Town Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I would like to welcome everyone to the Town of Lexington Council work session this evening, August the 17th, 2026. Work sessions are less formal business meetings that enable Council to obtain information regarding issues from staff members and or consultants. Citizens are encouraged to observe work sessions. However, they do not include public hearing comments. Council does not take an action vote during a work session other than to place an item on the next council meeting. I am Hazel Livingston, the mayor of the town of Lexington, and I'd like to introduce my fellow council members. To my left is Council Member Ron Williams.

Good evening.

To his left is Council Member Todd Lyle.

Good evening.

To his left is Council Member Jenny Michaels. Good evening. To my right is Mayor Pro Tem Todd Carnes.

Good evening.

To his right is Council Member Gavin Smith.

Good evening.

And to his right is Council Member Will Allen.

Good evening.

At this time, I would ask Mayor Pro-Tim Carnes to lead us in our invocation for tonight.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Let's pray. Father, we pause a moment here before you, before we try to handle the business of this town and ask for your favor on this town, ask for your favor on us as leaders, and we want a great, prosperous, peaceful life. just town, and we definitely need your wisdom to pull that off, so we ask for that. Thank you for all the things you've provided thus far, and we pray for these things, not only for our town, but for our state and our nation and our world. We pray this all in Jesus' name. Amen.

At this time, I'd like to ask Council Member Smith to lead us in the page. At this time, I will call the meeting to order. Council met in executive session prior to this meeting where we discussed the following matters. Three personnel matters, discussion of two contractual items related to information technology, discussion of a contractual item related to parks and community services, and discussion of potential property acquisition. No vote was taken. Do I hear a motion to ratify this report?

So moved.

Councilman Williams makes the motion.

Second.

Mayor Pro Tem seconds it. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, raise your right hand. And it is unanimous. Are there any deletions of items from tonight's work session agenda? Okay, moving right into our business item tonight. Our first business item is from Planning and Building Director, Jessica Libran. First of all, welcome tonight and congratulations on your big pass and your test today. Thank you very much.

Good evening. Hope y'all are doing well. The Gates family has submitted the attached request that was in your packet regarding future development of their property. The primary request is for town council to consider allowing a future residential developer of the property to access town water and sewer utilities without annexation into the town. The family has also identified other potential options for council's consideration related to the future use and development of the property. These options are outlined in the attached correspondence, and the family and their representatives are here tonight, should you have any questions or discussion with staff.

Does anyone have any questions of staff?

Yes, madam mayor, yes, Jessica that have we ever received a request like this. Previously to your knowledge in you just passed your the big national certification. Are there any there any standards of a certainly we have it in my 14 years. So I just is there any context there that you can deliver from your planning and zoning background.

I have not received any requests like this during my time here or previously before here. Typically, those would follow a request for annexation. Utilities would require that.

Thank you. Madam Mayor?

Yes, sir.

In the correspondence we received, it states that International Paper Company had made somewhat a similar request, requested water and sewer utility access without annexation and was granted such. Is that accurate?

I actually looked into that just so that I would have some historical knowledge. Based off of their utility account they opened the account in June of 1993. I did pull a copy of our annexation map that's available online and it appears that we were not contiguous at the time that they connected to services. Based off of the information that I have just from speaking with other Staff members, I don't believe at that time we were making people sign annexation agreements. I don't have that like a written policy on when that started, but I believe that that is why we have not That's why they were not annexed at the time that they signed on for our utilities.

I know that annexation policy that we required people to sign came shortly after I came on council. It was actually because probably of Hope Ferry Plantation is what caused us to have that letter. So we started putting the letter in place then, Gavin, to where they had to sign that they would come in

If they were contiguous based off the annexation map, Zinker Rd was annexed in December of 1993, which would have been the closest to this property, but that was several months after the utility accounts were established. OK, thank you.

Any other questions?

Madam Mayor, can I just ask one clarifying question? So if we were, as council, to approve this, am I correct in stating that we would be creating an exception that had not been created before?

In my time with the town, and to my knowledge, this has not been granted previously.

Okay, and that is because currently it is contiguous with town boundaries?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

And if we did that, we would be setting it up for everybody to be able to request and do this, correct? Potentially, yes. Does anyone want to make a motion? So I guess that it dies for right now. Thank you, Jessica. Next up, we have the streetlight ordinance update from Administrator Bleaton.

