[30:55] >> Yes, this is Settler's Point and Pilgrim
[30:57] Point. That's the two neighborhoods I
[30:58] believe
[30:58] >> where Settlers Point has not been taken
[31:00] in.
[31:00] >> Moro Vis is new.
[31:02] >> Yes.
[31:03] >> Yeah. So they we'd add them to the list.
[31:05] I know that
[31:06] >> this is Pilgrim's Point and they've been
[31:08] being reimbured since 2009.
[31:11] >> Yeah. So I I would be in favor of not
[31:13] telling them surprise, you're not
[31:15] getting reimbursed after the fact. I
[31:17] think that should be a going forward
[31:18] issue so they can make an informed
[31:20] decision on whatever decision we make.
[31:23] So, okay. Tonight, um the action
[31:26] requested for you all because this is
[31:28] work session um
[31:29] >> is to put it on the agenda.
[31:31] >> To put it on September.
[31:32] >> Make that motion then.
[31:34] >> Yeah. Yeah. Move to put that on the
[31:37] agenda.
[31:38] >> Do I hear a second?
[31:40] >> Second.
[31:42] >> Any discussion on this? You heard?
[31:44] >> So, I guess Madame Mayor.
[31:46] >> Yes, sir.
[31:47] >> Yeah. So, I I don't necessarily disagree
[31:50] with Council Member Lau. I mean, this is
[31:52] the policy that's on the books. Uh,
[31:54] we've made exceptions every year I've
[31:55] been on council. But my question would
[31:58] be, are we going to apply the same
[31:59] standard to the neighborhoods such as
[32:01] mine or the other neighborhoods that
[32:03] have applied that are waiting for a
[32:04] decision? I mean, I don't know when each
[32:07] plat was approved for my neighborhood. I
[32:10] could figure that out. But the the
[32:11] ordinance is very clear that when the
[32:13] plat is approved,
[32:16] the town assumes responsibility for
[32:18] operating costs. Uh, I can't remember
[32:21] the exact language. Basically, for the
[32:22] operating costs and [snorts] I think it
[32:25] says maintenance costs. You could be
[32:27] wrong on that. Um, are we going to take
[32:30] up those applications and approve or
[32:32] deny them? Because right now, I mean,
[32:33] they're sitting before ours has been
[32:35] sitting there since last October.
[32:39] So, town staff would have to bring to
[32:42] council the request uh to make a full
[32:47] slate of exceptions and
[32:50] we can do that um and council can vote
[32:54] as they would like. The staff
[32:56] recommendation was that we update the
[32:59] ordinance so that we don't have a bunch
[33:02] of one-off exceptions. depending on how
[33:05] the ordinance is rewritten, you may not
[33:07] need an exception.
[33:09] >> So, from what I understand, Gavin, is
[33:12] you would not meet this and I'm this is
[33:14] what I've been listening and correct me
[33:16] if I'm wrong, but [snorts] your
[33:18] neighborhood would not meet the current
[33:21] ordinance. So, you would have to request
[33:24] say half just like they got approved in
[33:26] 2009
[33:29] >> retroactively. Yes. But if we change the
[33:31] >> but for yearly yearly. Yes.
[33:33] >> But retroactively, there's an amount
[33:36] arguably I mean, I'm sure someone
[33:38] disputes it. Arguably [clears throat]
[33:42] » that is owed to
[33:45] >> many neighborhoods across town, not not
[33:47] just one. Not this isn't just about my
[33:50] neighborhood to be very clear. I mean,
[33:51] I've heard from several neighborhoods uh
[33:54] that didn't even know this existed, but
[33:56] when you go look at the the code of
[33:58] ordinances, it does. Now, I think you
[34:00] make a very valid point. what is the
[34:02] standard light now? Because back then it
[34:05] was one light. Now in modern day times
[34:07] that standard light is different.
[34:10] >> So I apologize. I misunderstood what you
[34:13] were saying. I didn't realize you were
[34:14] referring to I believe what you were
[34:16] saying was
[34:18] the town would look retroactively for
[34:20] how long your HOA has been paying for
[34:24] street lights and if we would provide a
[34:26] reimbursement [snorts] retroactively.
[34:28] >> Just to be clear, it's not just my HOA.
[34:30] any HOA that comes to the town and says,
[34:32] "You you accepted our subdivision on
[34:35] this date."
[34:36] >> Yes.
[34:36] >> But we have never received
[34:37] reimbursement. And I I don't know.
[34:39] There's probably some statute of
[34:40] limitations or something there. I don't
[34:42] know. But you accept it on this date.
