Town Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I would like to welcome everyone to the Town of Lexington Council Work Session this evening, September 21, 2026. Work sessions are less formal business meetings that enable Council to obtain information regarding town 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 the item on the next Council meeting. I'm Hazel Livingston, the mayor of the town of Lexington, and I'd like to introduce my fellow counci To his left is Council member Todd Lyle.

To his left is Council member Jenny Michaels. Good evening. To my right is Mayor Pro Tem Todd Carnes. And to his right is Council member Gavin Smith. And to his right is Council member Will Allen. Council member Allen, will you lead us in invocation tonight?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Let's pray, y'all. Oh, Heavenly Father, we pause right now to thank you for all the providence you've showered on our community. This lovely town we call home with all the chaos in the world. We can't take it for granted. For all the peace and prosperity you've blessed us with, Lord, please continue to bless us with it. Guide us and lead us and teach us and show us how we can best serve our neighbors. We pray all this in Jesus' holy name. Amen. Amen.

And now, Councilman Lyle, will you lead us in the pledge?

Thank you, Todd. I will now call the meeting to order. Council met in executive session prior to this meeting where we discussed the following matters permitted by S.E. Code 330-4-70A, discussion of potential property acquisition and discussion of a contractual matter related to a roadway project. Do I hear? No vote was taken. Do I hear a motion to ratify this report?

Councilman Williams makes the motion. Do I hear a second? Second. Councilman Michaels seconds. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of this, raise your right hand. And it is unanimous. Are there any deletions of items from tonight's work session? Hearing none, we'll move into our presentation, which is a special one tonight from our marketing coordinator Lauren Smith to introduce our class of 26-27 youth ambassadors.

Awesome. Thank you, guys. Thank you all so much. Do you know what their project's going to be yet? Would you like to tell us? Or do you want to surprise us? Can it be a surprise? It can be a surprise.

And creative, too. Yes. Yeah. Awesome. And thank you all so much. I appreciate you all being on our Youth Ambassadors team and doing this and learning. And we look for a lot of good ideas to come out of you all. anybody else thank y'all so much are you making they stay in tonight run for the doors Moving into our business items, tonight's first business item is from Planning and Building Director Jessica Libran.

I'll make a motion to place it on the October 5th council meeting.

Councilman Williams makes the motion. Do I hear a second?

Councilman Smith seconds it. Is there any discussion? Do y'all have any questions or anything for Jessica?

Well, it's just it's just so broad like we're referencing what 9 or 10 manuals in here. It's probably more of a question for Brent. I'm just curious about two things. One, they always bump across. The other one is just are there any significant substantive changes? Like when you give me these nine different building codes that we're going to reference in our ordinances now, it's hard for me to get through that. So are we making any substantive changes?

But I'm not going to start getting calls from people going, hey, I can't believe you guys upped the code requirements on this.

Okay. And can I ask Brent, this is just a very specific one, but this is the one I always get hit with is, and you're an electrician, so you can help me understand this, but the arc fault grounds that are in our that are in our panel boxes. What is that? What's that called? What's the exact terminology? The arc fault circuit interrupter. Thank you. So it's the case that we have the arc fault circuit interrupters required in our panel boxes in the town. Is it still the case that that's not required in the county? Do you know?

But that's the one I always get the most blowback on. I don't know if you get the blowback on that because it's not really required in the county and it is in the town and people get confused on that.

And is that new code, is that state-specific or is it a national code?

Okay, so anybody else? So I got a motion and a second. All those in favor of putting this on the agenda, raise your right hand. And it is unanimous. Item number two is from Transportation Director Randy Edwards. And I think, Randy, you're going to share. No, that's not the one you're going to share your informational stuff. It's the next one. Right?

Okay. So does anybody make a motion to put this on the agenda for what he's asking of? I guess you're asking for the extra money? Budget includes $50,000 for design and the remainder is planned for... Yes, that's what you're asking for.

Councilman Smith makes a motion. Do I hear a second?

Councilman Allen seconds it. Is there any discussion?

Do you think we have, I mean, we have to push it that long till late 2027?