Thank you, Mayor. Town ordinance 154.06.15 is related to street lights and it establishes the requirements for residential street light installation in the process by which the town assumes responsibility for the street light operating costs. Staff is currently in receipt of a couple requests for subdivision streetlights to be assumed by the town and is working through those processes. At the same time, staff recognizes that the ordinance that governs our streetlights, it dates to 1986. As such, it's about time for us to update the ordinance to reflect current lighting standards, technology, safety considerations, and community needs. And frankly, so that we can evaluate the applications against modern standards. Staff at this time recommends a comprehensive review and modernization of the ordinance and we're willing to bring an updated or a redlined ordinance for council to review as early as the September 2026 council work session for your review and consideration. In your agenda packet provided for you is the copy of the town ordinance. It's rather short. I'm happy to answer any questions that you all have related to the ordinance or any of the thoughts that staff has brainstormed to date related to updating the ordinance.

With that, does anybody have any questions? I think this one is just for information for now, and then you'll be bringing it back for September work session. Yes, Mayor. Does anybody have any questions?

Yes, Madam Mayor.

Okay, go ahead.

I'm sure you suspected. So I look back in my email correspondence, and for transparency purposes, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that I'm where this originated from. I was serving in my neighborhood, actually, Sterling Bridge, was HOA president at the time. We were going through our budget and I noticed a line item for streetlights and that triggered my memory that, hey, I believe we have an ordinance that we actually pay for this. Also for transparency, I no longer serve in that capacity. I'm not on the HOA board and I am just a resident. But obviously this has lingered, staff has continued to do work. As I stated, I brought this to staff last year, October 22nd, 2025 is the first email correspondence. So we're about a year now. I can speak only for the Sterling Bridge neighborhood that we spend about 39, $40,000 a year. And we have never received any kind of reimbursement. And what I hear from staff is that there are many neighborhoods across town that may find themselves in the same situation. So I understand that you'll be doing a comprehensive audit to determine how many neighborhoods that is, what are the financial implications? But I would also ask at this time, I mean, we've obviously identified a few neighborhoods, I understand. Would we be tabling how we want to proceed with those as far as, I mean, I can speak for a couple of neighborhoods, it appears that we should have been paying for streetlights that we haven't been paying for. How does staff recommend handling that in this moment?

Well, so, okay, there's a number of questions there. So at this point, the applications that we've received, we are not taking action on now because they wouldn't meet the current ordinance requirements. So we wouldn't take. the lights because they don't match what our ordinance states. So one of the, there are many reasons that staff wants to bring this back and I can walk through them for you. First, as I mentioned, this was established in 1986 in our standard street lights are listed here and I don't know that that's the standard that we need to continue to have. It's 2026. There are a number of neighborhoods that have different types of lights and there may be better lights. We need to look into that and so that we're making sure that we're funding the most appropriate streetlights. If our modern neighborhoods don't fit the standards from 1986, then by ordinance we wouldn't take in any of the new streetlights. Furthermore, it states that it should be installed at a rate of one light per six lots. If you think back into 1986, the subdivision lots were larger than what they are today. Most newer neighborhoods, you might be looking at a quarter acre per lot. And so if six lots previously were half acre each, you'll have fewer number of streetlights than if you look at quarter acre lots. So we wanna look at that and make sure are we lighting appropriately? We don't want to over light, nor do we want to under light for safety purposes. Furthermore, we need to look at how we define a subdivision or a neighborhood. Most folks think of a larger subdivision with an HOA very clearly defined and signed, but we have other areas that were once a large parcel that were subdivided into maybe five, 10 homes or town homes. Does that constitute a subdivision? Would the town take over those lights? So those are the number of things that we need to look at and make recommendations for. In addition to your point, taking into consideration, cost consideration, we can bring that and we will. let staff evaluate, make recommendations so we can move forward. Our intent in doing this as well is so that we have an ordinance that generally fits most neighborhoods as opposed to have to coming back with one-offs or special exceptions. If we have an ordinance where we're always having to make exceptions, is it really an effective ordinance? That's the other aspect. The goal would be that we have an ordinance that fits the general purpose of what council wants for the community, and we're not having to come multiple times in front of you on an annual or other regular basis to request you all to make an exception.

