 |
 |
 |
|
| 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 Business Session December 9, 2008 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers – 118 N.E. Main St .
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor: Call the December meeting of the Simpsonville City Council to order. I’d to welcome all of you here tonight and there must be something going on what a crowd but we are glad you are here.
ROLL CALL: Ms Zeller would you call the roll please?
Ms Zeller: Councilmember Bridges: Here Councilmember Garrett: Here Councilmember Sanders: Here Councilmember Bagwell: Here Councilmember Curtis: Here Councilmember Larson: Here Mayor Waldrop: Here
INVOCATION:
Mayor: Is there anyone here who would like to ask blessings upon this meeting in your own personal way? Alright hearing none Councilmember Garrett would you ask blessings on this meeting in your own personal way please?
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mayor: Alright Council members you have in your packets the minutes of from the November. You do not have them, the minutes? We don't have any of the minutes? Okay. The minutes are still in process okay. So we will have those next week, next meeting, next month I guess.
REVIEW OF MONTHLY REPORTS:
Mayor: Alright how about monthly reports, did you get your monthly reports? Alright and thanks to the Department Heads wherever you may be for preparing those reports for us and we view those with much interest and we appreciate the information and we'll get back with you on those if we have any questions or comments. Alright.
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
Mayor: This is the portion of our program where we invite citizen comments. This is our business meeting so we won't interact with you but we'll certainly be happy to hear whatever you have to say. If you called ahead and asked to be placed on the agenda we'll give you four minutes to speak about anything you would like to speak about. If you signed up at the door we'll give you two minutes under the same conditions and it looks like we have plenty of time tonight to hear folks. We had one person call and ask to placed on the agenda and that is Pat Thomas. Pat are you here? I think you know the routine. Can you hear me? Okay well you know if you will state your address for the record you may begin.
Ms Thomas: Yes my name is Pat Thomas, 12 Agewood Court in Simpsonville. I'm speaking tonight and I just have some questions to ask and I realize that you can't speak back with us so we'll just maybe get our answers at the next meeting. I will provide the clerk with a copy of the questions that I'm going to ask so that they can be accurately recorded and also so there won't be any difficulty with y'all providing the answers at your next meeting. Okay I've got about ten questions and a little comment. The first question is we would like for you to produce copies of the amended budget and all changes made since the vote on that amended budget. Produce a copy of the amount you are out of balance. Number three produce your plan to fix it. Number four produce a list of money borrowed (including bonds) since September 2007 when the auditors advised the City to increase revenues by an average of $1,000,000 per year for the next three years before borrowing anymore money and please include the $800,000 borrowed for equipment and vehicles two days prior to their advice letter being made public. Number five why did you pay the auditor over $36,000 and then ignore their advice. Number six we would like to know where the money that was collected from us through our water bill that was designated specifically for the City Sewer Fund how much has been collected since it started and how has that money been spent. Number seven why did you give away six lots in the Westwood subdivision valued at $84,000 rather than offer the property for sale. It will take 70 years to recoup the sale amount based on collecting $1200 annually from taxes once the project is finished. Number eight why did you fire or cut hours on so many dedicated, hardworking City employees taking away their livelihood yet you – the Mayor, Council and most assuredly Mr. Hawes our City Administrator – go untouched. These people had nothing to do with the over borrowing and overspending and yet they are making all the sacrifices. Number nine why don't you park or sell some portion of the approximately 40 take home cars being subsidized by the taxpayer. We are footing the bill for the loans or lease payments, the insurance, gas, maintenance and wear and tear. The taxpayer should furnish transportation needs for doing the job but no more. Number ten why would you not consider that everyone sacrifice a little so a few don't have to sacrifice everything. Each of you was fairly elected by the good people of Simpsonville and in accepting this office you are honor bound to protect the interest of the electorate. We trusted you to be good stewards of our money. We trusted you to protect us from anything that would compromise the future of our City. We trusted you to insure a solvent future for our City. We trusted you to hold yourselves to a higher moral standard. You have failed us miserably on all counts. Not one of you has stepped over to the side of those who elected you and please don't think I didn't know is a valid excuse. It's your job to know and for our sakes I hope it’s not too late. Thank you.
