 |
 |
 |
|
| The following summary minutes have not been approved by Simpsonville City Council. An official copy of the minutes will be available after adopted by City Council at City Hall 118 NE Main St. Simpsonville. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, notice of this meeting date, time, place and Agenda was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall and faxed to the newspapers, radio stations, television stations and any concerned citizens. |
|
 |
SIMPSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES BUSINESS SESSION March 13, 2007 6:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor: Call the March Business meeting of Simpsonville City Council to order. I’d like to welcome you all hear tonight. Ms. Bodkins would you call the roll please. ROLL CALL: Ms. Bodkins: Yes sir: Councilmember Bridges: Here Councilmember Garrett: Here Councilmember Lawrence: Here Councilmember Gecy: Here Councilmember Zitricki: Here Councilmember Larson: Here Mayor Waldrop: Here
Mayor: Thank you.
INVOCATION: Mayor: Is there anyone among us tonight who would like to ask blessings upon this meeting in your own personal way. All right hearing none, Mr. Larson would you ask blessings on this meeting in your own person way please.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF 02/13/07; 02/17/07 and 02/27/07 Mayor: All right councilmembers, you have in your packet the minutes of the February 13 th meeting, February 17 th meeting and the February 27 th meeting. I’ll entertain a motion in that regard at this time.
Mr. Gecy: Mr. Mayor I’ll make a motion that we approve the minutes as written.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Gecy do I hear a second.
Ms. Lawrence: Second
Mayor: Ms. Lawrence seconds. Any discussion, deletions, changes, comments. All right, hearing none, I’ll call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it it’s unanimous. Those minutes are approved.
REVIEW OF MONTHLY REPORTS Mayor: Monthly reports – all the departments have as they always do submitted monthly reports and I’m assuming that they’re in your office down stairs. So if you haven’t reviewed those please do so. And thank you folks for providing those for us.
CITIZEN COMMENTS Mayor: This is the portion of the program where we invite citizen comments. No one has signed up to speak tonight and we have no one on the Agenda. So we’ll move right along.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT Mayor: Next on the Agenda is the City Administrator’s Report. Mr. Hawes
Mr. Hawes: Yes sir, Mayor and Council – with regard to Freedom Weekend Aloft – I want to start off on that – that’s been an ongoing project of the City. The amphitheater does continue to progress in its construction. Sanitary and storm sewer infrastructure has been installed and water is going in currently. Electrical conduit will be installed in the next two weeks. We are now in fine grading phase with all grading to be complete by the end of this month. If you all had the chance to go out and take a look at it it’s quite impressive. You can see the terraces and I actually stood on the stage and maybe I envisioned myself as a performer in May and looked out across the vast expanse of cheering throngs out there. It’s quite impressive. Use your imagination for right now. With the fine grading phase virtually complete we will begin irrigation and turf quality Bermuda sod will be installed probably mid next month. We’re looking at the sod going in April 15 th or so. That will give it over a month to take and it should do quite well. So we’re real excited about that.
Parking and Transportation plans are being finalized. We will be meeting with the parking contractor that FWA uses next week as a matter of fact. This will allow us to set optimal parking lot lane configurations and tie into our over-all transportation plans that we have for the event. Incident command structure has been set by the combined efforts of Chief Major and Chief Reece and we will be using adjustable lane configurations on S. E. Main Street for ingress and egress to the event with a dedicated lane for the parking shuttle busses.
For SC Legislative Action Day which was February 28 th , Bruce Larson and I attended the Municipal Associations Action Day in Columbia . We met with Garry Smith and Eric Beddingfield, our two House Representatives and attended classes and presentations on the New Home Town SC Initiative to get the word out about the importance of cities to the economic well being of the state. We discussed such items as taxation reform, enclave annexation and dedicated funding for the 800 megahertz communication mandate. Representative Smith did arrange for a behind the scenes tour of the State House that was quite enlightening and enjoyable. I think Mr. Larson would agree. Overall it was a very productive visit to Columbia .
The Arts and Cultural Center continues on the front burner as well. We had architectural consultants working and they’ve completed a structural analysis of the building. They found that the building is very sound structurally. Load bearing walls are primarily on the shell of the building and that will allow us to rework some of the interior walls to create a grand entrance and foyer at what is now the rear of the building. They also have done some preliminary work on ceiling and window treatments, new or renovated seating and electrical needs assessment. The architects will deliver us a master plan proposal in the next two weeks.
With regard to the 2008 operating budget. I have received the first draft of each department head’s budgets. We’ve sat down and reviewed all the departmental needs. In the review and analysis I am incorporating the feed-back and directives from City Council’s Planning Retreat to align the new budget with council’s goals and objectives. The process is progressing well and I will have a final draft for you all at the budget workshop on April 26 th .
Upcoming Events: The next meeting of City Council is our workshop meeting on the 27 th of March and Opening Day of Baseball is March 23 rd and 24 th at Heritage Park . We look forward to everyone being out there for that. I’m open to any questions.
Mayor: Okay, thank you Mr. Hawes. Well since Council comments is the next item on the Agenda I’m going to combine those two and let council as they make comments and instructions and maybe we can build some efficiencies into this meeting. So thank you for your report.
COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor: Next item on the Agenda is council comments. Does anyone have comments. Ms. Lawrence you raised your finger.
Ms. Lawrence: Well one thing. Did you get my e-mail about the person that wanted to be on the bid list.
Mr. Hawes: Yes I did.
Ms. Lawrence: Okay – he’s local.
Mr. Hawes: Right, I understand.
Ms. Lawrence: And this sewer thing that you just gave me. We balance actually. Except for just like $25,000, you balance to me or the audit.
Mr. Hawes: Okay, that’s good.
Ms. Lawrence: That’s real good because that was going to be a topic of conversation. Kitten Action Team – I’ll give you all an update on that. We just finished fixing up a colony over on Edmunds. Actually, we got one too many. We got one of the neighbors cats, but I guess that’s all right. And we are now working in Powderhorn. Let me think. I think that was all I had right now on council comments. Thank you.
Mayor: Okay, Mr. Gecy
Mr. Gecy: Ms. Lawrence what were those numbers – share the numbers with us that balanced with the sewer fund.
Ms. Lawrence: Oh, okay – sure – okay we
Mr. Gecy: And I assume this is the money that is in our sewer fund
Ms. Lawrence: Okay we have received since June 30, 2004 through June 30, 2006 we received a million 59 thousand five hundred ten dollars. ($1,059,510). Out of that – now we do not include the bond in that okay – sewer department expenditures and capital as shown on the audits was $729,000 – Mr. Hawes has $754,000. So we’re off about $25,000 there. Leaving a fund balance of I said $730,000 but I had the $400,000 in there so it would be $330,000. Which they show a fund balance of $305,000. So where that $25,000 difference between the audit and this which is probably something that got coded in the wrong account I would think.
Mr. Hawes: I would expect that that’s a possibility.
Ms. Lawrence: So anyway the fund balance as of June 30, 2006 was $305,342.00
Mr. Gecy: Were you thinking we had more than that in there.
Ms. Lawrence: Well I was including the bond of $400,000 because I did not see where we had paid the $120,000, but we probably – have we paid the $120,000 since July 1 st .
Mr. Hawes: Yes ma’am.
Ms. Lawrence: Okay, so see I didn’t have that out of there so that had to come out so we’ve got $234,211.92 left of the bond.
Mr. Hawes: That’s correct
Ms. Lawrence: Which is in an interest bearing account. So the figures there that $25,000 off which is probably a coding error but outside that it’s –
Mr. Gecy: All right, so this million fifty nine is not monies that was budgeted from the general fund or from our taxes to go into the sewer fund. This is money that was collected from the $21.50 extra tax we all pay.
Ms. Lawrence.: Right.
Mr. Hawes: Well it’s not a tax it’s a user fee.
Mr. Gecy: Okay, whatever.
Mr. Hawes: Well a tax
Mr. Gecy: Okay, I understand. It sounds uglier to say tax – I meant it to sound like that. I appreciate your correct terminology though.
Mr. Hawes: No problem.
Mr. Gecy: Out of this money – we went back and forth talking about how this money was to be spent. We originally said – some minutes came up and we discovered that we all said that we were going to use this money and the intention this extra fee was to be used for sewer upgrades. This was the intention that we thought it was for. So in all actuality it’s going to pay sewer maintenance fees, it’s sewer maintenance costs, hourly wages, payroll for the sewers – is that right what I’m hearing.
Mr. Hawes: When the fee structure was started many many years ago that $8.25 had always been used for operating expenses. It was bumped to $21.50 because the CMOM analysis that was completed by Caliber Engineering identified a need to address items with regard to capital and rehab of existing sewer lines that totaled over two million dollars.
Mr. Gecy: So stop right there. I don’t want to interrupt you but stop right there. That’s exactly why we raised that to do upgrades to the sewer
Mr. Hawes: Correct
Mr. Gecy: Not spend it on maintenance – upgrade sewers – upgrade sewers. Does that make sense
Mr. Hawes: Rehab, upgrade – either
Mr. Gecy: Have we upgraded any sewers
Mr. Hawes: We’ve spent $750,000 in 2007 alone upgrading sewers.
Mr. Gecy: Where
Mr. Hawes: $400,000 on the Bi-Lo line – now $120,000 came out of the City’s pocket on that but we got a $400,000 upgrade on it.
Mr. Gecy: Right, we borrowed money for that.
Mr. Hawes: It still came out of the City’s pocket.
Mr. Gecy: But we borrowed money on top of the $21.50. Okay, come on – so what else did we do.
Mr. Hawes: A rehabilitation study that is underway currently right now in the priority basins. $82,000 on the Main Street line
Mr. Gecy: Which we got a grant for.