Understood. Thank you. And then one follow-up question. So I understand that some of the neighborhoods have more... ornamental fixtures as opposed to the standard light, which I believe is called a HPS, high pressure sodium light. And it costs a little bit more to operate that light. So have we set a precedent in any other neighborhoods for funding a portion of a higher or more ornamental light and then the neighborhood being responsible for the difference.

Not to my knowledge, no. That was definitely an area that needed to be addressed. We recognize that.

Okay. All right. Well, I know we'll look forward to receiving information back on this.

And I do want to acknowledge, I know you said the time frame of the email that the first correspondents and staff, we also had to depend on Dominion and their time frame of getting us back all of the lights, physically checking all of the lights and making sure we're responsible for all of them and what was on and what wasn't as far as our system. So that is some of the reason it took so long, I do believe.

That's correct, Mayor. And based on just an initial review, if there's any council comments of things that you might like to see adjusted, I'm happy to hear them now. Or if you'd like to subsequently send an email, for example, if you think it should be one light per seven lots or five lots, any sort of red lines like that, we're happy to take that into consideration as we prepare the recommended red lines.

Madam Mayor.

Yes, sir.

I would be in favor of us not paying for streetlights of neighborhoods. I think they can pay for their own streetlights.

Okay.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor?

Yes, sir.

So I guess for a point of clarification, and we can come back with this later, but would that, Council Member Lyle, pertain to all the neighborhoods that we currently pay for and we stop paying for those, or we're just not taking any new ones?

Yeah, I was not aware until this recently that we were paying for any of those, and I feel like that's a due that is... Easily collectible and more rightly collectible by the members of that neighborhood. So just like any new neighborhood that's got amenities, they can collect a few extra dollars to pay for their streetlights and not the taxpayers who choose not to live in a neighborhood with streetlights. I feel like it's more appropriately borne by those who would benefit from it and not from everyone. Is it not a developmental standard though? I don't believe it is.

I believe it was incorporated with our- To be paid for. I can't speak to that, but I believe it was incorporated, and we may have to ask Jessica, the number of streetlights per lot.

Right, but that's not a requirement that we pay for. Just like we require a developer to put sidewalks in a neighborhood, we're not going to offer to pay for them. We're just going to make that a requirement. Correct. So we can require streetlights, but that doesn't mean we have to pay for it. It's a decision the developer makes. And just like a pool, if you don't want to pay for a neighborhood pool, you don't buy a house in a neighborhood with a pool. Or if you don't mind paying for one, you buy one that has a pool. You don't mind that cost. But I just don't think the taxpayers who don't live in a neighborhood should pay for the streetlights of others.

I guess my follow-up question to that then would be, I've been on council for three years, and every year comes before us the next agenda item. what, number four, I guess, tonight, or number three. And if my recollection serves me correctly, we've all voted in the affirmative to pay for Pilgrim Point streetlights. So to say that we didn't know, I think we did know. We're not just paying for one neighborhood's streetlights. Just wanted to offer that point of clarification.

Understood. And Pilgrim Point, the next item, is a prime example of a neighborhood that does not meet the requirement or the standard of the ordinance, if you will. This neighborhood, and then we have at least one others, they have privately maintained roads. And at some point, historically, the town has heard the request to provide reimbursement for lighting. And Because a formal exception was not carved out or the ordinance wasn't updated annually, the neighborhood submits the request for reimbursement. So at any point in time, council can decide to pay for it or council can decide to not. So that would be another reason why we're updating the ordinance.

So should we hold the next item until we get this ordinance updated so we can make sure we're treating everybody the same? You most certainly can, yes.

And I would like to point out that this has happened with this particular item previously as well. It was tabled until we could do further research and have more discussion. So we can certainly do that with this item as well.

Okay. And then the other thing is when I was talking to you about this one day, at first you didn't think there was a precedent, but it is not uncommon for municipalities to pay for streetlights in communities.

Correct. It's not uncommon. Every community has their own standards by which they set for payment of lights. I can't say off the top of my head how we compare to others, but I did a quick check on regional communities and how much they pay. For example, the town in this budget year, FY27, we budget $400,000 for expenditures of our street lights. So as we take a look at what more we take on into the town system, that could make a major budget impact into the future. And based on my comparison to other cities, we're fairly in line with what others are paying, considering the size of city and number of households.