Mayor: Okay next we have those who signed up tonight and you will have two minutes approximately to do, to say to us whatever you would like to say. First is Bob Harrison. Mr. Harrison
Mr. Harrison: Geneva Lawrence who is after me has relinquished her two minutes to me.
Mayor: Okay give us your address Mr. Harrison.
Mr. Harrison: Bob Harrison, 309 Shadow Ridge Circle , Simpsonville. I'm as you know the former Finance Director.
Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Harrison: This is a sad day in the history of this City and as I have told you before for this to happen was 100% completely preventable. What I addressed to you on September 25 th if you'll go back and look at the minutes of that meeting I told you a financial crisis was coming but for those of you particularly those of you who have been on the longest, Mr. Waldrop, Mr. Bridges, you heard from me in February of 2004 that this City was heading to a financial crisis. Not just in 2004 but as far back as I could pull the records which was 2001 I told you that this City's revenue stream was anemic going up 2% a year and except for the building permits we could never even keep up with inflation much less the needs of the City. In that time I have every year asked you for revenue increases. I'm Republican I don't like tax increases we are not asking for a lot of money but a few dollars from each citizen would have made a world of difference to the finances of this City. But you would not do it and when we had the first meeting even for the 2008 – 2009 Budget I was told by one of the Council members we will not consider a tax increase not even the small amount allowable. In doing that we not only at that point lost that tax increase you lost the opportunity you made an agreement with the County of Greenville to develop the Fire District and you reneged on that you lost a million and half dollars in financing from that and you lost you added five hundred thousand dollars to the cost of that and even before you did a final vote I talked to each and every one of you in my office and told you that that down vote on those taxes was going to cost this City a half a million dollars and you still voted it down. When the revenue wasn't there what did you do? You went out and borrowed. You had to borrow to repair the streets, you had to borrow to fix a twelve foot bridge we should have been able to write a check for a twelve foot bridge but we had to have a bond issue for that twelve foot bridge. The insanity of this goes on you hired Cherry Bekaert & Holland, CPA Firm from Greenville to figure out what your plan should be to get you out of this mess. Do you know I could have sat in my old office down there and I could have figured that out in ninety minutes? How much money did you give to Cherry Bekaert & Holland? And I will tell you something you may find interesting you know what the first thing Cherry Bekaert & Holland did to give you your report? They called me because I'm the only one that knew the answers. They had to start with me because they couldn't even figure out where things were and they probably would still be writing the report if I hadn't help them. The bottom line is that the inability to go out, I understand you are taking a lot of pride in no tax increases but the reality is three years ago three Council members who are no longer on the Council did what I recommended and suggested a 10 mil tax increase. I've heard you people say that had we done that we would not have the problem today and it is true but we didn't and those people you all got off the City Council but they supported what they knew needed to be done. When you look at the City of Mauldin basically our size operationally very similar to us what is the difference between them and us? Well I'll tell you one of the differences their general fund has six and a half million dollars in it. They don't borrow a TAN they write a check for what they need and you know why? Because their mil levy is a stinking 7 mils different from us that is all 7 mils on a $250,000 house 7 mils after taxes cost that person about $35. You would rather cut the wages, cut the increases from people who live in houses half that size and take a $800 or $900 increase away from them because they've only got one or two votes. You had rather do that than ask the citizen for another $35 to help run the City right and help pay these people for what they do. These are some of the hardest working, longest term people we have lost immeasurable amounts of experience and it is all for nothing. Because had this been addressed anywhere in the past this problem would not exist today and when I hear you being quoted as saying “we had no idea” let me look you in the eye and tell you, you did have an idea I looked everyone of you in the eye and I told you this is coming. I have told you, other than you two, heard it for four and a half years I've told every other one of you that for the entire term of your office this is coming it has to be addressed. It amazes me that you are more concerned about your reelection than you are taking care of bringing in the revenue that the City needs. It's bad enough that this goes on in the United States Congress where the approval rating is 13% but to have it go on in the City of Simpsonville is pathetic. I doubt seriously that your approval rating is at 13%. This is a sad day this should never ever have happened and do not deny or let me ever hear you deny that you didn't know it because you heard it and you've heard it from me and you have heard it time and time again. Thank you.
