[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.

Council Work Session - August 17, 2026

Transcript