Mr. Hawes: $14,000 for improvements –
Mr. Gecy: You see what I’m getting at – we really are upgrading – but yes – we only upgrade when we get a grant and get a loan. I mean we need to
Mr. Hawes: Would you rather that I not try to receive grants
Mr. Gecy: No, no
Mr. Hawes: Okay
Mr. Gecy: I’m just saying that money needs to be put into the grant fund to upgrade some sewers. We have some sewer issues all over the City.
Mr. Hawes: We’ve got bids out for $135,000 truck that is itemized in the CMOM, the analysis that was completed by Caliber Engineering for the SSES. We have bids going out on that right now so that’s another $135,000 going into upgrade.
Mr. Gecy: I’m just reacting to what I’m getting from constituents who want to see this $21.50 that we get on our bill every quarter is used to upgrade and enhance our sewers. And I don’t think people really see that yet so I’m just responding to that.
The other question I wanted to ask you pertains to sewer while we’re on the subject.
Mayor: You still have the floor
Mr. Gecy: We had a Frazier Engineering was in Hunters Woods on Fairview Road and they placed two monitors. At the last meeting we talked about it. I talked to the guys and we didn’t have the numbers then but you were going to get back with those numbers. Do you have any numbers from that….
Mr. Hawes: I don’t have the specific numbers on that. I believe Public Works has been supplied with those and Joe Carter could probably tell you right off the top of his head. However, he was ill tonight and was unable to make the meeting.
Mr. Gecy: So this is an ongoing study to try to determine the potential capacity that this line can hold – is that what we’re still trying to study.
Mr. Hawes: I would say City Council has made it clear that that’s an important line to keep a watch on so that’s exactly what we’re doing.
Mr. Gecy: Okay, a couple other comments. The grass – go back to Heritage Park . If we’re going to sod all of the amphitheater area which is cool – I mean that’s going to be great – what about the balloon field or the football fields. Let’s call it the football fields – originally they were – the meadow – the pretty meadow – is that going to be seeded – is that seeded already or –
Mr. Hawes: It’s going to be seeded within the next week or so. As soon as irrigation. See we had to get water down to the amphitheater and to those fields which meant cutting across the parking lot and you can see it right there. You can see the saw cuts. The water system is coming out most likely tomorrow to begin that water. When the water is out there the irrigation is already laid in the Meadow, as you call it. Where the football and soccer fields are. So the water once it’s there will be in. We did not want to seed it without having irrigation. So we’re going to seed it immediately following the water being tapped in. And that will give it approximately two months for the seeds to take.
Mr. Gecy: Okay, good. I visited over in Cedar Cove today and what we found – there’s still some work to do with that catch basin and the engineers from what I heard that they would report back – they still have some work to do before they sign off on that. But there is a crack in the pipe at the very bottom of that pipe that leads to the other storm drain. So that’s being worked on. And also, they are going to trim back some of those holly’s along the fence line which are grown over into the fences on that line. So that’s good. And I think it’s a good neighborly thing. It’s kind of the way we attacked it as a neighborly thing. And the other – I found another catch basin grown over. And I know this is not our problem but it is a problem because it’s in the City. There’s another catch basin that’s completely covered by now rotted kudzoo but it completely grows over it and it’s behind Chancellor’s Commons. And it also affects the water flow into Cedar Cover from the back side. And the bad part is both of these creeks, this comes from West Circle where the headwaters under West Circle cuts through the back of Chancellor’s Park to Chancellor’s Commons and it comes off the back of Chancellor’s Commons and there’s this catch basin that’s not working. You can see where water goes right through it. It doesn’t hold water so we started the process of looking at DHEC to look at that.
Mr. Hawes: That’s an appropriate process
Mr. Gecy: That’s right - And I’m just mentioning it because it’s something that’s effected. What the idea is perhaps all the way into Poinsettia this same creek creates problems at Carl Bailey’s house and on past that and that road even flooded right there one time, years ago. These two catch basins seem to be not working properly and that’s I think maybe we could have some progress on that whole flow – to hold a heavy rain back long enough for it not to flood these properties. I think that’s a good community effort on CVS to work with us and then we’ll work on the other aspect through DHEC. That’s all I have. Thank you.
Mayor: Okay, thank you. Ms. Lawrence again.
Ms. Lawrence: I just wanted to ask one more thing about the sewer. Is Frazier not checking the pump at the Arbors to make sure that it can actually carry that flow to the Bi-Lo line.
Mr. Hawes: I don’t know that Frazier is doing that.
Ms. Lawrence: But isn’t somebody doing that – wasn’t there some question – that it might not can carry it over there.
Mr. Hawes: There is yes. We want to make sure that it can before we switch it.
Ms. Lawrence: Okay, that was all I had.
Mayor: Okay. Mr. Garrett
Mr. Garrett: On the walk and don’t walk signs down on Fairview Road – are those maintained by the State or the City
Mr. Hawes: They would be state
Mr. Garrett: We need to notify them that we’ve got two out at right across from Sharonview there on Fairview Road and Ruby Tuesday’s. Neither one of them work.
Mr. Hawes: We’ll take care of that.
Mr. Garrett: It probably doesn’t bother anybody but people walking and it’s kind of hard to get across there.
Mayor: So did you walk or didn’t walk
Mr. Garrett: I walked it.
Mr. Hawes: If I could add we did see the installation of the 4-way stop sign on March 2 nd and there are some warning signs as you come up now that identify that they are upcoming.
Mr. Garrett: Have we heard anything on South Main and Richardson
Mr. Hawes: I have not heard a word from that gentleman. I’ve tried to reach him. I will continue to do so.
Mayor: He promised me he would call me back when they had completed that thing and I haven’t heard a word. Whether that will happen or not I don’t know.
Mr. Garrett: And also on S. E. Main Street the dentist office – the new dentist office. We’ve got a water problem there when it rains. It stands and for like weeks at a time after a large rain and it’s a large area – probably as big as this area up here. Can we get somebody to look into that.
Mr. Hawes: We’ve already been working with them on that. Absolutely. We have been working with them.
Mr. Garrett: To no avail.
Mr. Hawes: No I think we will have avail. We’ll take care of that one way – there was an attempt that was not successful in diverting the water the way it needed to so they’re going to revisit that.
Mr. Garrett: Okay, that’s all I’ve got.
Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Larson
Mr. Larson: Mr. Hawes when you were talking about the grand entrance to the Cultural Center – is that – is the front where the doors are or is the front the back of the stage end of the building.
Mr. Hawes: The grand entrance as envisioned would be what is the back of the building now facing City Park .
Mr. Larson: Okay, so that’s actually now considered the back instead of the front. And will the stage still be on that end of the building.
Mr. Hawes: The stage isn’t going anywhere. It’s going to stay the way it is. Without having a map in front of me right now to describe to you how some of these things are envisioned – that’s why we’re going to do a master plan and be able to lay it all out and have some prices to go along with what we lay out. It’s in its infancy right now. But, we’ll have a real fine building when it’s done.
Mr. Larson: Well the Kauffman concert the other Saturday – I thought it was a huge success and it was so nice to see that building filled with 600-700 people and being put to a good use. So hopefully this will move forward. And also I was going to ask you a question about the streetscape progress.
Mr. Hawes: The streetscape is still hanging in the able arms of Duke Power. It’s an issue with regard to their three phase and how we’re going to tie into that. We’re working with them, as a matter of fact we have a meeting with them tomorrow with Tony Kellett and that will be one of the points of discussion. We want to get back to work in taking those lines down.
Mr. Larson: Is that why the trenches are being cut in the sidewalks.
Mr. Hawes: Correct. The trenches have been cut. Portions of the sidewalk have been removed in anticipation. However, we had to stop the work until we could determine exactly what the technique was to be used to bring the lines from underground back up to the three ways at the corner of College and N. E. Main.
Mr. Larson: Is that Duke’s responsibility to –
Mr. Hawes: They have to tell us how they want to do it and they have to clearly – they haven’t made it clear as to what they want to do at this point. We have employed an electrical consultant to work with them for that purpose.
Mayor: Why did they not bring this up as an issue in the initial planning stages. Why do we get to this point and then they bring this up and we have to stop.
Mr. Hawes: That’s a question I’ve been asking
Mayor: And their response.
Mr. Hawes: Duke Powers?
Mayor: Yeah – was that their response – we’re Duke Power
Mr. Hawes: To a degree. I don’t think they put a whole lot of effort into it at all until the plans were completed and when they saw the plans they said – oh well now we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to do this. So it’s the way it ended up.
Mayor: It looks like we could have started before Christmas after all. Mr. Zitricki
Mr. Zitricki: How is that going to affect our progression to get this completed.
Mr. Hawes: It’s probably held us up a couple to three weeks
Mr. Zitricki: For now, but to get this analysis done – what’s it going to take to get the lines moved. That could take months,.
Mr. Hawes: I couldn’t say. I could not say. I’m meeting with Duke Power tomorrow as a matter of fact, so I could not tell you until I speak with Mr. Kellett exactly what the prognosis is – I would expect it wouldn’t be much longer. I mean we’ve got the conduit in the back yard ready to go. It’s been there for about 3 weeks so we’re ready to go.
Mr. Zitricki: Well could you send an update once you get the information from Duke Power so we know what’s taking place.
Mr. Hawes: Certainly
Mr. Zitricki: Thank you.
Mayor: Okay, anyone else. All right, thank you councilmembers.
ORDINANCES • GO Bond – Street Resurfacing – 2 nd Reading Mayor: Next item on the Agenda is Ordinances. Mr. Hawes tell us about the GO Bond.