Yeah, I'm just looking at this on GIS, Randy. It looks like, as you go back, there's water lines on both sides of East Main, and it crosses about halfway there if GIS is accurate. So are these water lines being replaced due to age? What's driving the replacement?

Yeah, but the service line, the service lines were due for this change out. Was that due to upsizing them or due to them being old and needing replacement deterioration?

Yeah, tell us what kind of pipe is actually in the ground and what was driving.

Yeah, it's past its useful life. So something of this size, do you go back with ductile iron pipe or do you go with PVC?

best we can. So who's who's doing the engineering design for us on this for this project for the water, not for the roadway, but for the water.

Anyone else? Yes, go ahead. That's my miss.

So is there a way to speed up just the gold intersection water lines, even if we just put them in the ground and didn't connect them so that we could come back and tie into them later so we could keep this road project on schedule? Because this intersection really needs this improvement.

Yes, madam mayor being that we're going to be delaying the road project and obviously doing utility work. I think I know the answer to this question, but I wanted to ask just to clarify. There's obviously a lot of other utilities at that intersection will those be put underground are we requiring those utilities to put those underground or can they remain above ground.

This may be a question for our attorney that can we not be our franchise agreement require when we make improvements like this in town for these utilities to bury their utilities. Or ordinance. Maybe it's not the franchise agreement, but I mean this is a major intersection in town. We're going to do a ton of roadway work. Could we not try to get these utilities underground, require them to put them underground so they don't have to come back eventually and tear up our road?

I like that thought. So would we I mean, have you ever seen it done? Can you do some research on that for us?

Well, and I will say, Madam Mayor, I reached out to Dominion Energy, not to call them out, but one particular utility about, you know, just trying to learn how we could get utilities put underground in the town. And what I didn't realize and what probably comes into play here is not just the service that's buried, but then it's the service line to the varying homeowners or the varying business. There's that cost as well. So how do we help those individuals not bear that cost. I don't know what that looks like. Maybe there is a solution. But being that this is such a substantial investment in t

Can you just look at that area at a high level and just see what it would cost?

Anybody else have any other thoughts or questions? Hearing none, all those in favor of placing this on the agenda, raise your right hand. And it is unanimous. You're up again, Randy. And this is where you're going to combine to the information, right?

Didn't you have an item you wanted to place on there? Yes.

Do I hear a motion to place this on the agenda? So moved. Councilman Michaels makes the motion. Do I hear a second? Councilman Williams seconds it. Do I hear any discussion?

Yes, ma'am. Randy, why are we not doing these lights ourselves instead of having them contracted out?

Well, could staff maybe look at what it would cost for us to do it in-house? Because I know we handle our parking lights here on downtown property. We handle the amphitheater parking lot lights, correct? Correct. So why would we not handle? I mean, I would just like to see the number cost difference for us to bring this in house.

Can you bring that back to us with if we put it on the agenda can you have those numbers for us that the council meeting so we decide which way we would want to get sure that yeah, that'd be great. Any other questions. Yes.

One quick question I have we evaluated the use of rather than doing. You know Dominion energy or purchasing, you know standard lights that we evaluated the option of using solar lights.

Could we evaluate that option? I forwarded an email actually to, I don't know if I forwarded it to Mr. Richardson, but we received an email, or at least I received an email last week from a vendor, I guess, who was watching our debate over streetlights in the town and reached out with the option of potentially using solar lights. I forwarded that information to our town administrator, Ms. Gleeton. Maybe she could put you in touch and see if that's an option. I don't know if that would be a cost savings for our citizens or not.

To clarify, it wouldn't be an option because Dominion doesn't do it or we can't find a private vendor to do it?

So it is an option. It's just not an option if we have Dominion do it. Correct. Okay, so could we evaluate potentially if that vendor, I don't know what those costs looks like. I have no clue, but I would be interested, you know, if it's a similar lighting fixture and, you know, it's cheaper in the long run for our citizens, perhaps that's something we should look at.

