Fillmore could add police officer soon

Another paid officer may soon be added to the ranks of the Fillmore Police Department, joining Marshal Darrel Bunten (right) and Deputy Marshal Nick Eastham.

FILLMORE -- A relatively minor administrative matter aside, the Town of Fillmore could be close to adding a second deputy town marshal.

Town Marshal Darrel Bunten was actually granted permission to add a second deputy during the May meeting of the town council, but the council and Clerk-Treasurer Tom Gilson are awaiting paperwork containing a job description and compensation.

Bunten was unable to attend the Thursday, June 2 meeting, but Gilson gave a progress report to the council. During the May meeting the council discussed the matter and determined that funding was not an issue.

Currently, the town is policed by Marshal Bunten and Deputy Marshal Nick Eastham on a part-time basis. Both men are full-time Greencastle police officers.

The town also utilizes reserve officers, but another paid officer should be even more helpful.

Aside from the police officer discussion, utility matters dominated the June meeting.

In his monthly report, Utility Manager Joe Cash told the council of a matter he would like to see changed in the utility ordinance.

As it is currently written, customers are financially responsible for any leaks on their side of the water meter.

However, during a recent call to the Fillmore Post Office, Cash noticed that the leak was technically on the customer side but that the pinhole opening was still on the town-purchased meter base.

Council members quickly and unanimously agreed with Cash's decision not to charge the post office for fixing the leak. The council also asked Town Attorney Jeff Boggess to change the wording of the ordinance.

The solution is less clear for another group of utility customers.

As it stands, all properties in the town pay a fee for wastewater service. Even those on well water who are not hooked up to the town's water system still have wastewater and pay a flat-rate monthly fee.

However, Gilson has been searching the town archives for reference to a 2009 agreement between the town and some of these customers to provide wastewater service at a reduced rate.

No documentation can be found and none of the town's current elected officials were in office at the time.

Resident Tony Cox was in the audience questioning why he has to pay a wastewater fee on one of his properties at all.

Cox owns a house that has no utility service -- town-provided or otherwise -- and even has the sewer line capped. He contends that the building is only fit for storage and should not be subject to a monthly wastewater fee.

No decision was made on the matter, which will be revisited in July.