Mr. Hawes: Yes sir, Mayor and Council – this is second reading of the street resurfacing bond. The monies from the bond would be used to resurface the priority list streets that you have in front of you. Just for reference sake we have actually taken the State roads or streets out of this proposal. City Council could certainly put them back in but we believe we may be able to work with the State to address their needs in an efficient and equitable manner. What we have basically is all of the roads of the list can be paved if there is no full depth patching for $297,000. Now that’s unrealistic because we are going to have to have a good bit of full depth patching. The longer the roads go the more the full depth patching will be required. SO I think there’s an imperative here that we get on this as quickly as possible or the price will keep going up. That’s one of the reasons this is being done in an all encompassing bond. The bond will produce $750,000 approximately, to be used on the priority streets and of course on the fire station improvements, which were also part of it. And this will take care of virtually all the streets on the list. There are some streets that may not be covered in the $750,000 that will be covered with the participation of the City with the Legislative Delegation Transportation Committee Program, that we feel that we can get virtually all of these streets that are not highlighted in this fiscal year, I mean in this calendar year with the two programs. With our bonding and with the CTC Funding.
Mayor: Okay, well let’s back up to the state roads for just a minute. Back in January when we first started talking about resurfacing all of these streets and about the bond issue and that sort of thing – we hadn’t brought up the bond issue at that point but we were talking about ways to do it. I asked that we do a survey, just like we did the City streets of the state roads in the City that needed resurfacing or repairing and then I asked that those be prioritized just like our City streets and I asked that we get in touch with the folks at DOT and our state legislators if necessary, whatever, to try to bring pressure to bear for them to do their part. Have we made any progress with that,.
Mr. Hawes: We’ve ridden all the roads. All the state roads have been ridden and they are in the process of being prioritized by Public Works.
Mayor: So we’ll get that list when they’re prioritized. And then what sort of concerted effort do we plan to put forth to try to get the state
Mr. Hawes: I believe it would go along the lines of what you suggested. Getting the DOT, sitting down with them, identifying the fact that these state roads have been neglected by the state for many a year and working with our state legislators to perhaps direct some state funding toward that end. Okay well we’ve got to do that because the majority of the streets in the City are state roads and we’ve got to get them to do their part if we do our part and then the feeder roads are damaged – we’re not going to accomplish a lot. We’re still going to have problems. All right well I’ll let others go before I ask other questions. Anyone have any questions or comments.
Mr. Gecy: Do we need a motion
Mayor: Thank you very much – we need a motion before we can talk about this. Would somebody like to make a motion. I just had to ask that question I couldn’t wait. That’s a different subject actually. Would you like to make a motion Mr. Gecy
Mr. Gecy: I didn’t say that.
Mayor: Would anyone like to make a motion.
Mr. Larson: I’ll make a motion – I make a motion we talk about the paving –
Mayor: I’m sorry Mr. Larson but that’s really not the way it works – is there any specific action that you’d like to make a motion and then we can talk about it
Mr. Larson: I make a motion that we move forward on this paving project
Mayor: So would your motion be to issue GO Bond for the plan
Mr. Larson: Right, yeah – Mr. Holmes are you going to help me out or not.
Mr. Holmes: I would just ask you to move to adopt the proposed ordinance as before you to issue the general obligation bonds in the amount of $800,000.
Mr. Larson: I would move that
Mayor: Is that what you said
Mr. Larson: Yes
Mayor: I thought that’s what you said – all right do I hear a second
Mr. Bridges: Second
Mayor: Mr. Bridges seconds. Now discussion. Would anyone like to discuss. Mr. Gecy
Mr. Gecy: How do you all feel up here on council about neglecting paving the state roads regardless of what the state does. I mean these people live on these streets as citizens of Simpsonville and their property tax – and I think it’s a tax – isn’t it a tax Russ, Mr. Hawes – it’s a tax that they pay – property tax to expect services and part of the services I feel is road paving.
Mr. Hawes: They also pay a $15 road fee to Greenville County which we get a less than fair share.
Mr. Gecy: We have got some money from them but we’ve been diverting that upkeep to doing the downtown streetscape so we’ve been getting that money but we haven’t been spending it on paving – so be honest with me on that. Isn’t that true.
Mr. Hawes: We did one year.
Mr. Gecy: That’s right – okay – but what I’m saying is the people that have state – live on state roads are being somehow punished. They’re not getting their road paved and they’re still paying taxes – just because they’re on a state road. I wouldn’t be adverse if the state’s not going to help us – and this has been going on for a couple of years – there’s a few streets on here that really need to be paved – so are we never going to pave them if the state never helps us. They’re crying now.
Mr. Hawes: Would you like a clarification of what’s sitting before you here.
Mr. Gecy: I’d like one
Mr. Hawes: All right. This identifies the state roads and separates them out because the Mayor had mentioned that previously. If this bond issuance is done it’s up to City Council as to which roads are paved. If City Council decides the yellow highlighted roads need to be resurfaced because the state isn’t going to ever get to them then they can certainly be included in the priority list right where they sit,.
Mr. Gecy: Well that’s exactly what I was trying to infer that we need to do that or consider that – and council consider that because those people need their roads paved as well.
Mr. Hawes: But the thought process here was let’s not commit to doing those until we see if the state might be able to assist or take up their burden.
Mr. Gecy: Well this list is 3 years old
Mr. Hawes: But they’re still the same roads they were
Mr. Gecy: We know which ones have been state roads all the time. Hopefully the state department is going to be doing better and maybe they will come around but I’d like to see us you know get a good commitment one way or the other after all this time. And maybe pave some of these roads out of good faith. Maybe the thing would be to find the ones that are the worst and maybe even just do the absolute worst. But see Davenport is a – Davenport ’s in orange on this and Davenport ’s not included in this cause – part of it’s a state road but mostly because Davenport is so bad it needs to be widened.
Mr. Hawes: It needs to be rebuilt, re-engineered.
Mr. Gecy: Now at the beginning of this is there a figure that includes all those even the colored ones.
Mr. Hawes: Not at this point.
Mr. Gecy: So if we were going to do Davenport along with everything else – have you got any ballpark figure what that would cost.
Mr. Hawes: I really don’t because Mr. Carter reports that Davenport needs to be widened and basically reconstructed. I feel it would not be worth resurfacing with the size and condition of the shoulder and with it’s current width. I would be glad to get an estimate on this project. It would need a separate contract due to the complexity of the construction needed.
Mr. Gecy: Including that little bridge area down at the bottom of the hill.
Mr. Hawes: Certainly
Mr. Gecy: That needs to be done no matter what we do.
Mr. Hawes: It would be a separate project yes
Mayor: And Davenport is part state and part county – part of Davenport is county road. There’s no city portion of Davenport
Mr. Gecy: I thought it was from Calvary Church on down to
Mr. Hawes: I think it’s all three.
Mr. Gecy: The state portion at the Church is right at the church and then it becomes a city road from there on down. I think but you’ve been around longer than I have – I’d have to defer to that. I guess getting back to it if we’re going to approve this the list that we have in front of us – the choice we have to make tonight is the list we have in front of us – if we take all the yellow streets out which is Trade, Eastview Drive, Aster Dr., Davenport, Fernwood, Woodside, Jones Ave and W. Curtis and some not the whole streets, but if we took all of those out how much is that going to cost us to pave those streets.
Mr. Hawes: I can only give you estimates but the remainder of the streets less the ones you just mentioned with a very conservative estimate – in other words an estimate that is probably on the high side – because we actually took the high range so we’re not going to undercut ourselves – would be approximately $1,000,053.
Mr. Gecy: And that’s doing all the deep patching necessary
Mr. Hawes: Correct – heavy deep patching and it may not require all that.
Mr. Gecy: Now this would fix those roads that what’s the phrase you were using alligatoring or gator backing.
Mr. Hawes: Correct – what it would allow us to do is to take $175,000 per year going forward and stay ahead of the curve. $75,000 would be the debt that would be paid on the bond on a yearly basis over 15 years and $100,000 would be the city’s match with the Legislative Delegation Transportation Committee that $100,000 match. So you would have the $100,000 dedicated to paving on a yearly basis with the City Council’s approval and the $75,000 that you would be encumbering with the bonds. So for $175,000 per year going forward you would then be at the top of the curve and be able to take on the deteriorating roads as they deteriorate. Well that’s a good plan as long as we don’t decide some time in the future not to take that $175,000 and do something else with it. We need to get on that track. We need to promise ourselves if we borrow that money to get on that track and keep up with it. Like the police cars. We get behind on police cars – your six behind one year and then you’re 10 behind the next year if you don’t keep up. And you understand that. I guess our decision here tonight is we don’t really know how much it’s going to cost us is the way I look at it. Because we don’t know how deep of patches we’re going to have to do. Worst case scenario is $1,000,053.
Mr. Hawes: To take a project of this size and say it’s going to be exactly a set amount – it’s very difficult. What we tried to do is plan for the amount that would be appropriate for the project.
Mr. Gecy: So if we approve $800,000, obviously if every road needed the attention to get to a million three – if every one had to have the estimate for the deep – you know – let’s just say worst case scenario. And we’re only going to borrow $800,000 – tell me which one on this list isn’t going to get done.
Mr. Hawes: Well we get another $200,000 through the LTDC allocations.
Mr. Gecy: That’s with the matching
Mr. Hawes: Yes. I think the City Council’s intent at the retreat was that they would participate in that process this year and that they would set aside that funding so there’s you’re million dollars.
Mr. Gecy: Well I’m in favor of paving the streets.
Mayor: Okay – Ms. Lawrence
Ms. Lawrence: Did I understand you correctly that you think we can get some help from the state on the state streets.
Mr. Hawes: You may be inferring that I think that. I think it’s worthy of our attempting to solicit help from the state be it through the CTC on a separate allocation or be it through some other allocation in the budgeting process with regard to DOT direct funding of maintenance projects.
Ms. Lawrence: See because, I know everybody wants to live on a nice street but what I’m seeing is the main travel streets are the ones that are state streets and some of them are bad.