Yeah, I just want to clarify. Maybe I got confused on this. Kevin, are we saying that the option of a different type of light is going to require that the actual electric grid or the energy be provided by someone other than Dominion?

but all the other options of life that they have we can work with because the main is currently sorry uh... terribly word question i've been told i did a lot and i did so let me make this a little bit more bite-sized chunks if we installed a solar powered light pole in this parking lot Are we able to use Dominion for the supplemented power needed between those cycles? Or if you put a solar panel on it, Dominion says we're not going to provide any power to it.

We have Dominion sitting back there. She might come up and answer for us.

She said I'm not here for that. I'm here for the fun.

Could you get him some answers on some of that for us? Okay.

I'm just curious if there's a prohibition from our, because my understanding is there's not freedom of choice there. You have a territorial designation and that's your source of power.

Yeah. I'd be interested in those costs as well. I don't know what it is. I haven't done anything solar myself. But thank you for wording that better.

And with that, make sure the reliability of it all too for the solars and everything. Especially in parking lots.

So we would need that cost to go along with it. But it's something to look at.

Anybody else have any comments or questions? Hearing none, all those in favor of placing it on the agenda with all the stuff to come back, raise your right hand, and it's unanimous. What we've all been waiting for. Next up is Assistant Administrator Karen Richardson on the review of streetlight disordinates.

So right there before you go any further, that's everybody else that does not have their costs included right now? Correct. So 71, okay.

Can we ask for more clarification on that? Okay. Can you put that screen back up, please? All right. I understand the annual fixed costs are basically town assets, town parking, lots, et cetera. Correct. And you've got current expenditure. Correct. Give me an example of what that is.

So these are private neighborhoods with HOAs where we're paying the bill on the lots?

So two neighborhoods cost us $430,000 a year?

Does that include the 162 or that separate? It does. It does? Yes. All right, so current expenditures for all lights is $430,000. Of the $430,000, $162,000 is town assets. So the difference is private lights that we're paying for.

Help me understand those two differences. Earlier we were at $500,000. If this is 100% with no subsidy, then it's now $683,000. Correct. Where does the extra $183,000 come in?

So we would call neighborhoods that are currently paying their own light and say congratulations, we're picking up the bill now?

No, it's got financial costs over there for future and stuff.

You told us that our annual fixed cost was in that $429, and then our additional exposure of the neighborhoods that we'd have to take on would be $71,497. Right. So how did you go from $501 to $683?

Anybody else? I mean, I was just trying to figure this out.

No, you understand everything. So, Madam Mayor, I guess my first question is, and I I mean this with all due respect. Why are we talking about fixed costs? Because those aren't going to change. Regardless of where we go, we're still going to pay for the street light or the lighting that the town's responsible for, right? We're concerned with the variable cost, correct?

OK, so so just be clear about my math quickly. There's $267,500 of variable costs. That's the difference in the current expenditure minus our fixed fixed cost. Yes, so there's 267 five of variable costs that we're considering. Those are the streetlights that we're currently paying for and you would. You estimate that if we buy our ordinance today, if we took on additional neighborhoods, are you saying that 71,000 say 500? we would have additional exposure based on how the ordinance is written today.

And I guess my 2 questions to follow up there would be how did you come up with the 71,000 because and I've been very transparent about this I know just my neighborhood alone we we pay $42,000 a year for streetlights so that leaves $30,000 a year left over for the 40 ish neighborhoods or whatever that number was that are having their streetlights paid for I I'm not sure that math math.

Well, and I understand the rates. I'm sure the municipal rate is better than what, you know, the HOA is paying. But still, I mean, we have 30-ish neighborhoods or something like that that aren't having their streetlights paid for. So across all 30-ish neighborhoods that don't have their streetlights, the anticipated exposure is 71,000, correct? Correct. So if you subtract out one neighborhood that I know pays 42,000, the rest of 29 neighborhoods is only 30,000.

So why couldn't we keep it kind of like that, that we pay for the base and we...

I mean, it would still help homeowners association that's got the fancier lights and stuff or whatever. I don't know what y'all have, but whatever is technology now.