[34:45] We've never received the benefit of this
[34:48] what the ordinance says. We'd like to be
[34:50] reimbursed by that. Would this council
[34:52] have to take up each one of those
[34:54] decisions?
[34:55] >> Um potentially. I I that that's the best
[34:58] that I have right now is potentially um
[35:01] >> this is not what this neighborhood did
[35:03] is doing though, right?
[35:05] >> No, Pilgrim Point that is not what Point
[35:07] is doing.
[35:08] >> I don't think we ever paid them
[35:09] retroactive. We paid them starting from
[35:13] 2009. If I remember correctly,
[35:16] >> I wasn't on it.
[35:18] >> Their letter states that in 2009 they
[35:20] appealed to the town council for the
[35:21] first time. Um, and
[35:24] we've been doing this since 2009 for
[35:26] them. So, I would I think staff needs
[35:30] to, as far as the rest of the
[35:32] subdivisions need to go, staff needs to
[35:34] figure out how many lights that would
[35:35] be, what that would cost the town, and
[35:37] the council would have to decide if we
[35:39] had the funds to
[35:41] >> or if we had the uh ability to fund
[35:45] that.
[35:45] >> So, I'll have to ask Kathy for
[35:48] clarification.
[35:49] What I believe happens with Pilgrim
[35:51] Point is they pay throughout a calendar
[35:54] year for their street lights. At the end
[35:56] of that year, they take that total. They
[35:58] provide us proof of payment and the
[36:01] formula that the town council has
[36:05] approved of previously. We use that to
[36:08] provide a reimbursement after they have
[36:11] proven that they've paid all of their
[36:13] private street lights. Is that correct,
[36:14] Kathy? You
[36:15] >> put it right.
[36:19] They don't provide payment. They tell us
[36:22] they have so many lights and they ask
[36:24] for reimbursement. The letter they sent,
[36:27] it's all they send. They don't send a
[36:28] copy of it.
[36:29] >> Okay. Thank you.
[36:30] >> I thought Kathy, they used to years ago.
[36:33] They may not anymore, but
[36:34] >> hadn't in a while.
[36:36] >> Okay. But but they they pay their bill
[36:40] for a calendar year
[36:41] >> and then at the close of that calendar
[36:43] year, at the start of the new calendar
[36:44] year, they submit the letter to us
[36:46] saying, "Hey, this is what we paid last
[36:49] year. This is the agreed upon amount
[36:52] that the town has reimbured previously.
[36:55] >> We pay them for the number of lots. I
[36:59] don't know how many lights they have. I
[37:01] don't know how many likes they have per
[37:03] lot. We pay them based on six lots per
[37:07] light and we pay the standard rate.
[37:11] So I don't know,
[37:12] >> okay,
[37:13] >> what type of light they have.
[37:15] >> I don't know if they're paying $50 a
[37:18] light. We pay $26 per light for six lots
[37:23] for 12 months. And that's the
[37:25] calculation and that's what we send
[37:26] them. I believe that they pay more than
[37:29] that to Dominion.
[37:32] >> Yes, I think so. I think you're right. I
[37:34] I've seen that somewhere. Or maybe it
[37:36] was the other neighborhood that had
[37:38] private roads. Maybe that's what I'm
[37:39] thinking of. They have shown us the
[37:41] backup. Yes.
[37:43] >> So, [snorts] I'm thinking, Gavin, maybe
[37:46] we're confusing these two. Is do we hold
[37:49] this up since we've done it since 2009
[37:52] while we're getting all the other
[37:53] straightened out so we can do the other
[37:55] neighborhoods because this is not a back
[37:57] payment here.
[37:59] >> I have no objection to moving forward
[38:01] with Pilgrim Point. Okay.
[38:03] >> Although we haven't advanced to that
[38:04] agenda item to the best of my knowledge,
[38:06] [snorts] I would say I have no objection
[38:09] to that. I just would like to make a
[38:10] point here that we did not we have to
[38:13] the to your knowledge, Kathy, and sorry
[38:15] to put you on the spot, we haven't gone
[38:17] out and evaluated if their street lights
[38:19] are HPS instead of LED, right? We just
[38:24] they've made a request for
[38:25] >> We pay them the the minimum the standard
[38:27] rate.
[38:28] >> Okay. I do think they were evaluated
[38:31] years ago and they were
[38:33] >> their roads are not we don't own their
[38:35] roads. So, it's private property. We
[38:37] don't own any of their roads and that's
[38:41] one reason we do it this way is because
[38:45] they're a private subdivision. The roads
[38:47] are private. We don't own it. I don't
[38:49] know if somebody went out there and
[38:52] evaluated the lights or not. I [snorts]
[38:54] didn't evaluate the lights.