Madam Mayor. Yes. So that was going to be my question is we budgeted $400,000. Do we know the cost that we've spent at this point on streetlights? And if so, as we add new neighborhoods, obviously that goes up. But do we know what that cost is exactly? Well, so we...

We budget annually, essentially based on what we paid the year prior. We have not brought on new streetlights aside from a town project where we would have additional streetlights or area lights. Probably not a neighborhood, for example, for a number of years. So we've been fairly steady and we just adjust. This year, I believe, was the first time it broke $400,000. So what we budget is based on what we paid the prior year.

Gotcha.

And I will say the 400 does include not only subdivision lights, but also lights on our properties or other areas that we would maintain.

Council Member Williams.

So I've received several calls from some neighborhoods that want to add more lights to their neighborhood, and I reached out to you. What do we do? going back to revisiting this ordinance, I think we're going to have to look at it more as of We might need some guidance from Dominion on how far apart they ought to be. Yes. Because to your point of lot sizes, we certainly can't put this subdivision with a light every six houses and just apply that standard to every size subdivision. Because some of those lights will be so bright you play football. Yes.

Because they'd be LED or... Sorry to interrupt, but furthermore, we also would need to define... that the lights need to be in the right of way. We have some neighborhoods where the public lights are actually on personal property. Why? I'm not sure. There would be more research into the specific situations, but the town should not be paying for a light that's on someone's private property. So there's a number of issues related to that.

Well, I just, I'll look for y'all to bring us back a bunch of information. Sounds like it's going to open up a Pandora's box when we start on this one.

Madam mayor. Yes, sir. I just want to ask one further thing. So we require by ordinance currently a streetlight per six lights or per six lots. Um, if I'm correct, um, And if we did away with the town paying for said streetlights and there's not an HOA, who bears the cost of that?

That's something that we would have to determine.

Because we require it. Somebody's got to pay for it. I don't know who pays for it. And maybe there is a reasonable answer to that. I don't know. I'm not... the development world but I guess my next question would be to follow up on that moving forward if we have new neighborhoods come into town but there is not going to be an HOA how do we enforce those streetlights being maintained do we require them be on private property and we require that property owner to pay for them? What is our mechanism to make sure that individuals are in compliance with the ordinance? I think that could be opening Pandora's box as well. And then you don't have to come up here and say anything chief, but I would imagine that there is some public safety component to having the streetlights in neighborhoods. I'm certainly in favor of evaluating where the lights are located and what type of lights there are because my neighborhood is a prime example of lights actually being not in the right of way and people's rooms being lit up by streetlights that they have no control over. So I think I've made all the points that I wanted to make on this.

So with you saying that, and I'm not picking on Sterling Bridge, but just with him saying that, when we rewrite this and we decide to keep moving forward and stuff, if they are in somebody's yard, are they going to stay there and that homeowner is going to pay for it, which is what used to happen, or it goes on the homeowner's bill, or do they have to have them moved?

I would be very opposed to forcing a homeowner to move a light that we as the town approved. And I suppose, and Jessica, you could tell me if I'm wrong on this, but we approved that in final plot approval, right? Where all those are at. And I mean, do we have any say so in that? Do we look at that? Now we're just forcing more costs on a homeowner. I feel like they should kind of be grandfathered in and fix this moving forward.

To further open Pandora's box, this is in the land development ordinance. It's been there since, what, 1990? I believe so we have always it's my time with the town have always punted streetlights to the transportation department for review during final review. I don't know that we have a plan on file of where those were located and that's just being transparent and honest. So that is something that I would recommend in the future to avoid having issues, like, because I personally looked into that one that you're talking about, to avoid that. This is definitely something we need to look into. So if it's in our land development ordinance,

It only relates to the number of lights per households, correct? So that portion would go also to Planning Commission.

Yes, so the street light ordinance per State Law Planning Commission, because it's in our land development ordinance, Planning Commission would need to provide a recommendation to Town Council on any changes to that ordinance.

So then, essentially, if we continue... the process of paying for the streetlights, we would want to separate that ordinance from your...

I would recommend that, yes. Especially if you're going to make it a... The difference is a development standard and then a town policy or procedure for what they're willing to take on for regular repair maintenance and paying for.

And then one last question for you in the land development ordinance does it specify the type of streetlights or is it just the number of lights per. It is that excerpt that you have.