Mayor: Next is Geneva Lawrence. Next is Mary Walsh.
Ms Walsh: Hello
Mayor: If you will state your address for the record you may begin.
Ms Walsh: I'm representing Upstate Forever and we are located at 507 Petigru Street in Greenville .
Mayor: Thank you.
Ms Walsh: I'm actually here to talk about the Landscape Ordinance and I'm sorry to bring this up with so many people are here to hear about other things but
Mayor: No, this is good.
Ms Walsh: Since it is on the agenda. Although I'm sure a lot of people are here to support the Landscape Ordinance too.
Mayor: Exactly.
Ms Walsh: We just wanted to voice our support for the Landscape Ordinance regulation especially with regards to the clearing and grading of land. One of Upstate’s greatest assets is its systems of streams and rivers managing storm water run off is vital to the long term protection of that asset. The proposed Landscape Ordinance attempts to prevent cleared and graded sites from sitting as barren dirt for unnecessarily long stretches of time, a practice which substantially increases the chances of sedimentation in our streams and rivers. As sediment is the number one pollutant to Upstate waterways this section of the Landscape Ordinance should go a long way in preventing such pollution from occurring We strongly support the requirements that promote the planting of trees in parking areas. A typical 10 acre parking lot will produce approximately 270,000 gallons of polluted storm water runoff after only one inch of rain. This runoff which contains high levels of oil, grease, sediment, salt, heavy metals and bacteria flows directly into our streams and waterways completely untreated. The City of Simpsonville could provide additional benefits to the quality of our waterways by encouraging or even requiring that landscaping in parking lots filter out pollutants. We also applaud the requirement of a minimum inclusion of 75% native species for landscaping requirements; however, in the suggested plant material list in the ordinance some of the species that are suggested are invasive. So I've provided a list of suggested plants that are local to this area that would not be water intensive and that are not invasive. So hopefully you will consider adding those to the ordinance and taking out the invasive species.
Mayor: Could you supply those to the City Administrator?
Ms Walsh: Sure
Mayor: Thank you.
Ms Walsh: Okay that is all I have to say. Thank you.
Mayor: Alright thank you very much. Alright next is Cheryl Ervin is that correct?
Ms Ervin: Cheryl Ervin, good evening I live at 310 Blue Herrin Circle , Simpsonville.
Mayor: Okay
Ms Ervin: I am here this evening with quite a few other senior citizens. I'm fairly new to the Simpsonville area and I ended up in the Upstate because books on places to retire told me this was a good place to come. I ended up in Simpsonville because there was a house available and my house in Michigan finally sold and I had to be out right away. After I got settled in my house I began to look over the Town of Simpsonville and decided I liked it here and then I found something so wonderful I couldn't believe it. I found a Staff that was very caring, I found very creative programs and I found wonderful facilities and I found your Senior Citizens Senior. And it is such a wonderful place and there are other seniors here tonight who are concerned we want you to know that we do appreciate that Senior Center and it is a great place to be. I know that there are some seniors that would sit at home and be lonely but now they can come to the Senior Center and there is exercise, there is games, there is cribs, it's just a wonderful, wonderful thing. My family and my friends all over the Country and a lot of my former students now know about Simpsonville because of this Senior Center . Some of us are here tonight because we know you are having budget cuts and we are concerned about what is going to happen to our Senior Center and we want you to know that we have this concern. Thank you.
Mayor: Okay next is Donna Car Baugh.
Ms Car Baugh: My name is Donna Car Baugh I live at 109 Ashdown Drive
Mayor: Thank you.
Ms Car Baugh: I would like to say Amen to everything that Pat Thomas said.