[38:58] I mean that's all I can tell you.
[39:01] [snorts]
[39:02] >> So I guess I was think saying g that the
[39:05] back pay or the retropay or whatever
[39:08] that would be discussed at a later time
[39:10] not with this one right here.
[39:11] >> Yeah. I mean I don't miss out at all.
[39:12] >> Okay. Okay. I was just making sure we
[39:14] were clear on that. Yes.
[39:17] Mayor, we've made a motion in a second
[39:19] to put this on the agenda, but um
[39:23] la last point of discussion I'd like to
[39:24] make is that could we possibly reach out
[39:27] to them and ask them for a copy of their
[39:28] bill so we can see what they actually
[39:30] spent on uh for this particular
[39:33] neighborhood that we are considering at
[39:36] our next council meeting.
[39:38] >> Yes, we can do that.
[39:39] >> Thank you.
[39:40] >> Any other discussion? And if not, I'm
[39:42] going
[39:44] ask for the all those in favor of
[39:46] putting the Pilgrim Point reimbursement
[39:49] for street lights on the agenda, raise
[39:51] your right hand.
[39:53] And it is unanimous.
[39:57] Item number four, utilities director
[40:00] David Wyman, discussion of proposed
[40:02] cross connection control program.
[40:04] Hopefully it will go one.
[40:08] Um,
[40:11] » good evening, Madame Mayor and Council.
[40:14] Um, cross connection control program
[40:17] helps protect the town's public drinking
[40:19] water system by preventing contaminants
[40:21] from entering the water supply through
[40:23] backflow. Adoption of the program is
[40:26] necessary to comply with federal and
[40:28] state drinking water regulations, South
[40:30] Carolina Department of Environmental
[40:32] Services
[40:33] >> requirements and applicable plumbing
[40:35] codes. The proposed cross connection
[40:38] control program included in the agenda
[40:39] packet establishes the town's
[40:42] requirements and procedures for
[40:44] protecting the public water system. And
[40:46] I am requesting review and approval to
[40:49] place on the September 8th agenda.
[41:04] » I'll make a motion. I should say does
[41:06] anybody make a motion? Gavin makes the
[41:08] motion.
[41:10] >> I'll second.
[41:12] >> Councilman Michael seconds it.
[41:16] So to clarify, let's see. I see your
[41:22] in here about 6 months.
[41:26] They can get their own person though and
[41:28] just give you proof, right?
[41:30] >> They can. And then if their irrigation
[41:33] is not going through or coming from the
[41:37] town water, do they have to have one?
[41:40] >> No. As long as the their personal
[41:43] irrigation system is not connected to
[41:46] the house plumbing.
[41:47] >> Okay.
[41:49] Anybody have any other questions?
[41:54] » Well, you got off easy this time. All
[41:57] those in favor of putting this on the
[41:58] agenda, raise your right hand.
[42:01] and it is unanimous.
[42:04] Next up, you're up again is proposed
[42:06] updates to town ordinance governing the
[42:08] cross connection control program.
[42:12] All right, [snorts] so in support of the
[42:15] program, revisions to the town code are
[42:17] necessary to ensure the ordinances are
[42:20] consistent with the newly adopted
[42:22] program and current regulatory
[42:24] requirements. The proposed amendments
[42:27] remove obsolete language, eliminate
[42:30] references to agencies that no longer
[42:32] exist, and update procedural
[42:35] requirements to align with the revised
[42:37] program. The proposed ordinance
[42:40] amendments include revisions to section
[42:42] 50.12
[42:44] A13 A and B and revisions to section
[42:48] 15163B
[42:52] which is in the agenda packet.
[42:57] Um,
[42:59] does anyone make a motion to put this on
[43:01] the agenda?
[43:02] >> So moved.
[43:04] >> Mayor Pro Tim makes the motion.
[43:06] Councilman Smith seconds it. Is there
[43:08] any discussion on this?
[43:13] Hearing none. All those in favor raise
[43:15] your right hand and it will go on the
[43:17] agenda.
[43:19] >> Appreciate the painlessness.
[43:21] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. I'm sorry. I
[43:24] have a procedural question um actually
[43:26] for attorney David, not related to this
[43:28] item. When we did the item number two
[43:32] about the straight light ordinance
[43:35] update, it was for information. Does
[43:38] council need to take a vote for
[43:41] information received or
[43:43] >> we never have before? No.
[43:45] >> Taking it as Okay.
[43:46] >> Take it as information.
[43:47] >> Okay. Thank you. [snorts]
[43:52] With that, any questions from the public
[43:54] regarding items listed on the agenda?
[43:57] >> We got one more.