Madam mayor, yes, can assess whoever looks into this can can they take a look at solar.

To allow solar lights to be installed in residential?

Yeah, how far is that technology down the road? I would think that technology is far enough down the road that solar street lights would be a great long-term viable solution. But I don't know, but we should look.

This is definitely a multi-departmental task. I know there's a number of directors in the room and not in the room who have all had opinions and the ability to weigh in on this.

And I'm sure you're going to hear a lot of opinions from up here. So do we have to make a motion to, since that was an FY, but our next item, do we have to make a motion to table it or can we just table it? or move it to our next work session to go along with the ordinance.

Madam Mayor, this is asking for reimbursement, right? Correct. Yeah, I'm not in favor of retroactively imputing some penalty on some neighborhood. Any recommendation that I would have to shift that cost to the homeowners would be some date in the future, give them due process rights, and then let it carry forward. So I don't know that we need to punt this one because this is a back pay issue, right?

So this particular one is a neighborhood that has private roads that would not ordinarily would we pay for their streetlights. And so this particular neighborhood, they bear all of the costs for their streetlights. And then every once a year, they submit to us a reimbursement request for a portion of the lights to be reimbursed.

Based on the ordinance or the policy?

Technically speaking, it does not meet our ordinance. At some point, historically, this and another neighborhood have come to council saying, hey, we have private roads and there's a benefit that you provide to town residents that we don't get. Would you be willing to at least reimburse a portion? And council has historically agreed to do that.

My advice would be, again, based on habit and custom, that we should carry that forward until we put them on notice that we're not going to do that. I understand. That's my point. I understand. Thank you. If we're going to make a sweeping decision to update a 20 plus year old ordinance based on changing the the electronic means, LEDs versus incandescent or solar. All these changes should be some line in the sand going forward. My advice would be that we don't punt on this. Is this Pilgrim Point? This is Pilgrim Point. Yes, this is Settler's Point and Pilgrim Point. That's the two neighborhoods, I believe. Settler's Point has not been taken in. Boardwalk Villas is new. Yes. Yeah, so we'd add them to the list.

This is Pilgrim's Point, and they've been being reimbursed since 2009.

Yeah, so I would be in favor of not telling them, surprise, you're not getting reimbursed after the fact. I think that should be a going forward issue. So they can make an informed decision on whatever decision we make.

Okay. Tonight, the action requested for you all, because this is work session, is to put it on September.

Make that motion then?

Yeah. Move to put that on the agenda.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

Any discussion on this?

So I guess, Madam Mayor?

Yes, sir.

Yeah, so I don't necessarily disagree with Councilmember Lyle. I mean, this is the policy that's on the books. We've made exceptions every year I've been on council. But my question would be, are we going to apply the same standard to the neighborhoods such as mine or the other neighborhoods that have applied that are waiting for a decision? I mean, I don't know when each plat was approved for my neighborhood. I can figure that out. But the ordinance is very clear that when the plat is approved. The town assumes responsibility for operating costs. I can't remember the exact language. Basically for the operating costs. And I think it says maintenance costs. You could be wrong on that. Are we going to take up those applications and approve or deny them? Because right now, I mean, they're sitting before. Ours has been sitting there since last October.

So town staff would have to bring to council the request to make a full slate of exceptions. And we can do that, and council can vote as they would like. The staff recommendation was that we update the ordinance so that we don't have a bunch of one-off exceptions. Depending on how the ordinance is rewritten, you may not need an exception.

So from what I understand, Gavin, is you would not meet this, and this is what I've been listening, and correct me if I'm wrong, but your neighborhood would not meet the current ordinance, so you would have to request, say, half just like they got approved in 2009.

Retroactively, yes. But if we change the... For yearly. But retroactively, there's an amount, arguably, I mean, I'm sure someone disputes it, arguably... that is owed to many neighborhoods across town, not just one. This isn't just about my neighborhood to be very clear. I mean, I've heard from several neighborhoods that didn't even know this existed, but when you go look at the code of ordinances, it does. Now, I think you make a very valid point. What is the standard light now? Because back then it was one light, now in modern day times, that standard light is different.

So I apologize, I misunderstood what you were saying. I didn't realize you were referring to, I believe what you were saying was, the town would look retroactively for how long your HOA has been paying for streetlights, and if we would provide a reimbursement retroactively.