Mayor: Okay. Ms Car Baugh: I was asked to speak here tonight concerning the financial situation the City appears to be struggling with. In July of 2008 a balanced budget was passed by Council in August the budget was cut and taxes were raised eight percent. What happened in that one month period? Three months later the budget is slashed again it was announced that employees would not be receiving raises and curbside recycling would be stopped due to the cost involved and that the City was trying to borrow 1.1 million dollars to cover expenses. In less than five and a half months the City went from a balanced budget to borderline bankruptcy. I would like to know; did any of you read and study the budget that was proposed to you? The recent answer the citizens have been given is that building permits are down before that it was gas prices and lack of revenue at Heritage Park . Yes building permits are down all across the Country as everyone knows this is not unexpected due to the present economic conditions. How can you claim you didn't know this when you passed the budget in July? Even if this were the best year you ever had for building permits 1.1 million dollars would not be generated between July and December. These answers have been pulled out of the air and it helps to make you look like victims it says to the people it isn't our fault blame it on the economy. It is your fault you and you alone are to blame. You are only victims of your own doings you have spent more money than you had coming in and had continued to do this year after year after year. This Administration has a careless attitude when it comes to spending the taxpayers’ money. Employees have lost jobs and raises were taken from them after they had already earned them. We end up paying more when we have the magnitude of employee turnover that Simpsonville has had year after year after year. We would like to know; how many more employees are going to lose their jobs? I personally feel that each and every one of you should not accept your monthly payment for your service until we have this situation brought out in the open and we are on our way to recovery. You should have to suffer the same consequences that the employees that didn't get their earned raises and the ones you let go are suffering it's the least you could do. As earlier stated these problems did not happen overnight and they won't be corrected overnight. What is done is done but you all owe the citizens answers. You all have been elected to serve the City. You have been trusted with the task of spending our money wisely. You have a responsibility to the taxpayers who elected you into these positions. We deserve to have honest answers about the financial decisions that have been made. We deserve to have honest answers concerning the decisions that will be made in the future. We deserve to have honest answers as to the actual financial condition of our City. Thank you.
Mayor: Those are all the speakers we have tonight. We appreciate all the comments we take all of those seriously and we look forward to responding. Alright next on the agenda is the City Administrators report Mr. Hawes.
CITY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT:
Mr. Hawes: Yes Sir Mayor and Council first of all I want to talk about Christmas at Heritage Park . The City will again host Christmas at Heritage Park on December 15 – 18 from 5:30 to 8:30 PM. This event has become a favorite for children and parents alike. The train and depot will be decorated and lit for the season. Hot chocolate and cookies will be available to visitors and Santa will be there all four days and the Schmooney may make a special appearance. The strategic planning and budget retreat will begin in earnest in January. The budgeting process involves Council and Staff and I'm arranging a strategic planning / budgeting retreat for mid-January. The budgeting process will be in-depth and multiple Council workshops per month will occur this upcoming year. The retreat is the first step in guiding the development of the, of a, proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year. If you have any suggestions for topic of discussions at the retreat please let me know. I will be in touch with Council members in the next week to determine the day that works best for everyone to meet. Simpsonville United Methodist Church Journey to the Manger will this Friday and Saturday. The event involves blocking a lane on SE Main Street near Crisp Street . This year the lane configuration and traffic flow will be adjusted because of the new median directly in front of the Church. With regard to building demolitions the City is working with CGRA, The Greenville County Redevelopment Authority to demolish an abandoned house on Cox Street . Bids were let and accepted for the work this last, past week. The State DHEC required environmental assessment should be complete within two weeks. GCRA indicates that once the environmental permits are approved demolition should be sometime in January. We are also beginning a similar process on the abandoned home that has been condemned on West Georgia Road near Oak Park Condominiums and I will keep you informed on that progress as well. Upcoming events the next business meeting of City Council is January 13 th and Christmas at Heritage Park will again be December 15 th – 18 th .
Mayor: Okay thank you Mr. Hawes and now it is Councils turn to offer any comments or ask Mr. Hawes any questions you may have. So would anyone like to make comments or ask questions? Ms Bagwell. COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Ms Bagwell: Mr. Hawes I'd like to make sure that we did start posting the notes on the trash cans this week concerning the recycling
Mr. Hawes: My understanding is that that was done.
Ms Bagwell: It starts Monday? This past Monday? Thank you so everyone out there be aware please put your recyclables at Wal-Mart, at the old Bi-Lo shopping center or at the City Fire Department if you choose to recycle please take your recyclables there.
Mr. Hawes: Correct.
Mayor: Okay anyone else? Alright Hearing no further comments we will move on to the next item on the agenda. Next on the agenda is an audit presentation by Greene, Finney and Horton and Mr. Mr. The fellow will give his name when he gets to the microphone I'm sure and tell us who he is.