Mayor: They are and – well I’m going to wait go ahead
Ms. Lawrence: No you go ahead because I’m done.
Mayor: Well I just wanted to respond to that because I’m the one that’s talking about these state streets and let me tell you I appreciate what you said that the next payers should expect services for the tax money they pay us but they should also expect service from the tax money they pay the state and the state is not stepping up. We need to make sure they step up. I want to see us make a – I’m not talking just about a phone call to Garry Smith or a phone call to Eric Beddingfield or a phone call to whoever. I’m talking about a concerted, genuine, perhaps even involving our good attorney here – and demand that the state do what they’re obligated to do by the constitution of this state and that’s to take care of these state roads. Because we’ve made the phone calls. I can tell you I’ve made phone calls, I’ve groveled for years and I always get the well later, later and we haven’t gotten it so I want us to draw a line in the sand and make sure that we’re getting for our state tax dollars what the state is obligated to do before we even talk about it. And I can assure you that if we start talking about doing it if the state doesn’t do it. I mean if that gets out I can guarantee you they’re not going to do a thing because they’ll happily, gladly let us resurface their streets and rebuild Davenport Road . Davenport has needed rebuilding for years and years. But that’s a huge project and certainly that’s one that the state needs to step up to and take charge of. That’s why I don’t think ought to even consider that. We can – we can pave them. We can solve every problem in this City by spending money and that’s what we’re doing here. We keep talking about spending more money – we’re going to spend money to do all this street paving, we’re going to spend money to take care of all our sewer problems. We’re going to do all these things but it’s going to take more and more money. That brings me to the point that I brought up last time. I asked that at this meeting you bring me the numbers showing how issuing this bond will affect our overall budget. How it will affect our ceiling, our bonding capacity ceiling, how it will affect our cash flow. In other words, how much will the annual payments be and where is that money coming from. Do you have that for me.
Mr. Hawes: Yes sir. The annual payments will be $75,000 per year – that is not a large part of our budget – 1%
Mayor: For how many years
Mr. Hawes: It’s a 15 year issuance – 15 year term. With regard to the borrowing capacity our tax base is $45,800,851 – 8% of that is $3,664,068. Our current GO Bonds are 1.875 million dollars so that leaves us about 40% of our capacity.
Mayor: Is that before reassessment or after
Mr. Hawes: This is before reassessment – we’ll have a huge – we expect a large increase in the 8% when we have reassessment which will occur this year.
Mayor: But that’s todays dollars you’re talking about – that we’ve only used 60% of our bonding capacity.
Mr. Hawes: That is correct – so we have 40% left. With the 2007 – well we have an April payment of $120,000 on bonds – so that brings the borrowing capacity to 1.909 million as of April 30 th . When we issue this GO that would take $800,000 off of that so our net borrowing capacity after issuance is 1.109 million dollars. And then we have reassessment coming.
Mayor: And what’s the amount of this issuance again – I apologize
Mr. Hawes: $800,000
Mayor: And that’s $75,000 a year for 15 years and includes interest
Mr. Hawes: Correct
Mayor: Apparently because of our great bond rating
Mr. Hawes: It’s a very strong statement to our bond rating.
Mayor: Quick math in my head says that 15 years at $75,000 is
Mr. Hawes: Remember we’re a municipality so we get tax exempt and we’re also looking at a 4% bond rate.
Mayor: Okay. And your comfortable with that
Mr. Hawes: Absolutely
Mayor: You’re not going to come to us and say we need to raise taxes because we issued this bond.
Mr. Hawes: If I come to you about raising taxes it will be something separate. I don’t plan on that
Mayor: Separate is a good word to use.
Mr. Hawes: I don’t plan on that.
Mayor: All right. Mr. Gecy
Mr. Gecy: Let me go back just one more - Mr. Mayor you made a good point about that in your concern about borrowing more money but in our retreat if you’ll remember I want to do this paving out of money that we had that we paid ourselves back from the Heritage Park money and I did not want to borrow money to pave. I wanted to use money that we already had and if you’ll remember the vote went 4-3 to almost spend money that we had – that the taxpayers had already paid taxes on and then we had in our hands and still do have in our hands. I’m in favor of getting the street paving done – you’re looking at me like you don’t remember that conversation
Mr. Hawes: No I found it interesting that you said they’ve already paid taxes on – this way the future tax payers are paying for the roads that are being taken care of right now so the ones that are sitting out there right now are not having to pay as much,.
Mr. Gecy: Well it can be looked at either way but this amount of money – what we have to decide is borrow more money – go into debt a little further – I know you brought that up as an answer to it – on the other hand we have this fund balance that has been greatly increased by I called it a windfall – it was a nice little chunk of money for us to get back that we already paid in to do work at Heritage Park. Paid ourselves back – so we have to make a decision – do we use money that’s in a savings account to pave roads or do we borrow more money. So that’s the question that we have before us – which is the wisest to do. We have money here and we have the potential to borrow money here and I guess the answer is it’s better to borrow money if we get such good interest rates and then again we’re taking the risk of putting our City in debt. For 15 years your taxpayers will be in debt to pay for these roads. Is it worth going into debt over.
Mayor: But that money is not found money – that was money that was shifted from one account to another account
Mr. Gecy: But it’s still there
Mayor: There was a great deal of concern expressed during our last budget process last year about our fund balance and by shifting this from there back into the general fund we have met our fund balance obligations and the water is smooth – so you’re talking about spending that money again and it will put us right back where we were. So that’s – I respectfully disagree with your comment that that’s found money.
Mr. Gecy: Well when you spend money to help somebody out and they pay you back then that’s money that you did without. We suffered, we didn’t pave roads, whatever we didn’t do with that money we’ve got it back in our pockets. The first thing we did with it was we put money into a fund balance to build up our fund balance that never was 20% - now it is 20%. We’re all happy about that but it wasn’t 20% last year when I was arguing that we needed to put money into the bank and try to have a fund balance built up – everybody was fighting me we don’t need to do that – I’d rather have good credit than money in the bank you said. Did you not say that Mr. Mayor
Mayor: I probably did say something like that
Mr. Gecy: But now you’re telling me that I’m arguing a different way but you’re arguing out of both sides over this issue because
Mayor: No I’m not. I’m just once again trying to explain to you that that is not found money.
Mr. Gecy: But it’s still money that became a viable part of that balance now. That’s all a comment. It’s just a decision to make – out of our savings do we pay or do we borrow money and put everybody into debt.
Mayor: Fund balance is not a savings. A fund balance is not in a savings account. You know we talked about that last year – let’s not go back there again.
Mr. Gecy: A million dollar check – a $900,000 check came into our City and it got put somewhere
Mayor: It moved from one account to another account is what it did. Thank you though for your comments.
Mr. Gecy: Well I appreciate it.
Mayor: Anyone else. All right, well this is second and final reading. I’ll remind council of that. Are you sure you don’t have any more comments.
Ms. Lawrence: Yeah I just thought of one. I mean this order is it set in stone. This phase one two and three
Mr. Hawes: No nothing is set in stone
Mr. Holmes: Ms. Lawrence the motion on the table is to approve the issuance of the bond it does not include prioritizing the roads so that is something you can do as a part of this to amend the motion to make it that way – or do it by separate motion. But that’s not part of the motion currently
Mayor: Well I think it’s good to talk about these things – why go on and borrow money
Ms. Lawrence: I may not want to borrow it if this is not
Mayor: Well let me ask a question about this list – is this the new reiteration of the three year old list that we had before – I mean I had asked that we revisit this – reprioritize with people who are totally disassociated with the politics and all of that – so is that that list.
Mr. Hawes: Every road was ridden by Public Works staff. Public Works Director personally determined if they still warranted prioritization where they were and it is his strong opinion that these roads taken as a whole are the worst roads in the City with regard to the deterioration of the structure of the road and the need for resurfacing.
Mayor: Okay, well I feel a little bit guilty because I notice Dorian has now dropped down.
Mr. Hawes: But they’ll all be taken care of in one big chunk so…..Mr. Gecy
Mr. Gecy: I’d like to ask Mr. Larson if he would consider changing his motion to ask that the list that we have in front of us be in fact the priority list and name the streets in the motion so we get that on the record. Would you consider that.
Mr. Larson: I don’t – Mr. Holmes if I understand what you’re saying is the priority list really has nothing to do with the vote on the bond issue.
Mr. Holmes: No I’m just simply saying that the motion that you’re currently debating is on the GO Bond. If you want to approve the priority list then you need to amend the motion to include that priority list. I was trying to respond to Ms. Lawrence’s question about whether or not it was set in stone. As your motion currently exists it is not so if you want to set it in stone now would be the time to do it.
Mr. Larson: In your opinion would there be any benefit to sitting it in stone rather than leaving some variability in what roads to select as first
Mayor: Well the first issue that flies – excuse me for interrupting but the first issue I see that flies in my face is we have those state roads listed on here and you know how I feel about that.
Mr. Gecy: Yeah but I think we’re talking about the roads that aren’t state – we need to take those out.
Mr. Garrett: If we’re going to make a motion to amend the motion will you so amend it that we eliminate all state roads until all avenues are sought to get the state to pave them. I cannot support it if we’re going to pave state roads.
Mr. Gecy: I think we agreed to take those out.
Mayor: You can make a motion to amend the motion about anything you want to.
Mr. Garrett: Well Mr. Larson had the motion on the floor
Mayor: I know but you can amend his motion – you can make a motion to amend his motion and then we’ll all decide whether we agree or not.