Okay, give us the third one and then we can start questioning.

And then your last page is just the breakdown of it, all right?

So... Could you give us or bring back some numbers? Because you know this is not going to be a one-time meeting, right? Okay. Bring back some numbers on the, if we did the baseline like we're doing.

Madam Mayor. Yes. Can I clarify, when you say you, you're directing that to the mayor, not to us as a council?

Yes. All right. May I ask a few questions? Can I finish? Sure, go ahead.

One of the other questions I had is my concern is some of the areas that don't have HOAs to pay for this and how that would work. So we would need to know that because you've got a lot of older areas that don't have HOAs. So we need to know what that would be putting on them. Just one I can think off the top of my head is Coventry and Mallard Lakes. They don't. So we need to look at that and I'm sure Chief wants us to maintain safety for streetlights. So we need to figure out how that would work. So please make sure you make that note. And then the other one, David, is if we Keep our program l

language in the ordinance that grandfather's subdivisions in and any new subdivisions would fall under the new terms of the ordinance no i meant i mean we take everybody we take bar lake sterling bridge anybody else that's not on it and they're in but another one that is not in it's not built just coming out of the ground or whatever it's not in and these are all grandfathered but we're after that the program stopped

And while I'm asking about this, can you research some other places that have that and bring that back to us for the next meeting too so we understand kind of what different people have done as expense as growth happens and that type of thing?

I've got a question or 2. Let me jump this one we had earlier, I think. Randy director Edwards you had talked to us about the North Church Street Park lot you got some experience with these lights as kind of in your lane. Do you have a recommendation on these 3 options from your foxhole.

Yes. So on the spot, my apologies. Do you have a recommendation of those three options?

Are you aware of any impediments stopping a neighborhood that's not incorporated, so to speak, or not associated with it putting together and collecting funds to choose to pay for those lights? For example, Coventry or Mallard. Is there any reason that they could not get together and associate, collect dues, and pay their own lights?

Maybe David or Kevin. David, what are your thoughts on that?

That's all the question I have thank you, ma'am.

Thank you madam mayor, yes, can I just ask to follow up on councilmember Lyles question so if we were to shift the the responsibility to our homeowners and let's use the example of. Now it's lakes or Coventry they don't have a homeowners Association, let's say that They decide they don't want the streetlights. Or, you know, neighbor A, where they have a streetlight, and, you know, neighbor B, where they have a streetlight, one wants it, one don't, or one doesn't. Are we going to take the position of we require them to have that light, so we're going to require them to pay that bill?

okay um i will just say for and i don't know how the rest of council feels but i will just say for my um benefit i'd like to just see a spreadsheet i mean can we just see the neighborhoods what the costs are associated with the neighborhood and what fund apparently they're put in are they fixed or variable because the distinguish meant between uh fixed and variable isn't exactly making sense to me here i understand because you don't have an hoa You're included in our fixed costs, but we would be pulling them out of our fixed costs because we would stop paying for all streetlights and neighborh

So wouldn't we just incentivize neighborhoods to not have HOAs?

I mean, also the neighborhood that comes in today has to meet our standards. Yeah, I don't put in sidewalks. They got to put in lights, right? They're not going to pass through Jessica's office without having streetlights, right?

But they don't have to have an HOA. We could just say, well, we want to establish an HOA. So now the town is going to pay for this.

I think they have to now, don't they have an HOA? No, no, OK.

That's a good question. Thank you, Jessica. That's a good question, Gavin.

Because Wood Creek doesn't have an enforceable HOA. And I don't know about Corley and Laurelwood. I mean, they're all older neighborhoods there, so I don't know if they have enforceable HOAs. But I know that Gavin and Bar Lake, I'm sure y'all have hefty enforceable HOAs. So

Yeah, I mean my neighborhood has an HOA, but I guess I'm I'm struggling to understand that the factor here of fixed versus variable because the ordinance as it's written today doesn't distinguish that I mean right now the ordinance says once on final plot approval the roads are taken in so long as they meet the standards. That's my reading of the ordinance.

I think they said that nothing meets the standards because it's a 1986 ordinance. Correct.