AUDIT PRESENTATION – GREENE, FINNEY AND HORTON
Mr. Campbell: Yes I'm Keith Campbell with Greene, Finney and Horton. Mr. Mayor, City Council we appreciate the opportunity to serve as the City's external auditors this year even in this more challenging year. My comments are going to be brief due to the fact that Larry Finney has already presented a draft of the financial statements at an earlier meeting. I just want to take a moment to provide an overall summary. First and foremost the City did receive an unqualified opinion on its financial statements for the year ending June 30 th 2008. An unqualified opinion is the best opinion that the City can receive. It is important to remember that the financial statements are the responsibility of the City. The City records the day to day transactions, you hire us to provide an opinion as to whether or not those transactions are properly recorded and reflected in the financial statements. It has been a difficult year financially for the City as we all know you have discussed this with Mr. Finney earlier as I've said before and as you saw in the information we provided to you and the economy has not made things easy for the City financially. However, we believe the City has responded well to the plans in place and the plan presented by Management and adopted by Council. If it is implemented as such should get the City moving forward in the right direction. In addition we also believe the City has goods plans in place to address our findings and comments from the audit. These matters did not happen overnight and will not be fixed overnight but when we brought these matters to your attention the City responded well and Management. We believe the things, the best things you can do at this point is to maintain good Finance Staff and keep moving forward by ensuring your plans are efficiently and effectively implemented. And with that I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor: Okay thank you anyone have questions? Alright well thank you very much we appreciate you coming and we appreciate the report. Already next on the agenda is new business and Mr. Hawes you are going to begin by talking about SCMIT deductible.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. Hawes: Yes Sir Mayor and Council
Mayor: SCMIT? Mr. Hawes: SCMIT is the South Carolina Municipal Insurance Trust that is our workers compensation insurance. There is an option available now to the City whereby the City may take a deductible on its insurance policy and allow it to have a lower premium as a result similar to any insurance policy that folks may have. Before you along with this resolution you should have an analysis describing the average annual deductible savings with workers compensation and with auto liability. This particular item adopts a $10,000 deductible on the workers compensation and auto liability policy. The analysis shows on workers compensation this deductible would save the City on its premium $40,275. Using last six years trends we can expect a net savings of $14,000 factoring in our cost. On auto liability the premium would be reduced $16,000 and the net savings after cost would be $4,793 and you can see this in the highlighted area on your analysis on the first on which is auto liability you can see the $16,000 at the top of the highlighted area that is the premium credit and these would be realized in this upcoming year where this resolution to be passed. In the workers compensation analysis you will see the premium credit of $40,000 plus. In no instance in the years of this analysis for either policy would the City not have benefited from this deductible while in a sense we hedge our bets that we will not have unusually high claim activity the savings are substantial on the front end based on past experience. This resolution will also have an added benefit in that with a deductible this brings accountability to departments as the deductible cost can be charged back and this can have the effect of positively influencing experience in other words when the departments have to adjust for that deductible charge back they will work with their employees to not have injuries on the job or and make sure they operate safely and with regard to auto liability make sure the vehicles are driven in a very careful manner. So this can positively influence our experience modifier and experience overall and reduce cost so what you have before you is a resolution to adopt the workers compensation deductible and auto liability deductible from SCMIT and SCMIRF respectively SCMIRF being the South Carolina Municipal Insurance Reserve Fund and that is our liability coverage. I'll be glad to take any questions regarding this.
Mayor: Well before we discuss it we need a motion so anybody care to make a motion in this regard? Mr. Garrett.
Mr. Garrett: I make a motion we accept the resolution for the SCMIT deductible.
Mayor: Okay thank you Mr. Garrett. Do I hear a second?
Mr. Curtis: I'll second.
Mayor: Mr. Curtis seconds. Alright now discussion. Anybody have any questions of Mr. Hawes? Ms Bagwell.
Ms Bagwell: You say that one of the added benefits is the accountability this brings to departments as to the deductible can be charged back to whom?
Mr. Hawes: To the budget of the departments basically.
Mayor: Mr. Curtis. Mr. Curtis: What is our current deductible that we are carrying on these things?