Mr. Garrett: So I’d like to make a motion that we eliminate all state roads from this list
Mayor: Do I hear a second
Ms. Lawrence: Second
Mayor: Any discussion – all right that was easy – call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it we now have an amended motion on the floor. Any further discussion of the amended motion or any further amendments to the amended motion
Mr. Gecy: Now Mr. Mayor what I would like to do then is just obligate ourselves for the sake of the citizens to obligate ourselves that this is our priority list and I would like to make a motion that we accept all the roads in the city on this list in the priority that it is and we will certainly publish this list – but let’s add that to the motion
Ms. Lawrence: I’ll second it.
Mayor: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion.
Mr. Hawes: Are you including the state or not
Mr. Gecy: No we’ve already taken those out – just the city streets.
Mayor: Okay any discussion. All right I just want to ask before I call for the vote and I wish Joe Carter was here but I’m sure you’ve talked with him. How comfortable are you with this list. I mean is this the priority list based upon their opinion.
Mr. Hawes: Based upon Joe Carter’s and staffs opinion at Public Works this is the priority list.
Mayor: This wasn’t a hear this is a preliminary list and we’ll look a little bit harder later or anything – this they believe in it
Mr. Hawes: No they believe in it – it wouldn’t have been supplied to you if it was any other way.
Mayor: All right any other discussion. All right hearing none I’ll call for the vote to amend the motion. Man I’m getting lost. This is an amendment to the amended motion – this is the amendment to use this list – does everybody understand that. So I’ll call for the vote to amend the motion to add this list as a priority to the motion. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. All right so now we have a real long motion that includes I think all of you remember everything that we included here – Mr. Attorney you want to read it back to us.
Mr. Holmes: As I understand the motion – the motion is to approve the ordinance to issue $800,000 in General Obligation Bonds and that the list of city roads, not state roads listed in order in the priority they’re listed on the list you have in front of you is the list the city is supposed to follow to pave new roads.
Mayor: Very well put
Mr. Hawes: The only thing that I would want to add for the record is that we’re still talking about doing those fire station improvements, a small amount. The three fire station needs with paving.
Mayor: What parking lots or something – okay
Mr. Hawes: Just resurfacing the parking
Mayor: All right is everybody clear
Mr. Hawes: It’s not on the list does it need to be –
Mayor: Why wouldn’t it if we’re going to spend money on it. So do we need to amend the motion to add – you going to have enough money to do all of that
Mr. Hawes: That’s the intent
Mayor: That wasn’t the question
Mr. Gecy: Is there a fear that a street will drop off because of that.
Mr. Hawes: I couldn’t say – it was stated by City Council at the retreat that that would be one of the uses of the bonds.
Mayor: All right – and are you will to say that there should be enough to do all that
Mr. Hawes: I’m hopeful that there will be enough
Ms. Lawrence: No not hopeful
Mr. Hawes: I don’t have bids in and we can’t bid until we have the money
Mayor: Price of asphalt goes up and down with the price of oil
Mr. Hawes: I will say that the amount of construction in articles recently that construction is dropping precipitously because SCDOT is doing no contracts anywhere and the price of asphalt just because of supply and demand is this area is actually steady or dropping rather than increasing compared to last year.
Mayor: Okay – so that caveat stands. All right, any further discussion – you look like you want to discuss it some more.
Ms. Lawrence: To amend the motion – that’s what I was going to do
Mayor: Do we need to amend the motion Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Holmes: If you want to include the paving of those fire stations yes.
Mayor: All right – would you like to –
Ms. Lawrence: Okay – I’d like to amend the motion to include the paving of the listed fire stations – I know they’re listed I’ve seen the list in phase I of the Simpsonville Street Improvement Priority List as number 15. How’s that.
Mayor: Okay do I hear a second
Mr. Gecy: Second
Mayor: Mr. Gecy seconds. Any discussion about the motion to amend the much amended motion. Hearing none I’ll call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it it’s unanimous. We now have an amended amended amended motion and any other discussion. Hearing none I’m going to call for the vote and I’ll remind you this is second and final reading to issue these bonds. All in favor signify by saying Aye (Aye) opposed No. Aye’s have it it’s unanimous. Thank you very much.
• Historic Preservation Ordinance – 1 st Reading Mayor: All right, Al Spain, I don’t see Al Spain – there’s Al Spain – I’m sorry. Mr. Witkowski you’re going to talk to us about a Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Mr. Witkowski: Yes sir, Mayor and Council, first of all I hope you can look at me and tell that I am not Al Spain.
Mayor: I was just going to see how long it would take you to bark back at me after I called you that.
Mr. Witkowski: Al called me this morning and asked me to sub for him because he’s ill and has been for a couple of days and had a coughing spell and put his back out so you wouldn’t want him standing up here in front of you I’m sure.
But before we get started I wanted council to certainly evaluate using pervious concrete in all this paving that you’re going to do. That’s a joke guys – come on laugh.
Council I’m before you tonight to talk about the proposal to the City Ordinance for an Historic Preservation Ordinance. At the January 9, 2007 meeting you instructed Planning Commission to evaluate and review and produce a historic preservation ordinance for your review and that’s what you have before you tonight. From a historical perspective I’d like to bring you up to date. The Planning Commission worked and presented a historic preservation ordinance to City Council in September, 1904. After considerable community input council elected not – they elected to reject that ordinance and that was in 1904. Sometime before January
Mayor and all of Council: 2004
Mr. Witkowski: 2004 – 2004 – sometime before January 2007 the developers of Cotton Mill Place approached members of council and asked that the City once again look at a historical preservation ordinance. Their motivation of course is to be eligible for some tax credits from the Federal Government. Several attempts were made after those meetings to produce a document and two months has gone by. To produce this document we tried to make the City ordinance a voluntary ordinance. City Administrator Russell Hawes got involved at one point and made some telephone calls and discussed our plan with a gentleman by the name of Mr. Sauls at the Historic Preservation Commission in Columbia . Mr. Sauls said that he could not approve an ordinance that was voluntary and then he then sent a generic ordinance to Mr. Hawes. Mr. Hawes then presented that to the Planning Commission and that is the document that you have before you tonight,. If council accepts the ordinance the City of Simpsonville will be one of only 14 cities in South Carolina to hold the title of a Certified Local Government. That’s a feather in our cap and if you adopt this ordinance the City probably would be qualified for some money through grants through the Federal and State government.
The differences that you’ll see between the plan that was presented to you in ’04 – I won’t say 1904 – I’ll just say ’04 and that’ll make it easer for me – and ’07 is that there are not historic districts included in this plan. Even though the plan that’s before you talks in two locations about historic districts, those will be taken out. We have no intent to put this before you to include historic districts. It’s only going to include historic properties. Additionally, section 7.3 identifies the town zoning map and talks about historic districts. That to will be removed. The ’04 ordinance calls for the Planning Commission to be involved in several different areas. The new ordinance before you makes it only the business of the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council. If you do have a piece of property that would come before council and this is approved it will only be as a single piece of property.
Qualification for membership on the Historic Preservation Commission have changed. We had a long list of qualifications on the first ordinance that was presented to you in ’04. There are no real qualifications in this ordinance except that it does say someone with historic knowledge of Simpsonville should be on the commission and that hopefully an architect or someone who knows something about construction and engineering and building and constructing. Contracting might be on that commission. The rest of the ordinance presented to you tonight is in the generic form that was given to us by Mr. Hawes. After considerable discussion by the Planning Commission members (TAPE SWITCHED SIDES)
Cotton Mill Place the commission voted 4-2 on March 6, 2007 with one commissioner being absent to approve the document before you. The only other thing I’d like to mention to you is there is nothing different in a preservation ordinance that is not included in a zoning ordinance. The people of Simpsonville have given faith in you to make zoning requests and I would think the citizens of Simpsonville would have enough faith and confidence in the City Council to make a historic preservation decision also. There are no historic properties listed in this ordinance at this point. And after you approve it, if you approve it there will be no historic properties listed then until someone comes forward and I would expect that would be the Cotton Mill Place and might be that the Cotton Mill Place would be the only piece of property that would come before you. I appreciate your time and your effort and if you have any questions I’ll try to answer them for you.
Mayor: I’ll just bet we do. Does anyone have any questions for him.
Ms. Lawrence: Yeah, the landscaping ordinance and the tree ordinance is attached to this – is it supposed to be.
Mr. Witkowski: No ma’am we’re not ready for that yet.
Ms. Lawrence: I didn’t think so
Mr. Witkowski: I don’t know why you have it in your packet but it shouldn’t be.
Mr. Larson: So attachment 3 doesn’t go with this.
Mr. Witkowski: No it does not.
Mayor: Okay is that your only question. Anyone else. Mr. Larson
Mr. Larson: So, in the two places where it mentions historic districts – those are going to be completely removed and it’s only going to be applicable to historic properties
Mr. Witkowski: Individual properties that’s true
Mayor: Okay and Mr. Bridges
Mr. Bridges: And the only people that can apply to come under this would be people that own the property.
Mr. Witkowski: Own the property
Mr. Bridges: Nobody – we can’t choose anybody that we want to
Mr. Witkowski: Not as far as I know Mr. Bridges. Only the people that own the property.
Mayor: Okay you’ll have to forgive our careful questioning but as you – I think you know – several of us up here still have scars from the battle we had before.
Mr. Witkowski: You don’t have any from tonight – just kidding – and we did this at the behest of City Council
Mayor: That was the most misunderstood thing that has ever come before this or any other council. It was not a pretty sight. So just to recap because I want to make sure I understand the difference in this and the one back then. You said that Mr. Hawes said that Mr. Sauls said that we couldn’t have an ordinance that was voluntary but then I thought I just understood you to say that nothing would come before you except a property that was requested.
Mr. Witkowski: Individual property owners. Now a historic preservation commission can – the historic preservation commission can designate a property as historic. That person could then come before the commission and say listen I don’t want to be considered a historic property and I don’t think anybody sitting up here would vote to bring that piece of property into historic preservation ordinance if the citizen that owned that piece of property didn’t want it. The commission – the historic preservation commission does have the recommending job shall we say to City Council to recommend certain historic pieces of property.