Just to be clear, it's not just my HOA. Any HOA that comes to the town and says, you accepted our subdivision on this date, but we have never received reimbursement, and I don't know, there's probably some statute of limitations or something there, I don't know, but you accepted on this date, we've never received the benefit of this what the ordinance says, we'd like to be reimbursed by that. Would this council have to take up each one of those decisions?

Potentially. That's the best that I have right now is potentially.

This is not what this neighborhood is doing though, right?

No. Pilgrim Point, that is not what Pilgrim Point is doing.

I don't think we ever paid them retroactive. We paid them starting from 2009, if I remember correctly.

I wasn't on council. There are letter states that in 2009 they appealed to the town council for the first time and we've been doing this since 2009 for them. So I would, I think staff needs to, as far as the rest of the subdivisions need to go, staff needs to figure out how many lights that would be, what that would cost the town and the council would have to decide if we had the funds to, or if we had the ability to fund that.

So I'll have to ask Kathy for clarification. What I believe happens with Pilgrim Point is they pay throughout a calendar year for their streetlights. At the end of that year, they take that total, they provide us proof of payment, and the formula that the town council has approved of previously, we use that to provide a reimbursement after they have proven that they've paid all of their private streetlights. Is that correct, Kathy?

They don't provide a first payment. They tell us they have so many lights and they ask for reimbursement. The letter they sent, it's all they send. They don't send a copy of it. Okay, thank you.

I thought, Kathy, they used to years ago. They may not anymore.

It hasn't happened in a while.

But they pay their bill for a calendar year. And then at the close of that calendar year, at the start of the new calendar year, they submit the letter to us saying, hey, this is what we paid last year. This is the agreed upon amount that the town has reimbursed previously.

We pay them for the number of lots. know how many likes they have I don't know how many likes they have a lot we pay them based on 6 lots per light and we paid the standard rate. So I don't know what type of light they have. I don't know if they're paying $50 a light. We pay $26 per light for six lots for 12 months. And that's the calculation, and that's what we send them. I believe that they pay more than that to Dominion. Yes, I think so.

I think you're right. I've seen that somewhere or maybe it was the other neighborhood that had private roads. Maybe that's what I'm thinking of. They have shown us the backup.

I'm thinking, Gavin, maybe we're confusing these two. Do we hold this up since we've done it since 2009 while we're getting all the other straightened out so we can do the other neighborhoods because this is not a back payment here?

I have no objection to moving forward with Pilgrim Point. Although we haven't advanced to that agenda item, to the best of my knowledge. I would say I have no objection to that. I just would like to make a point here that we did not, to your knowledge, Kathy, and sorry to put you on the spot, we haven't gone out and evaluated if their street lights are HPS instead of LED, right?

We just, they've made a request for- We pay them the standard rate. Okay, good.

I do think they were evaluated years ago.

Their roads are not, we don't own their roads. So it's private property. We don't own any of their roads. And that's one reason we do it this way is because they're a private subdivision. The roads are private. We don't own it. I don't know if somebody went out there and evaluated the lights or not. I didn't evaluate the lights. I mean, that's all I can tell you.

I guess I was saying, Gavin, that the back pay or the retro pay or whatever, that would be discussed at a later time, not with this one right here.

Yeah, I mean, I don't discount that at all.

Okay. Okay. I was just making sure we were clear on that. Yes.

Mayor, we've made a motion and a second to put this on the agenda, but... Last point of discussion I'd like to make is could we possibly reach out to them and ask them for a copy of their bill so we can see what they actually spent for this particular neighborhood that we are considering at our next council meeting?

Yes, we can do that.

Thank you.

Any other discussion? If not, I'm going to ask for that. All those in favor of putting the Pilgrim Point reimbursement for streetlights on the agenda, raise your right hand. And it is unanimous. Item number four is Utilities Director David Wyman, discussion of proposed cross-connection control program. Hopefully it will go smooth.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. Cross connection control program helps protect the town's public drinking water system by preventing contaminants from entering the water supply through backflow. Adoption of the program is necessary to comply with federal and state drinking water regulations. South Carolina Department of Environmental Services requirements and applicable plumbing codes. The proposed cross connection control program included in the agenda packet establishes the town's requirements and procedures for protecting the public water system. And I am requesting review and approval to place on the September 8th agenda.

