Mayor Margo G. Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Councilmembers Harrison C. Bristoll, Jr., Thomas A. Gross, Sr., Mabel Mumford-Pautz and J. Brian Kirby, Medford C. Capel, Utilities Commission Manager, W. S. Ingersoll, Town Manager, Joan Merryman, Stenographer, and guests.

Mayor Bailey asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of the previous meeting. Mr. Bristoll moved that the minutes of the meeting of January 26, 1998 be accepted as presented, was seconded by Mrs. Mumford-Pautz and carried unanimously.

Mayor Bailey announced that the Utilities Commission has cash on hand and in banks as of February 17, 1998 of $351,285.20.

Mayor Bailey called on Mr. Capel for his report. Mr. Capel reported that the motor controller on the main water pump (which was 16-17 years old) broke down. He said this was the main service pump which pumps all the water into the Town and maintains the water pressure. He said that GE, the manufacturer, charges $1300 a day to inspect the controller. GE no longer makes the parts for this controller and a new one from GE would cost $16,826 plus the $1300 service charge. He said he got a price from Retro on a Square D controller which was $11,204 installed. He said he ordered the controller from Retro and it will be installed next week. Mr. Bristoll asked if the warranty was the same for Square D as for GE. Mr. Capel said it was.

Mr. Capel reported on the Cannon Street job they are doing the work on time and labor and we are furnishing the material. He said they are replacing the service lines and it was good that they are doing this since when the dirt is taken away from the pipes there were many leaks.

Mayor Bailey said County Commissioners Larry Beck and Ron Fithian were present and wished to address the Council. She read a letter dated February 3, 1998 from the County Commissioners. The letter was a request that the Utilities Commission decision to charge the County $10,500 for water and sewer hookup fees for the 400 High Street building be reconsidered. They stated that the 400 High Street building was presently served by Town water and sewer and there would be no change in the use of the buildings. They pointed out that it was a reuse of an historic building, not new construction. Mayor Bailey asked Mr. Capel to explain the hookup fees. Mr. Capel said each unit, house or apartment, was $3,000 and there was a schedule for other uses based on this unit figure. He said office buildings are charged by fixtures, and there would be a fee for the sprinkler system of $1500. He said he figured the hookup at 3 units or $9,000 plus $1500 for the sprinkler. He said the building has been vacant for several years. He said no charge was made for the annex building. He said the water was cut off at the curb and it was an abandoned building.

Mayor Bailey asked if it was fair to say they already had one unit in the 400 building now and then they would have two additional units plus the sprinkler. Mr. Capel said possibly and that would be cutting the fees down by $3,000. Mayor Bailey asked Mr. Beck if he had anything to say. Mr. Beck said he appreciated the Council reconsidering the request. He said there was already service to the building and they would hope there would be no additional hookup fees except for the sprinkler which was new. He said they were trying to put the building back into use and felt it would help the downtown area. Mr. Fithian said a hookup fee was probably paid for the building originally. He said the original building had 19 fixtures and the annex had 7 for a total of 26 fixtures. He said the renovated building will have 17 on the first and second floor and if the third floor were developed in the future, it would have 4. He said that total was less than the previous number of fixtures. He said they were getting ready to spend about two million dollars in the building and it would contribute to the Town of Chestertown. He said nothing had been unhooked there, the water was merely turned off. He said it was like someone was remodeling their bathroom, had the water turned off to do the work, and then had it turned back on - would that person have to pay a new hookup fee? He said they felt some explanation may help. Mr. Capel said he figured the price and it was up to the Council.

Mr. Bristoll said he did not realize the water was only turned off and not disconnected. He said in the spirit of compromise, and he had mentioned this before, he would suggest that the fees be cut in half and set at $5250. He said he would make that motion. Mr. Kirby seconded the motion.