But what I'd like to follow up on that is, I mean, I have the list of the neighborhoods that, you know...

as a straight they're completely understand that and let's just assume it's not a 100% accurate, but I drove to like 7 of the neighborhoods where we're paying for the streetlights currently according to that spreadsheet understanding it may not be accurate. They don't have the lights that are required by that ordinance because those lights have been upgraded to modern lights so we haven't kicked them out of the program. but we're not accepting new neighborhoods because they're not installing lights from back in the 1980s. The standard's not really being applied, which is why you're saying upda

But you just said that they became the new standard. So really, we have accepted a new standard. We may not have adopted it in an ordinance, but a precedent has been set. I mean, we just approved streetlights in one neighborhood a couple of weeks ago, and they have the new modern streetlights. They don't meet the ordinance, but we're still reimbursing them.

Right. And just to say on the record, I agree with you that the ordinance needs to be updated. The point that I'm making is there are neighborhoods like Bar Lake and like my neighborhood, Sterling Bridge, that... the only reason apparently they're not getting reimbursed um is because they don't have the 1980 light they have the current version of that light like that's the only reason they meet all the other standards they're required and we're already paying for these modern versions of lights across town where they've been upgraded

And it is fair to say like until room point I believe they have more ornamental light so we actually reimburse at the standard rate versus the ornament so they pay the delta right.

But we have approved lights to be brought into the town. Since 1980 so like there are lights in town that we're paying for that don't meet that ordinance. Correct.

Well, to be clear, I'm not asking for anything. That will be the neighborhood HOA that has to ask, which they've done that. But I do think that it's wrong that an ordinance states that streetlights are paid for, and the only thing prohibiting these individuals from getting... Take it out of my HOA dues. I don't care. But there are... hundreds of citizens around this town, the only reason they're not getting that benefit is because our ordinance says a 1980's version of a light versus a current version of the light whereby which we are paying for the current version of the light in dozens of ne

Well, I don't know. I mean, that's for the council to speak. I'm just speaking on my own. I'm speaking for myself.

I have a thought. Listening to Gavin, what if we updated the policy or the ordinance or what can be approved and that kind of stuff. And then it's going to be a big discussion on the cost and where that goes and all that. But I think you've got to separate these two. I do think we've got to update it for our current sitting people.

And I would really like to see the big picture of if we took everybody we have now right now, not anything that's coming out of the ground, but right now that's developed and done. Meaning neighborhoods is already got homes in him. and put a grandfather cause and what that would look like and I'd like to see some other towns are places that have done that now do not America first, yeah, my question is really just about do we have a complete inventory of streetlights.

So that's the Parker Street that actually doesn't have a homestead?

Okay, but from there we could do a grandfather clause on those, okay? But I didn't realize that all those were in there. Todd, go ahead.

Yeah, I would just say I'm not really interested in trying to adjudicate small loopholes and the tiny minutia of this light or that light, try to find some political solution that doesn't rub anybody the wrong way. We need to stand up and be leaders and find a fair and equitable solution for all the people of the town of Lexington, not carve off these people and make these people do this. It seems pretty simple to me either all the people are going to get all the people of Lexington are going to get streetlights paid for and it's going to cost us about $700,000 a year at this point and it's go

Right, but even that's not fair and equitable. We can't pull a subdivision in and have 500 citizens who don't get a benefit that the other 24,500 get. Let's just make a big boy decision and be fair and equitable. And it could go either way. Give everybody lights, we give nobody lights. Madam Mayor, I'm sorry.

Matt American asked two follow-up questions. First, as you're doing your review, my first follow-up question would be, can you help us define what a neighborhood is? Is there a definition of that in our ordinance or land development manual like does it apply to the historic area of Lexington because I kind of consider them a neighborhood that they're not like a subdivision so to say.

OK, so I think that would be beneficial and. I think my second question would be if there is a provision that prohibits us from using public dollars to pay for streetlights on private roads. How is that cleared the legal hurdles when we're approving public dollars to pay for lights on private roads in the past. I mean, we've been advised that it's been fine, but I'm hearing you say that it might not be.