Mr. Hawes: There isn't a deductible we currently have an all inclusive policy. You can do a deductible as low as $1,000 or as high as $500,000 on workers compensation and the same on auto liability. The benefit versus the risk is what needs to be evaluated here with the $10,000 deductible and our previous experience we realize a benefit of $14,000 after cost assuming that the cost are going to be what they have been previously. However, in some years we were as low on cost as $12,000 which would benefit us $28,000 were we to replicate that in no case were we over $40,000 in the past six years on workers compensation for actual out-of-pocket cost so this deductible would have benefited us each of the past six years. Therefore I would recommend on those trends adopting it here.
Mayor: Okay, well our experience modifier is trending downward I mean we're
Mr. Hawes: It is below one currently.
Mayor: That is right so have you done an analysis that will show what the changes would be just the benefit from the experience modifier dropping in the next year or two or have you looked at that? Another words I guess I'm looking for a break even. We are going to assume a little more risk with that higher deductible is there a point in the next year or two that we would reduce our risk significantly without doing that?
Mr. Hawes: Well the City has programs in place that have allowed the modifier to be dropping. We have a standard Safety Committee that meets; we work with the Department Heads so we would expect a continuance of that deductible dropping. However, with that deductible dropping it doesn't necessarily correlate to a drop in insurance premium. This year we had our deductible go to .9 but the premium went up from last year because there were overall premium cost increases across the State with this program.
Mayor: Excuse me was I reading this wrong or the sheet that I have seems to indicate that in 2006 it was $272,874 was the premium and in 2007 it dropped to $236,425.
Mr. Hawes: That is correct in 2008 it bumped to $253,305 or actually 2009 upcoming.
Mayor: Oh you've got 2008 separate from all the others I've got it.
Mr. Hawes: It dropped from .94 on the e mod to .9 yet our premium increased because of overall increases in insurance for workers compensation in the State. So that modifier minimized our increase or assisted in keeping the increase less than what it could have been.
Mayor: So premiums overall are rising?
Mr. Hawes: Yes in all insurance.
Mayor: But the experience modifier is keeping us close to
Mr. Hawes: We are not having to bear the full increase that other places had to bear on both of these policies.
Mayor: Okay. Alright Mr. Larson did you have something?
Mr. Larson: Why haven't we considered this earlier if it is going to be that big of a savings I mean in years past?
Mr. Hawes: It is something that Municipal Association is just now offering to the Cities it is an opportunity to benefit based on past trends. In the past I'm not aware that it was available until last year.
Mr. Larson: So the first year it was available was 2007?
Mr. Hawes: I'm not positive on that.
Mayor: Okay anyone else have any questions? Well sounds to me like we've got a choice here we can benefit from the savings going to a higher deductible but we are sort of rolling the dice if we have for instance an auto accident. How many auto accidents, how many City vehicles were involved in accidents or did we have to access this insurance for in the past couple of years say two years? Do you have that information?
Mr. Hawes: Yes, I've got it. One aspect of that is that the City often repairs its own vehicles we don't typically use the insurance except on the larger expenses anyway so now
Mayor: Well that is why I framed my question to ask how many times have we accessed the insurance in the past two years on a vehicle.
Mr. Hawes: I believe it was four I don't have the number right in front of me for the larger claims on auto.
Mayor: I think we need to know that before we . . .
Mr. Hawes: Well if you like I can run downstairs and get it
Mayor: Is this something that we need action on this month?
Mr. Hawes: Yes
Mayor: December 12 th is the drop dead date.
Mr. Hawes: In order to reap the benefit next fiscal year I mean calendar year.
Mayor: I hate to put Mr. Carter on the spot but I think he probably handles all of those things when they happen doesn't he? So Mr. Carter I'm sorry but can I ask you do you have some idea of how many times in the past two years we've used the vehicle insurance to do damage repairs?
Mr. Carter: No Sir I can't say that I do.
Mr. Hawes: Most are repaired in house. As a matter of fact we had a windshield break on a Fire Engine today and it was repaired in house and that is not going to be reported and handled by
Mayor: Why did you choose a $10,000 deductible instead of $15,000 deductible?
