Council meeting: Contentious but decisive

GARFIELD — Garfield’s mayor and four aldermen approved a water rate hike, a FEMA-funded road repair and other items during the June City Council meeting despite one aldermen not receiving pertinent documents in a timely manner, several aldermen being sent or given incomplete agendas and some not having pertinent documents or being given out-of-date versions.

Alderman Katherine Shook challenged Mayor Gary Blackburn about the bidding for a road repair in the Tall Oaks Lane project and money spent on repairs to streets other than those that were designated by the council in its previous meeting.

The original Tall Oaks Lane road work bid was won by Hutchens at $35,000. Blackburn said Hutchens personnel now say the original “base” paving system will not hold up due to street grade and projected increases in people driving on it, and Hutchens recommends a chip and asphalt paving system which adds $15,000 to the original bid.

The Federal Emergency Management Administration has allocated funds to repair only the flood-damaged portion of Tall Oaks Lane and those funds expire in early August.

Blackburn said he sent letters to three firms for bids, but received only one, from Hutchens.

Shook asked Blackburn what other companies were contacted. Blackburn did not name any, but agreed when Shook named American Paving and Road Works. Shook said she found 12 companies who do chip and seal work, and she said she also called a few of them and told them about the work opportunity. She also read from a text message she sent Blackburn in which she named two companies that could do the work and encouraged him to contact them.

Blackburn said Shook needed to be aware of the potential for illegality when doing such acts as a legislator, that it’s a “slippery slope when a legislator solicits companies to make bids.” Shook said, “I didn’t do that.” Alderman Susie Morrison asked if aldermen can determine which companies are contacted to make a bid.

City attorney Michael Beardon said, “No. Companies who knew about the work should have contacted him (the mayor) to see about submitting a bid.”

A discussion followed about what is required to get out the news so companies know about work and can make a bid. Beardon said a city may put out a solicitation or it can advertise, and

what a city does depends on cost and other factors. He said the city must legally solicit three bids but isn’t responsible for how many bids are received, and sometimes a city doesn’t receive any bids at all.

Alderman Jim Teeselink said he was hesitant to approve the $15,000 additional funds due to the recent expense of emergency road work caused by floods and said he worried it would “cause a shortage.”

Blackburn said, “There is enough money.”

He said FEMA will cover some of the expense but not the chip and asphalt, that “the whole road needs improvement” and “this is an opportunity to fix (it).”

Shook made a motion to approve only the FEMAfunded repair work, but it died for lack of a second. Discussion continued, and led to another street issue.

Shook asked Blackburn why repair work was done on streets other than those specified and approved for additional funding in the May council meeting. Shook contended that if the council was responsible for approving the funds for those streets, didn’t that mean it also needed to approve any changes from the original use. Blackburn said Shook was “riding an old horse into the ground,” and she was mixing up two line items in the Street Fund budget: road work and street repair.

Blackburn said, “You have not come to the meeting prepared. Your meeting papers are sitting on your desk (in City Hall). You can come by City Hall once a month to ask if you have all the documents.”

Shook said she works every day (in Fayetteville) from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and City Hall isn’t open before she leaves or when she returns home to Garfield.

It was later determined that the four aldermen had differing versions of the meeting agenda, not all of them had received all of the documents related to the items that were on the agenda, and some of the aldermen had been given unrevised or out-of-date documents.

Then, alderman Terry Warren presented the same motion Shook had earlier, to approve only the FEMAfunded street repair work, which Shook seconded. It passed.

In the midst of the street issues and documents snafus, the water rate ordinance was put to bed after months of discussion and public forums.

The council approved an as-yet unnumbered ordinance to raise water rates in annual increments over three years, with varying rate structures depending on customer location and whether for residential or commercial use. Morrison said the council chose the “middle ground” of three possible rate structures outlined in a University of North Carolina School of Government study. She said it will prevent higher usage customers from facing excessive charges, will be fair to those who use less water and will keep the discount for persons 65 and older based upon consumption.

According to the undated ordinance provided at the meeting, the year one monthly water rates for residents inside the city limits will include a monthly base charge of $16.13 plus a volumetric rate of $5.04 per 1,000 gallons of water; Year Two: base charge $17.26 plus $5.39/1,000 gallons; Year Three: base charge $18.39 plus $5.74/1,000 gallons.

Morrison pointed out a different set of dollar amounts written in the margins of the UNC report. It is unclear which amounts will be used.

A 2016 year-end Water Fund Statement of Cash Receipts and Cash Disbursements report, compiled by the certified public accounting firm of Berry & Associates, P.A., in Little Rock, showed water fund revenue of $187,707 and disbursements of $192,051, a loss of $4,958.

According to the UNC study, water and water infrastructure expenses are expected to rise exponentially in the next five years and predicted “expenses will exceed revenues by over $100,000” by 2021 if the rates remained unchanged.

Council members offered numerous examples and justifications for the need to replace, repair and upgrade water infrastructure. Aldermen Morrison and Terry Warren said one cause of increased costs is excessive water loss: 32 percent in March and May and 40 percent in April. Blackburn said he has learned an acceptable water loss is closer to 15-17 percent.

Warren said the water loss is due to the more than 50-year-old water pipe system that has been cobbled together over the years.

Blackburn gave an example of a pipe system originally set up on a well without contractor-quality materials and without bedded pipes, meaning pipes set on prepared surfaces that support and protect them.

Teeselink said the pipes in front of his house were repaired, but after the obvious leaks were fixed, “others became obvious.” He said it’s “like looking for a needle in a haystack” trying to find all the leaks. Blackburn said he encourages Garfield residents to report leaks.

Alderman Susie Morrison said many water meters are not functioning properly and must be replaced at about $100 each.

In a public forum on the water rate ordinance held prior to the council meeting, Planning Commission member Gayla Schuster wondered about the Two Ton water rate hikes and how those would affect the city’s proposed rates. Blackburn said Two Ton raises its rates from time to time and those are and will continue to be incorporated into the city’s rate structure by resolution of the council. Planning Commissioner Trisha Lee spoke of her concern the increase in water costs will drive away business.

In the regular council meeting, the water rate increase was approved unanimously.

A more light-hearted item on the agenda centered on fireworks and whether vendors will be assessed a refundable cleanup deposit when they come to buy their sales permits. The council agreed to let Blackburn handle it as he sees fit in the best interest of the city. The issue came up when a vendor last year left a mess the city had to clean up.

This also brought to light a long-standing misunderstanding: What was believed to be Ordinance No. 14 from 1969 prohibiting firework sales or use within the city limits in the city’s ordinance book was found to be only an affidavit from 1988 signed by Wanda L. Mahurin, Fay M. Weimer and Howard Ross, presumably city alderman of that time, and notarized by Jane P. Davis. It was unstated where the original ordinance is.

The last item of the meeting focused on the meeting agenda and documents issue. To solve the problem, Blackburn agreed to have meeting agendas and all pertinent materials ready by the Friday before the monthly Tuesday meeting, to make the materials available to each alderman in the way each wished, and to have meeting agendas posted on the Garfield Facebook page and website that same day.

The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m.