Madam Mayor, I think that some of these lines of questioning is further proving the complexity of this, but also further proving maybe what Councilman Karnes said, which is you got to go all in or you got to stay all out and i'm i'm clearly in favor of staying all out i don't think that's an expense that taxpayers should pay for for some but i do think that all these complexities and we can have a really long discussion but each and every time we bring up the onesies and twosies and each is an oars we are further proving that it it kind of needs to be an all or none type scenario to avoid uh m

So with that being said, we all have thrown out a bunch of questions. A bunch of things we'd like for you to look at. Is it possible as we think about this to send you more questions to have for the October work session?

And is that okay with everybody instead of? I mean, they don't have answers for us, but to make sure they get the answers, I mean, get the questions to them so they can have us answers for October work session.

Okay. And I mean, you heard two of them say that it's either... Or none. All or none. So I guess the none part was, I mean, y'all are surely for phasing out if it goes that way, right? Instead of just cold turkey cutting.

So I think that it would at least need to be those two. But everything needs to be changed so everybody can come in if we want to do it.

madam mayor yes can i just say i would be in favor of that option but could we allow the planning commission to go ahead and begin their work the ordinance clearly needs to be updated as far as the design standards the financial component you'd be in favor of what option of staff continuing to do that. What I'm asking though is could we allow the planning commission to go ahead and begin their work also on updating the design standards correct.

I think it would be premature because I think they probably need to know are we going to require one per four or one per six and how much are we going to reimburse? Are we going to reimburse the base rate? So if they go to this next one, it's going to be this much. So I appreciate the urgency, but I think it would be premature because I don't know that we have clear direction to give them because if they come out and go, well, let's go one per four lots and then we go, well, we're only going to reimburse on the very base level one per six. I mean, there needs to be some synergy between whateve

I'm just saying, now we've got three options out there. One per four, one per six, distance. I would just hate to waste their time until there was a little more clarity. We've been in this mess over a decade. Let's just take our time and try to get it right. I'm just one.

Shouldn't we make the decision without The financial component there of like let them make an independent decision of this is what it should be. You know, like I imagine we're basing our decision on square footage or whatever it is based on, you know, some standard, you know, not, well, this is what it's going to cost.

And I'm for that too. I agree with Gavin on that. I think that that part can go different because it's financial.

We're not going to reduce our standards because the town's paying for it, right? It's going to be what the planning commission wants. I mean, and it's based on some standard. I have no clue how they do it, but it's based on what you were saying. Dominion has recommendations for how far they should be, etc.

Madam Mayor, just counterpoint, I'd never ever make any decision in my life divorced from the financial liabilities they're in. So I don't think that's fair to say, let's just go figure out what we're gonna do and we'll figure out how much it costs later. I think the cost is always a part of the equation, especially when you're talking about costs like this that go into perpetuity, either on the backs of the taxpayer, actually on the backs of the taxpayer either way, either via their HOA or via the town of Lexington. So that's why I do think it is a factor. I don't think we can just tell some

I just would say that we're making a decision based on public safety on what we can afford, not versus what is necessary. I mean, at the end of the day, there's a bare minimum we're requiring. And data is out there that suggests that communities that have streetlights, based on minimum standards, have a 21% reduction in crime rates.

Yeah, but even issues of public safety are tied to finances. Much as Chief would like an unlimited budget, the budget has to have a ceiling on it. So let's not talk about things that don't have a ceiling on the budget. Let's talk about the budget.

Yeah, but I don't think we're talking about an unlimited budget here. I think we're talking about what does a standard – I think that's exactly what you instructed them to do.

You said just go figure it out and then don't divorce the finance from it, and we'll figure that out later. That's exactly what you said. I think we need to know what it costs.

That's bad policy. But I think the recommendation should be based on what the minimum standard is. I imagine that there is a minimum standard supported by some universal code that says this is what should be required for basic public safety.

I think that's pretty optimistic. Madam Mayor?