Mr. Hawes: Because I felt that that was in consultation with the people at SCMIT and SCMIRF that you don't want to take too much of a bite necessarily and have an adverse impact especially with the cash flow with the City currently and the conservative approach we need to take here I felt $10,000 was more appropriate than $15,000 it was a difficult choice between $ 5,000 and $10,000 frankly. However, most of our vehicles are your heavier equipment type that are in auto liability and those would reasonably be able to be worked on under $10,000 also there is a clear benefit of $40,000 to the premium credit on $10,000 and $14,000 on $15,000 so it is actually a declining benefit compared to the benefit between $5,000 and $10,000 cause at $5,000 there was a $28,000 so it bumps up $12,000 at $10,000 at $15,000 it bumps up only $8,000 so your decline if you follow the curve the height of the benefit is at $10,000.
Mayor: Okay so total savings on both policies a total savings next year would be?
Mr. Hawes: According to the trend analysis approximately $20,000.
Mayor: So we are risking if we have two accidents greater than $10,000 dollars or two damages greater than $10,000 we are Mr. Hawes: No, that is not accurate.
Mayor: Alright tell me about it.
Mr. Hawes: Because the benefit to the premium is $40,000 so two will not take care of that benefit. It would have to be two accidents beyond our average.
Mayor: I got you. Alright anyone else? Alright well I have a motion and this only requires one reading so this will be the one reading. So I'll call for the vote all in favor signify by saying aye, opposed no, alright the aye's have it. It is unanimous so.
Mr. Hawes: If I could Mayor.
Mayor: You can it's a little late but you can.
Mr. Hawes: No that is alright what you have before you is a resolution regarding SCMIT there is also one for SCMIRF which is the auto liability. What you did is just passed on workers compensation so we need one for SCMIRF as well.
Mayor: Alright so we need a motion to accept the resolution as presented for SCMIRF. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: I'll make a motion that we accept the resolution as presented for SCMIRF.
Mayor: Alright do I hear a second?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mayor: Mr. Bridges seconds. Any discussion? Hearing none I'll call for the vote all in favor signify by saying aye, opposed no, aye's have it. It is unanimous go forth and save some money. Alright next item on the agenda is appointment of commission members that would be for our Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals and as far as I know have we had any applications?
Mr. Hawes: We have not received applications what we can do is work with Council to better advertise or recruit some applicants here between now and January. Of course the ordinance was changed and the procedures changed regarding time lines so the specifics of that now allow applications to be accepted after the original date so we can accept them at any time between now and when we appoint.
Mayor: Alright have we advertised this at all yet?
Mr. Hawes: Of yes.
Mayor: Okay but no responses.
Mr. Hawes: We have not received a response. There was only one open position and that was the Board of Zoning Appeals and we just recently had a resignation on the Planning Commission due to other business activities by that person so there are two openings but when it was advertised there was only one.
Mayor: Okay. Alright well lets do all that we can do folks between now and next month and try to get some willing folks. Alright next item is the Landscape Ordinance Text Amendment. David Dyrhaug is going to talk to us about that.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Thank you Mayor and Council. Actually I'll probably let that fine young lady from Upstate Forever come back up she did an excellent job of explaining some of the benefits we hope to achieve with this text amendment. But what you have before you is a text amendment for first reading and these represent amendments to our landscape regulations as are currently contained in our zoning ordinance. Back at the September workshop the City Council expressed some dissatisfaction with some of the current landscape regulations and Staff took that and also went back and examined the ordinance itself and found that some of the weaknesses of this ordinance is that it does little to promote planting trees in parking areas, there is little promotion of defined protection in general, properties remain in cleared and graded states for lengthy periods of time, planting of trees of often uncoordinated between properties, planned developments are largely unregulated and there is somewhat poor navigate ability due to the piecemeal organization of the landscape regulations. So Staffs gone forward and proposed some modifications to this ordinance which are contained in the text amendment before you and I'm just going to highlight real quickly the major portions
Mayor: May I interrupt you for just one moment?
Mr. Dyrhaug: You sure can.
Mayor: Is everyone out there cool now? Mr. Hawes could we get another little adjustment to go back a little bit toward warm? My hands are getting numb I'd appreciate that. Alright Mr. Dyrhaug.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Thank you.
Mayor: Excuse me for interrupting.