Mayor: Let’s say for purposes of this explanation this historic commission that we establish comes to council and recommends a neighborhood
Mr. Witkowski: No, not with this ordinance
Mayor: So that commission will have to go that neighborhood each individual property owner in that neighborhood and say hey we’ve got this great idea we want to make this neighborhood an historic neighborhood would you please sign up. And then if 128 people sign up and 1 doesn’t what happens.
Mr. Witkowski: That I couldn’t tell you. We haven’t got that far but so far in your discussion about this neighborhood if there was a petition that came up from a neighborhood – let’s say 50 homes that wanted to be included – to be part of an historic setting in Simpsonville that – those people could go to the historic planning commission and ask that they be included as a district. They could do that.
Mayor: All right
Mr. Larson: But they would have to ask to be included in this – they couldn’t be told they were coming.
Mayor: So that 129 th person – we could still go ahead and declare that a historic district but that person number 129 would be effectively cut out of it.
Mr. Witkowski: That’s the way I would see it. But now I’m not asking to be chairman of this commission either.
Mayor: You brought this to us you may be chairing it for us. Ms. Lawrence Wants to nominate you right now
Ms. Lawrence: No because it says that you know whoever is on the commission can’t be on anything else. And so you know – that leaves who in the world would we get. But my concern is – this Mr. Sauls has already said this cannot be voluntary. So I think
Mayor: I’m not sure he’s listening (Referring to Mr. Hawes)
Ms. Lawrence: Oh it doesn’t matter. I know Mr. Sauls said it that it could not be voluntary. And so, I believe Mr. Sauls is going to be watching and when this commission does not bring forth this inventory to be put on the historic register I think he’s going to start asking questions because he was very specific about it couldn’t be voluntary. I’d be watching if it was me because I would be sitting down there thinking you know the City of Simpsonville thought it was going to be voluntary and it looks like that’s what they’re trying to do with it because their commission has brought forth nobody.
Mayor: Mr. Hawes how would you respond to that you’re the one that talked to Brad Sauls.
Mr. Hawes: I wouldn’t want to put words in Mr. Sauls mouth but I tend to agree with Ms. Lawrence that he is going to be watching it with a very – through a microscope probably a little bit in its infancy at the beginning of it I expect. You know to see exactly how the historic commission reacts. I’m sure when the designate a CLG they intend to get the intent that they designated it for and he was very specific that a voluntary ordinance will not be acceptable for the purpose of tax credits.
Ms. Lawrence: And if you’ll remember we already have an inventory done by Arnette & Muldrow. We had an inventory done last time.
Mr. Holmes: Well let me explain to you because that frankly is what killed the other proposal. And when you say an inventory – the way that occurred was we asked them to go out and have them tell us what they thought might be historic but then we expanded that and said you can call them and give them other properties and by the time they were finished I think the list was like 250 properties on it.
Ms. Lawrence: Well what I was going to say though is they didn’t – and I don’t care one way or the other – I was kind of surprised but they did not include the Mill Village , they said it had no historic significance. Basically the only historic property if you look at their inventory is in Mr. Garrett’s ward. When you look at it that’s where it all is. And I know there was a lot of opposition from that particular ward. I just don’t want to see us get in a situation of having to force somebody to go along with the state or else loose our Certification.
Mr. Hawes: CLG status
Ms. Lawrence: Okay – I mean when Tommie first brought it up it was great if we could do something to help the mill it was wonderful and the way the ordinance was first composed. But I just don’t know whether we can afford to help one place by putting ourselves in this type of situation.
Mayor: Okay – well I have a question Mr. Hawes, perhaps you can answer this, perhaps you can’t. But I think this is a question – a question I’d like to have answered before we actually consider this – we’re considering it right now I guess – the Burdette Building is on the National Registry of Historic Places. Is that not correct
Mr. Hawes: Yes
Mayor: Then why can’t the mill get on the same register – what’s the difference.
Mr. Witkowski: I can answer that for you. I sure can Mayor. They wanted to be on the historic register but they made too many improvements to the exterior of the building. They put balconies on the condos and they changed all the windows. Had they kept the windows in kind of the similar mode to what it was back when the mill was built and had they not put the balconies on there they probably could have been considered for historic designation. As I understand it from talking to the developers of Cotton Mill Place there still might be an opportunity for them to get on the register because I think Mr. Sauls said he would look at it again. But you know if they’ve been turned down once to be on the historic register I doubt seriously if they’re going to get on it but I think at least Mr. Sauls said and I don’t want to put words in his or Russ’ mouth – I think he said they would look at it again. But that’s why they’re not on the historic register.
Mayor: So again, I’m just trying to get this straight in my mind. So they’re building doesn’t qualify as an historic building so if we pass this ordinance – if the City of Simpsonville declares it so does that magically make it eligible for these grants that they’re trying to get.
Mr. Hawes: As long as we’re a CLG and that’s a qualifying property as far as the state is concerned, not national register but the state then it could receive the tax credits.
Mr. Witkowski: And as I understand it that’s a pretty hefty tax credit – it’s like a 15% tax credit – and if you’re talking about ¾ of a million dollars in investments that’s pretty hefty.
Mr. Hawes: They’re talking about 5 million
Mayor: You sure do make things difficult for us. Does anyone else have any questions.
Mr. Witkowski: Well you can fire me if you want to,
Mayor: We’re going to give you another raise. Anybody else have questions or explanations or – Mr. Garrett
Mr. Garrett: Okay if he says it can’t be voluntary and we don’t present any on his time table I guess – what does he do – take this thing away from us.
Mayor: You know we might want to declare your house historic. How would you feel about that.
Mr. Garrett: Do I get a 15% tax credit
Mayor: Well possibly. I don’t know.
Mr. Witkowski: Let me just maybe leave you with one more thing and I hope I’m not getting into David’s area but if you pass this ordinance tonight and if after we set this up and if after we go into for let’s say a period of 3-4-5 years and you as City Council say it isn’t working. You can then – can you not take the ordinance out. Say we don’t want this ordinance any more it’s not working for us – you can do that can’t you.
Mayor: Sure.
Mr. Witkowski: So why not try it for a couple of years and see how it’s going to work.
Mr. Larson: Could we not – do we not also like Mr. Garrett mentioned, if we pass it and then Mr. Sauls comes and says you’ve got to put more – and no one ever wants to sign up except the mill and Mr. Sauls comes and says you’ve got to have more properties on there or you’ll loose your certification and we say well that’s fine. Would that be an option at that point.
Mr. Hawes: I don’t know.
Mr. Larson: I mean they couldn’t force us to put more properties into the –
Mr. Holmes: Well the problem that you’re running into is there are state statutes specifically on this issue and you all are talking about that the purpose of it would be to provide property owners with tax credits. That’s not the purpose that the state law was passed. The purpose of it was so that local communities could preserve the historic character of that community. In other words buildings that were considered by that community to be historic and you wanted to do what you could to preserve it. This would provide the statutory mechanism to do that. The best example I can give to you obviously is downtown Charleston . Where much of downtown Charleston is a historic district and they fight very hard to maintain that character. This originally came up with the Burdette Building because there was a feeling as I recall back then that the four corners of Curtis and Main would probably meet that historic designation of a historic district. And originally I think that’s all that was really being looked at. And then that would impose guidelines, it would preserve the historic character of that specific area. And so what I would encourage you to do is as you think of this my understanding of the purpose of these ordinances is so that you can preserve the historic character of the area. If you don’t believe there are historic properties that should be determined and declared historic so that that’s preserved, then this probably isn’t the way to go.
Mr. Larson: I just don’t get the feeling from the way I’m reading this that say if Mr. Garrett requested his house be put on the inventory that anybody is going to be telling him what color to paint his shutters or what color he can paint his door. I mean that’s kind of like what Charleston – you know they’re very rigid down there.
Mr. Holmes: But that’s what the historic district is about and my office building in downtown Greenville is in the historic Earle Street preservation and they do tell you that. You can’t change anything on the building without getting approval from their – I think they call it Design Preservation Review Board, is what they call it.
Mayor: That was one of the big complaints this last time around. Because I can’t tell you how many phone calls I got from people who lived on the mill hill there that thought we were going to tell them what color they had to paint their house and they couldn’t put vinyl siding on it etc. So I mean this is is a political nightmare, any way you try to dress this thing up. Because I believe we could have made it work last time and you saw what happened. You said you were here. So you know the community is going to see that headline again and they’re going to say there they go again. So this is tough and we owe it to Mr. Moore to help him because he has helped this community so much by saving that cotton mill. That was such a service to this community that I doubt there’s another person in the world that would have made that investment and taken that chance. So we need to help him. We owe it to him. But surely to goodness there’s some other way we can do it. And I’m looking at the lawyer and I’m looking at the City Administrator.
Mr. Holmes: Well my recommendation would be that if you think this is a good idea that first of all you need to let the public know that maybe all you are looking at – in other words go ahead and decide what those areas are as a part of this process and then you can establish criteria as to what you consider to be historic. They can be pretty significant criteria – like I understand people don’t like the idea of telling you what color you can paint your building but if you were Rainbow Row in Charleston I think we’d all understand why that’s an important historic character of that area. But it may not be in some areas that you have. For example, it may be that you express the opinion that the mill village that I could personally think has a lot of historic character to it but maybe for the purpose of this ordinance you would not want to do that.
