Council mulls sixth cent of sales tax

The Town of Basin mulled whether to support a sixth-cent sales tax for the county at its July 25 meeting.
Mayor CJ Duncan explained that this option had been discussed in the past with the county and the other municipalities. The sales tax is currently 5%. An additional cent could generate an additional $280,000 to $300,000 annually for the town.
“If this idea were to take root, we would have to have public hearings and we would have to get on the ballot to be voted on by the general public,” said Duncan, adding that he raised the question simply to get feedback from the council and public whether it should pursue, explore or avoid.
Councilman Brent Godfrey asked if this had been a discussion among the mayors of the towns in the county. Duncan said yes, but a majority of them were not present.
“The beauty of sales tax is it is not just on us (residents). Anybody that drives through and buys a soda or gas, anybody from outside the area, may help.” Duncan said he understands it would raise prices on farm equipment and other items of interest to consumers.
He then gave an example: “The police department, $100,000 short with four officers. We all agree it would be a great thing. Our recreation district would greatly benefit from some of that money. Our cemetery is always in the red. It takes a huge chunk on money.” He also mentioned streets and alleys.
Councilman Stuart DesRosier reminded everyone how hard the town worked on its budget this year.
If the council wants to move forward with the possibility, another meeting will be held with the other mayors and the commissioners. Duncan said he is only bringing it up now because it will take time to get it on the ballot. Nothing will happen this year.
After comments/questions from audience members, the council tabled the discussion.
WATER TAP FEES
There was an extended conversation about a water tap fee. Lindsay and Ryan Julson recently built a shop in town and requested sewer and water taps for the structure. When the town crew went to the property to reactivate the sewer, they found a water tap. No one including the Julsons, the town or previous landowner, knew that tap existed. The town billed the Julsons $1,200. Town ordinance reads that “The water tap fee for a new service or relocation of existing service will be $1,200 regardless of the tap size. There will be full construction charges for materials.”
Councilman Carl Olson said the water tap should not be billed as a new tap but as an existing one. He quoted the same ordinance but a different section: “In order to activate the tap, the property owner will be required to pay for a new tap but will not be required to pay for the labor and construction charges affiliated therewith.”
He continued, “In my opinion, they are already in. In my opinion, it is an inactive tap. I have no idea who put it in. I have no idea if it was paid for or not.”
Olson said that he heard there was another property in town that was charged the same.  “Why are we charging $1,200 for something we didn’t do? We should charge in my opinion, you take the $800 off of that, that was put in for labor and it becomes a $400 tap fee for an existing tap to be activated to a house.”
Duncan said he followed Olson’s thought process, but disagreed.   Godfrey asked if there was a record of the tap ever being paid. Duncan said he looked but has not found any record of a payment.
Town Clerk Deaun Tigner explained why the $1200 was charged. “A lot of that, you have to remember, is if you are not paying an inactive tap fee, which is required, so we can report for our EDU (Equivalent Dwelling Unit). If you are not paying the inactive tap fee, then there is nothing there, so it is a new service.”
The mayor stated, “That’s the problem — that tap never existed in the system until you guys found it and asked for it to be turned on.”
Lindsey Julson said that it wasn’t “found.” The people who owned the property before knew it was there.
Duncan asked town foreman Mike Dellos if he knew where the tap was. Dellos replied, “I just went and found it when they inquired about it. We found the tap there.”
Duncan reiterated that believes the town needs to follow the ordinance. “The way that Carl reads it may be right. If it was never considered active, that tells me it was never entered into the system. So, whenever it was put in, whomever never reported that it was installed originally. Which means that it was done during a construction period. We didn’t have to go dig up the street. In the long run it saved the town
a lot of money.” He gave several examples throughout the town.
Lindsay replied, “I get what you are saying. I do. However, you guys didn’t have record of the sewer tap being put in either. I had to contact the engineer on the project to get evidence of that. So, I feel like not everything is getting filed or capped the way it should be.”
She continued there is really no way to know if the original tap was the water tap and if was ever paid for or not.
Olson explained that when Cash Duncan comes to the town for the water tap for his new home, the situation is treated the same as this one. Tigner noted there is at least another property that would fall under the guidelines the council is discussing She doesn’t care she just wants consistency.
Duncan explained that there is an ordinance that says a new tap fee is $1,200. Godfrey asked why there are conflicting ordinances. Duncan said his opinion is they are not. “If this vote goes through, it’s a one-time thing. Note it that way. That’s the end of it. Tap fee is $1,200.”
Ryan Julson responded that the $1,200 included cost of construction. Duncan gave an example of a property he bought that has an inactive tap due to non-payment. He will still have to pay the $1,200 to activate it. Ryan asked, “If that tap is already there, then where is the cost of $1200 coming?”  
After further extensive discussion including input for the town attorney, Kent Richins, a motion was made to charge $400 not $1,200. This excludes the labor costs and covers the material costs. Godfrey added to the motion that this is a one-time exception due to circumstances.
DesRosier said he would too like it noted that this was special circumstances. The motion passed with Councilman Chuck Hopkin voting nay.
  OTHER BUSINESS
• Building/Demotion Permits were approved for Burch on North Sixth and Olmstead on Crest Ave.
• Mary Russell and town engineer Jesse Frisbee discussed options for her to receive raw and potable water on her property outside of the town limits.  
• Frisbee reported on the culvert on East Wyoming. He said culvert needs to be replaced.
•  Frisbee gave an update on the town hall parking lot.
• An executive session was held to discuss the School Resource Officer contract. No decision was made.
• The council approved a special events permit and a 24-hour alcoholic beverage sales permit for Lost Boyz, LLC DBA Stockman’s Bar.
• John Suiter was at the meeting to discuss the town property on South Seventh and Big Horn Ave. He again asked what the town was going to do to maintain it. Duncan said the town could designate the street wider and Suiter would have to maintain it to the center of the street. This is what the town ordinance says for the other properties in town. Suiter said that was fine with him. Duncan added that the trees in the portion will come down eventually.
• Suiter asked at a previous meeting about having speed limit signs put on Big Horn Ave. Chief Kyle McClure said that signs on Ninth Street and Big Horn would be warranted due to heavier traffic.