So I... I kind of would agree that we might need to know to finalize the financial part of it. We might need to know what our standards are going to be, and some people may lose some pavement on their lights and stuff. I mean, I don't have a clue what it is for one of the older neighborhoods, how close the lights are. You said every four lights. Is that what you said?

If you go that... further distance on them some of them may have some lights that don't get paid for and they'll have to figure that out i guess so that's what i'm talking about and so they may not have the older neighborhoods may have some that are not paid for for them if we update the ordinance so i'm not opposed to you going ahead with that work i guess it's going to be hold on Okay, so, and I'll just, let's use Corley Woods. Corley Woods has one ever six, okay? And I don't have a clue what it is, and you don't either. But they change it to where it's one ever eight. It's that far between

Which would be further evidence why we want to hold off on making different standards until we've made a decision on which route we want to go.

Madam Mayor. Yes. Is there some deadline that I'm not aware of? like a statewide, like I know we had that thing with David where we had to get it done. But the way I look at it, this is an ordinance that hasn't been touched since 2009, right? Correct. So I don't really see any reason why we can't take our time with this considering the cost. I understand what Councilman Carnes is saying, like let's get it right. And I appreciate y'all's excitement of you want to get that to Planning Commission, but I think it makes sense for us to make sure we know what route we're going to go.

Perfect. So I'm just saying I'm in concurrence with what Councilman Karn said. We can slow our roll just a second, get the information we need to make this decision before we try to separate it.

Well, I guess we need to hear what Councilman Williams and Councilman Michaels has to say then so she'll know which way she's going.

And I will just follow up and say there is some sense of urgency because you do have requests and citizens are being disadvantaged by us not taking up this recommendation. I think at the end of the day, some citizens see this as I'm paying property taxes or I'm paying taxes, and I'm also paying HOA dues, and HOA dues are paying for streetlights that should be being paid for by our property taxes.

Right, and I appreciate that. My point is simply that this has been 17 years since we touched this thing. We can give it a few more weeks to make sure that we're doing it the right way.

I see both sides of this issue, and I said from the very beginning this was not going to be something quick and easy. So to that point, I will concur with Mr. Carnes that we can – let's figure out the financial burden of this and how are we going to deal with it or not. And then that – because – to your point mayor if corley was if the new policy that we put in place doesn't pay for all of corley woods lights now we've got to go back and adjust that portion of it so let's let's make sure whatever we put in place It makes sense before we send it to Planning Commission to do their work. They can

So that's your orders. Don't do it. Hold it off till then. But I'm fixing to shut this off and we're going to send staff everything. Okay.

It's just that the minute the minion got a 7.6% residential increase this year they asked for 12.5. They got 7.6 at 7.6 a year for paid 750,000 for this this year that will double in 10 years. The 1.5 million and that's if they get half of what they asked for. So Everybody needs to understand that if we take this three-quarter of a million dollar deal and they're increasing at those rates, that this is going to double every 10 years and somebody's going to have to pay that money and it's going to have to be levied on our taxpayers. There's no way for us to go find that money. Just FYI, no opin

At the end of the day, it's shifting the burden from the town's balance sheet or the town's cash flow statement, whatever, to the everyday citizens. I mean, it's still being paid for, whether it's being paid for by the town's general fund budget or you're shifting it to the burden of the everyday taxpayer. Somebody's still paying for it. You're giving the choice to the homeowner. We're still going to require them to have the street light is what I'm hearing.

I still require him say so in reality, it's a tax increase on our citizens that we are imposing on them by shifting this burden from the town that we already accept over to the taxpayer think we're requiring the installation.

Okay last where we can comment yes, you got your orders of what all today. You what are you going to bring back.

And you need to bring that all back. We're going to go from there. And I'm just going to remind everybody up here, each one of us were elected to our seats, and you argue your argument, but you vote your conscience, and we should all respect each other with that. And some of us feel different on this than others. And I'm just going to remind you all of that. So that's the last comment on this tonight, and you bring us back. It's tough for October, and we'll do this again. But you know where some people stand and how they feel, and I think we've got to look at different areas. I mean, I've hear