By REID TUCKER
The Paxton Town Council directed city staff to draw up an amendment reevaluating how much to charge for connection to the water system under the water and sewer ordinance.
The Council voted 3-0 (Councilmen Charles Cook and Travis McMillan were not present at the Oct. 21 meeting) to approve the motion put forward by Councilman Tommy Mathis, who supported overhauling the current rate scheme for the installation of a new water meter. Mathis was particularly against having new homeowners pay the full $2,225 currently required, even when moving into a pre-existing home, especially when $1,100 of that amount is in the form of impact fees. The cost to the city in terms of equipment and materials (but not including labor) is $1,200 for installing a new leadless water meter, but only $250 to switch out an old meter with a new one as the connection to the water system has already been established.
“I don’t think we ought to charge anybody an impact fee more than what it costs us to do it,” Mathis said.
City Attorney Clay Adkinson will work with city staff to develop the amendment to the ordinance’s subsection 17, which defines an “abandoned meter” as one inactive for five years or more. The current language of the ordinance requires new customers to be responsible for all fees and costs associated with setting a new meter the same as if a new tap into the water system was performed. Adkinson opined that an impact fee is best assessed only on truly new development, be that commercial or residential construction.
The amendment will be presented for the Town Council’s consideration at its next regularly scheduled meeting, and, if passed, the board can then vote to pass a resolution setting the tap fees to better reflect the city’s cost in installing a meter. In the meantime, any individual or business moving into an existing structure in the city before the amendment is passed can have the payment of their impact rates deferred until the new rates are enacted.
Though the Council members understood that an installation fees are necessary to keep the water system running, it was their wish to lessen the burden on the city’s fixed-income and low-income residents.
“We aren’t blaming anybody for anything, except that’s just too much (to charge for a replacement water meter),” Kemp said. “There are people who $1,100 has scared to death. There are poor people in this community.”
The Council also approved a plan to surplus the 50 or so leaded meters it has left over after switching them out for new non-leaded meters and to use the proceeds generated to assist in the purchase of new meters. There are roughly 500 leaded meters in the city’s system, all of which will eventually have to be replaced.
Next up, grant administration services provider Robert Jones reported to the Council regarding the status of one of the city’s pending Community Development Block Grants. The grant needed to affect the roof replacement and hurricane-reinforcement project at Town Hall had not yet gotten underway due to the RDBG paperwork still being in need of a signature from the responsible state officials. Upon receiving the grant, Jones said the city will need to put out a bid for a contractor on the project.
On a related note, the Council gave approval to include language in the construction contract requiring the construction company handing the project to provide a portable storage unit for the contents of Town Hall itself. Staff told the board that, on average, the portable storage containers they’ve looked at cost roughly $105 per month for a 16-foot unit. The renovation project is expected to take anywhere from 90 to 120 days once begun.