Mrs. Mumford-Pautz said we have a budget, the county has a budget to follow, and she had great faith that Mr. Capel had gone through the plans and the building was not going to be the same building as it was. She said once we make a decision we should not be asked to change it and she was in favor of staying with the decision that was made three weeks ago. Mr. Gross said he had no expertise in this field and he would rely on Mr. Capel's recommendation. He asked whether Mr. Capel recommended that the fees be cut or left as decided. He said if we make the change, it would set a precedent. Mr. Capel said that was putting him on the spot, but we could always use the money. He said the Town furnishes the water meter free which will cost $500 or $600.

Mayor Bailey asked what the actual costs to the Town would be. Mr. Capel said the County will pay for everything going into the building from the main. He said we supply the meter. Mr. Kirby asked if the Commission would lose money if the fees were reduced to $5250. Mayor Bailey asked if the Utilities Commission would be subsidizing them by changing the fees. Mr. Capel said it would be subsidizing them. The people in Town who own their homes are paying water bills and if we keep doing this, giving breaks on the fees, we might have to put the water and sewer rates up. He said if you want to give them credit for the existing building and the annex and take off $3,000 they should be happy.

Mr. Bristoll said certainly the more we get in fees, the more we have for other things, but in this case they have had water, they will end up with fewer fixtures than before, and he was looking for some way to compromise. He said this was a different situation from building a building on the site with no existing plumbing going to it. He said his motion was for half of the fee. Mrs. Mumford-Pautz said she did not think it was the Town's responsibility to pay for what the County does. She asked who would pay the difference. Mayor Bailey said it would only cost the Town for the water meter, there would be no additional cost to the Town. Mrs. Mumford-Pautz asked Mr. Capel do we have hookup fees and wouldn't this be cutting the fees? Mr. Capel said actually we would only be cutting the fees. She said this would be a new building when it is finished. She asked if we would cut the same slack for people who are building new apartments or new buildings. She asked if we would be giving the same benefits to everyone else.

Mayor Bailey said that was not the same thing, there was an existing structure owned by the County and they will renovate the internal space and lowering the number of fixtures. She said it will not cost the Town $10,500 to have a hookup fee. Mrs. Mumford-Pautz said that was what she wanted to hear, and that was what she voted on. Mr. Kirby said he voted for that also but he was under the impression that this was a whole line that had to be run into the building from the street and he was not originally clear that all the Town had to do was turn the water back on. He said he felt it was different. Mr. Capel said it would be a new line but the County will install the line at their cost. Mayor Bailey asked for a vote on the motion to reduce the fees to the County on 400 High Street to $5250. The vote was 4 in favor, Mrs. Mumford-Pautz opposed.

Mr. Ingersoll said he wished to make a point. He said the hookup fee was really a permit fee and there was no cost ever involved to the Town. There was a separate fee if someone needs a service line or lateral installed which we call a "private installation fee". The owner also has to pay that. The hookup fee was like an initiation fee to go into the town's system and helps fund our ongoing capital expenses. He said over the years the permit/hookup fees have been varied slightly, such as allowing them to be paid over time for senior housing projects rather than up front when the building permit was issued. He said there has been a precedent for public projects or quasi-public projects to have certain kinds of breaks. He said he agreed with the decision because there is an existing facility where the water has been voluntarily turned off by the owner and now they want it turned on. Mr. Gross asked, as an example, did the Stargate Restaurant have to pay a new hookup fee? Mr. Mr. Ingersoll said no, they did not, they were already hooked up and were not changing or intensifing the use. He said if it had been changed to a more intense use, then an additional fee would be charged. Mr. Ingersoll used the Barrett building as an example where apartments and commercial spaces were added to the original uses. There hookup charges were charged for the intensification. He said maybe someday we can make the ordinance more specific about the reuse of a building in order to quantify the fees.

Mr. Fithian thanked the Council and said they respected the decision of the Mayor and Council.

Mayor Bailey asked if there were any other questions. There being none, she asked for approval of the bills. Mr. Bristoll moved that the bills be paid as presented, was seconded by Mr. Kirby and carried unanimously.

Mr. Bristoll moved that the meeting be adjourned at 8:00 p.m., was seconded by Mr. Kirby and carried unanimously.

Submitted by:

Joan Merryman

Stenographer

Approved by:

Margo G. Bailey

Mayor

RETURN to 1998 Minutes