[43:59] >> Huh? Did I miss one?
[44:00] >> One more.
[44:01] >> Kathy's got a counsel one for me.
[44:03] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Why did I miss that?
[44:07] >> Just kind of
[44:08] >> Kathy, come on up here and tell us what
[44:10] you got.
[44:11] >> Um, this is just for your information.
[44:13] We got the quote for the rate study. The
[44:16] rate study was approved in the budget.
[44:20] And this is Bill Zeberts. He's done our
[44:23] rate studies in the past. I'm sure y'all
[44:25] have all met him. He does a good job.
[44:27] He's working with Carter and Schloop
[44:28] now. The quote is for $69,000 and it is
[44:32] budgeted in 27 budget. And I just want
[44:35] to let y'all know that it was done
[44:40] and I have
[44:40] >> Anybody have any questions?
[44:43] >> Um, yeah, just give me a second.
[44:46] >> [laughter]
[44:47] >> Yeah, that u I guess it's
[44:49] forformational, so it's not anything we
[44:51] vote on. Um I'd just be curious to know
[44:55] what that what that fee was in 2021.
[44:58] Last time we did it,
[44:59] >> it was $90,000.
[45:01] >> Um that's the one thing that went down
[45:03] since
[45:04] >> co [laughter]
[45:07] or we he
[45:12] moved closer. I'm not sure. I didn't ask
[45:14] him why it went down. I was happy it
[45:16] went down.
[45:16] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[45:18] >> Don't mention it.
[45:19] >> Um
[45:21] >> don't bring
[45:22] >> All right. Yeah. I mean that it's just
[45:25] that's a big deal. So I want I don't I
[45:28] don't want to be in a position where he
[45:30] walks in here one night and throws all
[45:32] this up on the board and we're asked to
[45:35] make some kind of decision. I I would
[45:39] respectfully request that this gentleman
[45:42] do his work and make some kind of
[45:45] presentation to us that's forformational
[45:48] purposes only and 30 [clears throat]
[45:50] days later we'll take up
[45:53] >> some type of conversation about it and
[45:56] maybe 30 days later we actually take
[45:59] action on it. Just don't it's always
[46:01] rushed. We only do it every six years
[46:04] and it's, you know, it's going to be a a
[46:07] harder decision. So, I just respectfully
[46:10] asked for that timeline to work out that
[46:13] way.
[46:14] >> Absolutely. I understand. Kathy, how
[46:16] long will it take him? And I apologize
[46:18] if it's in here. How long will it take
[46:19] him to perform his work?
[46:22] >> It will probably take him several
[46:23] months. He's already given us the
[46:25] information request, [snorts] so I just
[46:26] need to sign the contract and start
[46:29] getting the information together for
[46:30] him. So we should probably I mean I
[46:34] think he said 3 to four months but
[46:37] >> but that's good to know that as well as
[46:39] in conjunction to the request because um
[46:42] the study I assume will propose rates
[46:46] starting with FY28
[46:48] the the next budget year and we'll want
[46:50] to make sure that we time it in line
[46:52] with that.
[46:53] >> Right.
[46:54] >> Thank you.
[46:56] >> Okay.
[46:58] [snorts]
[46:59] Now, any questions from the public
[47:01] regarding the items listed on the
[47:02] agenda?
[47:05] Questions from the news media, which we
[47:07] don't have
[47:09] from council,
[47:13] from staff,
[47:18] mayor. Story time in the park is
[47:20] tomorrow, August 18th, at 10:30 a.m. We
[47:23] have a fun late morning plan for
[47:26] families with story time, a phone party,
[47:28] and a special visit from Chick-fil-A
[47:31] cow. We'd love to see families from
[47:33] across our community come out and join
[47:35] us for a morning of stories, smiles, and
[47:39] fun. If you haven't been, you need to
[47:40] come join us. It's a lot of fun. A
[47:43] reminder that the market at Ice House
[47:45] takes place every Saturday morning. stop
[47:47] by to shop local vendors offering fresh
[47:49] produce, flowers, handmade goods, and
[47:52] more. There will be another vision plan
[47:54] public input meeting on August the 25th
[47:57] at 5:30 at town hall. We invite everyone
[48:00] to attend and share your input. If you
[48:02] cannot attend, you can still participate
[48:04] by completing our vision plan survey,
[48:07] which will remain open through the end
[48:09] of August. The survey is available on
[48:11] our social media pages, website, and
[48:14] other town communication channels. Your
[48:17] input helps shape the future of our
[48:19] community. And with closing, that
[48:21] concludes our business for tonight's
[48:23] work session. We thank you for watching.
[48:25] And without objection, we're adjourned.