I'll make a motion.

Has anybody make a motion? Gavin makes a motion. I'll second. Councilman Michael seconds it. So to clarify, let's see, I see you're in here about six months. They can get their own person though and just give you proof, right?

They can.

And then if their irrigation is not going through or coming from the town water, do they have to have one?

No, as long as their personal irrigation system is not connected to the house plumbing.

Okay. Anybody have any other questions? Well, you got off easy this time. All those in favor of putting this on the agenda, raise your right hand. And it is unanimous. Next up, you're up again as proposed updates to town ordinance govern the cross-connection control program.

All right, so in support of the program, revisions to the town code are necessary to ensure the ordinances are consistent with the newly adopted program and current regulatory requirements. The proposed amendments remove obsolete language, eliminate references to agencies that no longer exist, and update procedural requirements to align with the revised program. The proposed ordinance amendments include revisions to section 50.12a, 13a, and b, and revisions to section 151.06.03b, which is in the agenda packet.

Does anyone make a motion to put this on the agenda?

So moved.

Mayor Pro Tem makes the motion. Councilman Smith seconds it. Is there any discussion on this? There is none. All those in favor, raise your right hand. And it will go on the agenda.

Appreciate the painlessness.

Thank you.

Not a mayor. I'm sorry. I have a procedural question. I'm actually for attorney David, not related to this item. When we did the item number two about the straight light ordinance update, it was for information. Does council need to take a vote for information received or we never have before?

No. Okay. No.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

With that, any questions from the public regarding items listed on the agenda?

We got one more.

Huh?

Did I miss one? One more.

Kathy's got a council one for me.

Oh, I'm sorry. How did I miss that? Kathy, come on up here and tell us what you got.

This is just for your information. We got the quote for the rate study. The rate study was approved in the budget and this is Bill Siebert. He's done our rate studies in the past. I'm sure you've all met him. He does a good job. He's working with Carter and Sloop now. The quote is for $69,000 and it is budgeted into 27 budget and I just want to let y'all know that it was done.

Anybody have any questions?

Yeah, just give me a second. Yeah, I guess it's for informational, so it's not anything we vote on. I'd just be curious to know what that fee was in 2021, last time we did it. It was $90,000. That's the one thing that went down since COVID.

He's working with a different company. I don't know if it's the different company, if he's moved closer. I'm not sure. I didn't ask him why it went down. I was happy it went down.

Yeah, yeah. Don't mention it. All right. Yeah, I mean that... It's just that's a big deal. So I don't want to be in a position where he walks in here one night and throws all this up on the board and we're asked to make some kind of decision. I would respectfully request that this gentleman do his work and make some kind of presentation to us that's for informational purposes only. And 30 days later, we'll take up some type of conversation about it. And maybe 30 days later, we actually take action on it. It's always rushed. We only do it every six years. And it's going to be a harder decision. So I just respectfully ask for that timeline to work out that way.

Absolutely, I understand. Kathy, how long will it take him, and I apologize if it's in here, how long will it take him to perform his work?

It will probably take him several months. He's already given us the information request, so I just need to sign the contract and start getting the information together for him. So we should probably, I mean, I think he said three to four months.

But that's good to know that as well as in conjunction to the request because the study, I assume, will propose... starting with FY28, the next budget year, and we'll want to make sure that we time it in line with that. Right. Thank you.

Okay. Now, any questions from the public regarding the items listed on the agenda? Questions from the news media which we don't have? From council?

From staff?

Mayor, story time in the park is tomorrow, August 18th at 10.30 a.m. We have a fun late morning plan for families with story time, a phone party, and a special visit from Chick-fil-A Cow. We'd love to see families from across our community come out and join us for a morning of stories, smiles, and fun. If you haven't been, you need to come join us. It's a lot of fun. A reminder that the Market at Ice House takes place every Saturday morning. Stop by to shop local vendors offering fresh produce, flowers, handmade goods, and more. There will be another vision plan public input meeting on August the 25th at 530 at Town Hall. We invite everyone to attend and share your input. If you cannot attend, you can still participate by completing our vision plan survey, which will remain open through the end of August. The survey is available on our social media pages, website, and other town communication channels. Your input helps shape the future of our community. And with closing, that concludes our business for tonight's work session. We thank you for watching, and without objection, we're adjourned.