Mayor: Let me make a recommendation to this council. Mr. Attorney you tell me if this wouldn’t work and Mr. Chairman you tell me if it wouldn’t work for your folks. Let’s table this motion and advertise for public input for people who would like to have their properties – because I can think of a couple of people who probably would want to have their properties included. Let’s ask for voluntary input of properties into this historic district or districts that we may create and just see how that flies before we jump off into this thing again and stir up another whole hive of misunderstanding – hive of bees of misunderstanding. I don’t know how to say it – I’m not as eloquent as you Mr. Witkowski but – and then we could just see how that goes. From your standpoint Mr. Witkowski would your commission be insulted by this. Is this something that would
Mr. Witkowski: No we would not be insulted
Mayor: As a matter of fact you would be the appropriate agency for them to submit these things to and then perhaps have a public hearing – ooh that’s scary but – but you know since we have been through this before I think we need to let the folks out there say what they’ve got to say. Now, before I ask council if I think this is a good idea Mr. Hawes, based upon your conversations with Mr. Sauls or Mr. Moore is there any short fuse, is there any deadline. I mean do we have to do something by a certain date in order for him to get his tax credit and make this project flourish.
Mr. Hawes: Not that I’m aware of sir.
Mayor: So delaying it another perhaps month wouldn’t damage anything.
Mr. Witkowski: I do think it has to be done. If he wanted to have tax credit for year 2007 it would have to be done by probably somewhere around November.
Mayor: Well if we just delay it one more month surely we can make a decision on something. If council agrees with this is there anybody up here who would like to make a motion to table this.
Ms. Bodkins: Mr. Mayor you don’t have a motion on the floor.
Mayor: Sure we do. You mean we’ve been doing all this talking without a motion
Ms. Bodkins: Yes sir.
Mayor: Well somebody needs to call the Chairman – I thought you were
Mr. Gecy: I thought you were
Mayor: I often don’t know what I was doing but excuse me very much. Well thank you Mr. Chairman for sharing that with us and councilmembers please forgive me for allowing such spirited debate without the appropriate motion. So you will take that back to your committee and Mr. Hawes will you work with him. Quit laughing at me.
Mr. Witkowski: Is that what you want me to do.
Mayor: Does anybody have any objection to that
Mr. Zitricki: I’m a little gun shy on this – I’ve been down this road before. I know how fast it can turn on you. I think we need to take one step back and just have a public hearing to get all the input to make sure everybody had their chance to say if they’re for or against it.
Mr. Witkowski: Well now you all do understand of course that we did advertise this and we had nobody come to us at any of our meetings. Even a workshop that was advertised and nobody came to voice any dissent.
Mayor: But what I’m suggesting is that we now advertise that we’re about to do this – are there any property owners out there who would like to submit their properties to be historic properties. Is that a finger.
Mr. Gecy: I think that is exactly what we were suggesting here. Instead of opening it up to say who’s against this or who’s for this or everybody come beat up the Planning Commission again but – and most of the people – I think the phrase that you used was wise to start with – advertise it as a hearing for those who would like to have their – it’s kind of a rare way to do it but if there’s anybody that would like to do it and see who shows up. If we have people interested you’ll be guided by that.
Mr. Witkowski: And you all will be the first ones I invite to come.
Mayor: Does anyone have any objection to this
Mr. Garrett: When you advertise this though and invite people to come you will have all the pros and cons and benefits and everything that goes along with it
Mayor: Copies of the proposed ordinance – make it available to them before the meeting so they can come to City Hall and get copies of it and let them see it.
Mr. Hawes: Well I see we have a member of our esteemed media here who might be able to do an article to publicize this.
Mayor: Well perhaps he would but we can’t ask him to do that because then we’d have to pay advertising fees. (Laughter) It is new worthy – fight about to brew in Simpsonville. Thank you very much for all your hard work and that’s why we pay you the big bucks.
NEW BUSINESS • Police Vehicle Take Home Policy Mayor: Next item on the agenda is New Business. Mr. Hawes talk to us about police vehicles and such.
Mr. Hawes: Yes sir, Mayor and Council we discussed at the City Council Retreat a proposal to broaden the City Police Department’s vehicle take home policy. What you have before you is a proposal that the Chief and I have worked out that identifies some specifics with regard to how the control of the take home vehicles will be authorized or how the distribution of the take home vehicles will be authorized by approval of the Chief and City Administrator and certain other aspects of the take home plan, including the obsolescence of the vehicle set at 8 years as was suggested at the retreat. We have an obsolescence statement in there. And some of the benefits of this and I’ll just run over them real quick – we did discuss this at the retreat is the assigned vehicles tend to last longer when they’re taken as their own by the person who drives it; they don’t wear and tear quite as much. Obviously they’re driven quite a bit less than if they were pool cars and driven 24 hours a day on all the shifts. So they get a little longevity out of the vehicles that way. It’s also a positive with respect to an incentive on keeping employees and recruiting employees and so forth. That’s something the Chief has emphasized as well. So it’s a good policy. It’s a policy where the City can fulfill what it has been doing in doing assigned vehicles to individuals and it’s at the discretion – City Council to pass the discretion of the assignment of those vehicles to the Chief and the Administrator,.
Mayor: Okay – what do you need from us. I don’t see anything on here about needing a motion or anything
Mr. Hawes: It’s just a policy we’d ask you to allow us to adopt that or City Council approve that policy.
Mayor: Okay fingers all around. I’m going to let the lady go first. Ms. Lawrence
Ms. Lawrence:
Mayor: Well I guess we’ll need a motion for a resolution at some point – let’s go ahead and do a motion so the Chair doesn’t get out of whack here. Would you like to make a motion.
Ms. Lawrence: Not really
Mayor: All right – would anyone like to make a motion so we can discuss this issue
Mr. Larson: I’d like to make a motion approve the new policy for the police take home vehicles.
Mayor: Okay thank you Mr. Larson – do I hear a second
Mr. Garrett: Second
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Garrett. I have a motion and a second. Now Ms. Larson would you like to talk about it.
Ms. Lawrence: Lawrence
Mayor: I told you I didn’t feel good when I got here so –
Ms. Lawrence: I have made a few minor corrections to it – additions, deletions, some duplications, just some word verbage. I’ve heard back from three of you that you are okay with these changes
Mayor: Most are just grammatical errors that you corrected right.
Ms. Lawrence: Well mostly, I mean, like and so forth- that doesn’t strike me as a good verbage. I can read over the changes. I mean the Chief might even want to have some input. Like it’s the policy of Simpsonville Police Department to provide vehicles to sworn personnel who meet the criteria and are approved by the City Administrator. Left out a word. Down in procedure 3.3 it says must reside in the State of South Carolina . I put Greenville County . The Administrator may approve an employee that lives in a neighboring county. I mean I would hate for somebody to commute to Columbia or Charleston and when you leave it like that you leave it open. Next page B and so forth I changed that to and other duties approved by the Chief of Police. It says the Chief of Police must approve driving a vehicle out of the state I said City Administrator because I think if anything happened out of state Russ, Mr. Hawes would be the ultimate scapegoat I guess. 3 says approval from the Chief of Police or City Administrator to drive the vehicle to and from a residence. 7 was a new section – this you all might wonder about or you might have something to say about but I put: Officers assume all responsibility for the deductible amount involved when any accident that is proven to be their fault while using the vehicle for transport to and from work. Let me finish with the other ones before you discuss that if you want to. Next page it says and so forth and I put or any other modifications. You were talking about decals and stuff. Next page maintenance and care says and may have the privilege taken and I put in will if there was disciplinary action. 4 is a complete duplication where you’re talking about the modification again so I deleted that. 2 on the next page it says if an officer is to be on leave or absent from work for a period to exceed 5 days the vehicle is to be parked at the Police Department. I put exceed 5 days including weekends, because if they’re off like and then 5 days vacation and then off again that could put it out of commission 9 days. Off duty enforcement it says when – oh it’s talking about stopping people – when outside the City limits and operating a marked patrol vehicle then it says if the officer is in full uniform – I put provided the officer is in full uniform. Officers are required to call the incident and then it just kind of stops – I put to immediately report the incident to dispatch. And then it says if an officer is on light duty may have their home vehicle privilege temporarily revoked. I put will and it says if the Patrol Captain determines that operation of the vehicle by the officer will constitute a hazard blah blah blah – I figure if they’re on light duty they’re on worker’s comp and they’ve been hurt – I don’t want them trying to do something that will get them hurt twice so I just said they will have it revoked and it’s the responsibility of the officer to deliver the vehicle to the department if the officer cannot drive because there is that issue – and you don’t want a family member driving it – his supervisor will appoint someone to pick up the vehicle. And then I deleted all about the situation stuff because if they’re on light duty 9 times out of 10 they’re worker’s comp – we don’t want them in a situation. So – whatever you all want to do.
Mayor: Okay everybody got that.
Ms. Lawrence: I mean I know it was hard for the Chief
Mayor: He might have a comment on that –
Ms. Lawrence: Or does he want to take it and look at it and us look at it later or what.
Mayor: I think he’s got something to say.
Mr. Zitricki: Mr. Mayor while the Chief’s walking up here I have a comment. On Section B 2 I’d like to add the comment or City Administrator – the Chief can approve to drive the vehicle out of Greenville County or the City Administrator because the Chief has the responsibility for this also. It’s going to fall back on him or Russ. Because Russ may not be available and the Chief may need something done outside the County limits and you can’t get ahold of Russ – the Chief’s got to approve it
Chief Reece: That was one issue – I was sitting back there taking note of when Ms. Lawrence brought it up. A vehicle could conceivably go out of this city limits at 3:00 in the morning to pick up a prisoner in North Carolina that we’re extraditing and I don’t see why that needs to be cleared with Mr. Hawes. I don’t understand that.
Mayor: Yeah, I think he needs to be called at 3:00 in the morning – I just
Chief: I just don’t get that. I’m saying that’s a law enforcement function and that’s our responsibility.
Mayor: For the record I’m kidding of course. There was a smile on my face.
Chief: I’d like to take it one by one and lets please put this issue to bed and vote it straight up or down one way or the other.
Ms. Lawrence: Most of it is just grammar
Chief: I can tell you this Ms. Lawrence, our city attorney is sitting here and of course this policy follows our accreditation standards. You want to be careful how you use mandatory language and I think Mr.Holmes over there would certainly agree with me.
Mr. Holmes: Mr. Mayor I will just tell you for the sake of discussion if you want me to pass on all these changes I couldn’t keep up with them and I’d like to see them and I frankly don’t know why we have to be in a hurry to do that tonight and I would really like to see – because all of you may have changes and if we can take a look at those then I’d be prepared to tell you yeah all those changes are fine go ahead.
Chief: I really didn’t have a lot of heartache or heartburn with what Ms. Lawrence said at all. I notice she changed a lot of the mandatory language in there – and for specific legal reasons we don’t use mandatory language.
Mayor: Well if there’s no rush on this why don’t we do what the attorney suggested we do – submit
Ms. Lawrence: I’ll just e-mail it to Mr. Holmes
Mayor: Mr. Holmes and the rest of us
Ms. Lawrence: Okay – to Mr. Hawes
Chief: I think we can work those issues out – I didn’t hear anything brought up that gave me great heartburn. I think what I’m looking for is kind of a nod from you is this going to fly or not – that’s just basically what I want to know – you know – not only do I want to know – we’ve got officers sitting here in the audience tonight – what do you think
Mayor: I don’t think we can appropriately nod tonight if we’re going to go through this process. But what I see, like you so correctly said – what I see in her changes – and that’s why I made a statement – she just substituted words – I don’t think she changed the spirit or the intent of any of that it was just grammatic.
Mr. Zitricki: The copy I gave you Chief is the copy with the changes from Ms. Lawrence highlighted in the mauve color.
Ms. Lawrence: Oh the Chief has it.
Mayor: He just gave it to him. But this gentleman right here needs to see it.
Ms. Lawrence: Well I’ll e-mail it to David
Chief: I really don’t have a problem with any of it – I really don’t
Mayor: Well let’s just let the attorney do his thing and the next meeting we’ll give you an answer
Ms. Lawrence: Well I mean can we do it in two weeks instead of making him wait for a month,.
Mayor: Well two weeks is not a voting meeting.
Ms. Lawrence: We can put it on there
Mr. Zitricki: We can amend the agenda
Ms. Lawrence: Yeah let’s amend the agenda
Mr. Gecy: There you go
Mayor: There’s a reason we have a workshop meeting to discuss things and there’s a reason we have a voting meeting where we don’t do workshop stuff. Now I know tonight we’re doing workshop stuff and voting but – Mr. Gecy
Mr. Gecy: Chief I think as far as my opinion is and I reviewed some of the changes that Ms. Lawrence submitted and I think this is something we’re going to look at very seriously – I think it’s going to fly but we just want to clear it. I think, so that’s my opinion.
Chief: And that’s all I’m wondering because you know the guys are asking me and this is like been an on-going process so if we’re just talking about changing some wording I’m fine with that – I don’t really have a problem with it.
Mayor: Okay thank you very much.
Mr. Larson: I just want to add to that comment that I think this is something definitely that I think the officers deserve and I think anything we can do to help moral and I think it definitely has a good benefit in the community. We were in a neighborhood the other day and actually at one of the City Police officers homes in the city limits and he wasn’t allowed to have a car but two houses up was a police officer that works for Inman and his car was sitting in the driveway. And it’s kind of – didn’t sit too well with some of our guys – if he can drive back and forth from Inman in his car but we have to leave ours at
Mayor: They have cars now
Ms. Lawrence: I thought in the city had them
Chief: He may have been at an officers house that has not met qualifications yet.
Ms. Lawrence: The two years – yeah.
Mayor: Mr. Garrett
Mr. Garrett: Chief if we approve this do we have enough vehicles to give everybody a car.
Chief: Yes sir, we’ve got enough sitting on the lot now where we need to be. We’ve had a constant build up through budget over the years trying to – our main focus is truly give the employees the benefit. Where we see the real benefit is in vehicle replacements within the budget. That’s where the City sees the big benefit. That car is lasting 8-9 years vs 3-4 so that’s – we approached it from a budget angle but it’s also a big benefit to the officers.
Mayor: Okay – anyone else. Thank you Chief. Let’s put it on the Agenda for our next regular business meeting.
Ms. Bodkins: You have a motion on the floor Mayor
Mayor: Have we done that again. All right – somebody needs to make a motion to table
Mr. Gecy: I’ll make a motion to table it until our next business meeting until it’s reviewed by our City Attorney.
Ms. Lawrence: Second it
Mayor: Thank you. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it it’s unanimous it’s tabled. Okay, it must be too much cough syrup.
OLD BUSINESS • Planner/Zoning Administrator Position Mayor: Next item on the agenda is Old Business – and Mr. Hawes you’re going to tell us about the Planner/Zoning Administrator position.
Mr. Hawes: Yes sir, Mr. Mayor at the retreat again we discussed the situation and the City’s needs in planning, the growth that we’ve had in the area and the continued growth and the involvement of our current staff and the assigned staff from Greenville County and in analyzing the situation and some of the changes that are occurring at the County level we feel it’s an appropriate time for council to consider creating a position of Planner/Zoning Administrator. Now this came before you at the workshop last meeting and it was requested that we add some language in there regarding projects type work. Assigned projects with regard to basically just about any type of project work that would come up where this planner could be involved in analysis, research, project management, things along those lines. So we added that language in to the job description for Planner/Zoning Administrator and believe that it’s a viable position for the City at this time. We have a funding scenario that is workable whereby the current contract consultants that we use or contractors that we use right now who provide the Planning and Zoning Administrator services for the City would adjust their agreement with the City and free up the money that was going for that purpose for this purpose to create a staff position. The start up costs on this are looking to be about $10,000 to get the equipment and desk and office furniture and so forth. We’ve identified the room where the person would be housed and just think it’s a good position for the City at this time.
Mayor: Okay, so we need to resolve – we need a resolution to accept this proposal for a change in the city policy is that correct Mr. Hawes
Mr. Hawes: To create a position actually
Mr. Holmes: It’s to create the position
Mayor: Do I hear a motion
Mr. Zitricki: Mr. Mayor, I propose a resolution to accept the position of Planning/Zoning Administrator for the City of Simpsonville
Ms. Lawrence: I second
Mayor: I have a motion and a second to add the position. All right any discussion. Mr. Gecy
Mr. Gecy: Question on the salary range. What is the wide – what is the range that this salary is going to require
Mr. Hawes: As the position has not been created we have not gone through the process to set the salary range at this point. I would say that it will range in the $35,000 to $45,000 range.
Mr. Gecy: And that would require a car
Mr. Hawes: We’ve identified some possible vehicles that’s correct.
Mr. Gecy: And would there be any additional administration staff required, secretary –
Mr. Hawes: No.
Mr. Gecy: Okay
Mayor: Okay – anyone else. All right hearing no further discussion I’ll call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it it’s unanimous.
RESOLUTIONS • Sunshine Week in South Carolina Mayor: I meant to mention that at the beginning of the meeting. This is Sunshine Week in South Carolina where local government lets the sun shine in so you can all see our cheerful faces I guess, so you’ll know what’s going on up here. And I’m assuming this is on here so we can pass a resolution to proclaim it Sunshine Week in Simpsonville is that correct. So is there anyone who would like to make a motion in that regard.
Mr. Larson: I’ll make a motion that we pass the resolution to make this Sunshine Week in Simpsonville.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Larson – do I hear a second
Mr. Garrett: Second
Mayor: Mr. Garrett seconds – all right motion and second – any discussion – any sunshine.
Mr. Bridges: Can we make sure it runs to the end of the week.
Mayor: All right hearing no further discussion I’ll call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it it is officially Sunshine Week.
REZONING/ANNEXATIONS • Z-2007-01 – John Sherman – Stokes Rd – 2 nd Reading Mayor: All right, Mr. Witkowski you’ve had your break.
Mr. Witkowski: Hopefully this will be easier.
Mayor: That last thing wasn’t too hard.
Mr. Witkowski: This is Stokes Road Place Planned Development second reading. You all approved it as a Planned Development last month. Nothing has changed. Mr. Stokes or Mr. Sherman is ready to go and if you all approve it tonight we can go with it. So this is your second reading on 412 Stokes Place , Planned Development Z-2007-01.
Mayor: All right thank you Mr. Witkowski. I’ll entertain a motion Mr. Gecy
Mr. Gecy: I’ll make a motion we accept the Planning Commission recommendation Z-2007-01.
Mayor: Thank you sir do I hear a second
Ms. Lawrence: Second
Mayor: Ms. Lawrence seconds – any discussion. All right hearing no discussion I’ll remind council that this is second and final reading. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. The Aye’s have it it’s unanimous. All right.
EXECUTIVE SESSION • Personnel Matter Mayor: All right we have a need for an Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter this evening so I’ll entertain a motion in that regard. Ms. Lawrence
Ms. Lawrence: Mr. Mayor I move we adjourn into Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter.
Mayor: Thank you Ms. Lawrence do I hear a second.
Mr. Garrett: Second
Mayor: Mr. Garrett seconds. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it it’s unanimous. We are in recess. Thank you all for coming tonight. Hope to see you back again soon.
ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lawrence: Mr. Mayor I make a motion we adjourn.
Mr. Larson: Second
Mayor: Thank you Ms. Lawrence, Mr. Larson seconds. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it it’s unanimous. We’re adjourned. Thank you all for coming.
Respectfully submitted,
PAMELA J. BODKINS City Clerk |
|
|
| 118 N E Main Street, Simpsonville, SC 29681 |
|