Mr. Dyrhaug: So what I would like to do real briefly is highlight the major amendments or modifications that are proposed to these regulations. The first is to actually reorganize the landscape provisions and by that what I mean is that right now the landscape regulations are contained in three different sections of article 10. I would like to propose that they are integrated into one fluid article that would be article 12 and this would allow for a little bit more sensible organization, it would create an identify for these regulations and these provisions that would combine to accomplish a united purpose and plus it will make it easier to find some things. For example right now we have standards that are often contained in the definitions of terms and so we want to pull those out and put them in appropriate places so it's easier to find those and apply them. The second major modification is to not necessarily entirely exempt plan developments. We would still grant them some flexibility and the way that would be done is when they come before for preliminary reviews that they can identify in their statements of intent how they may differ from some of these standards. But I think often times now with planned development since we are seeing them more and more we actually find lower standards in some of these developments and we want to make sure that they are not lowering their standards but at least trying to maintain if not provide enhanced standards in terms of landscaping. The third major modification relates to street trees and what we are proposing to amend here is to have consistent street yard requirements in order to give form to the streetscape and build consistency along streets. This would apply basically the same standard along all major streets in the City. Right now there is differing standards and there is not even specific consistency requirements and so this would go a long way toward having consistency. The other part of that is requiring enhanced landscape standards in parking lots and this would ensure that the landscaping within the parking lot meets the intent of the ordinance especially in large developments. Let me just show you what the actual changes on these would be in the street yard right now the current regulation is some have five foot wide buffers and some have eight foot wide buffers the proposal would be that they have a consistent standard of eight feet in width. In the current regulations there is screening requirements but there is no actual tree requirements so this would go the way of actually prescribing a tree standard for planting trees in that buffer yard. In terms of the parking lot requirements right now we just require five percent of parking lots to be landscaped but there is not really any definition or specific procedure on how that is implemented so there is just a lot of loosey goosey stuff going on where people just try and throw things in that makes the numbers work but doesn't necessarily make the best sense for having a nice landscape. So what we have proposed in this text amendment is to have landscaped areas at the end of parking rows and that excessive runs of parking spaces be broken up by landscaped areas. So in the ordinance it specifies that you would not have a run of parking spaces continuous next to each other longer than 15 spaces without them having to be broken up by some landscape. Lastly as I mentioned before there is not a great tree requirement in parking lots right now we have trees are required in 50% of the landscaped areas. Well if someone meets their 5% requirement in maybe just one clump of area or two clumps of area in their parking lot there it might only be one or two trees in that whole parking lot so. In combination of the proposed standard I just mentioned in terms of where landscaped areas would be required we would also recommend that there is a tree planted in each of those areas. This is an example of because let me back up there was some concern at the Planning Commission meeting that this might hurt a small business owner and it was demonstrated at the Planning Commission that this revised standard would actually help a small business owner. This is a typically parking lot perhaps for a small business that consist of 15 parking spaces and this layout right here would not be acceptable under our current regulations.
Mayor: Is that in the gold Overlay District? Or where is that?
Mr. Dyrhaug: This would just be in any commercial area. This could be on Main Street or wherever
Mayor: Okay, excuse me go ahead.
Mr. Dyrhaug: But as I just mentioned this would not be allowed in our current regulations and they way that a small business owner would have to meet the requirements now is that they would have to take out some parking spaces and figure out where they can actually put landscaped areas within the extent of their parking lot. So this is an advantage of moving to the proposed ordinance is that you can see that they have landscaped areas at the end of their parking rows so they actually would meet the new ordinance and it would help them out. What they could not do before is use the perimeter landscaped area as counting toward their parking lot requirements. Well in a small business that is a little hard for those small parking lots. This new ordinance would help them out a lot by allowing them to use their perimeter area in their parking lot landscape requirements. So the intent is to make the intent of these parking lot modifications is more driven at helping the large parking lots have more landscaping in their parking areas. The next major aspect of this text amendment is how tree protection is defined. Right now our current regulations are that there is a tree density required for each tract of land and that is defined as a 170 inches of DBH of trees per acre and there is actually nothing past that that gets into any level of tree protection. There are credits received for tree preservation but there is not much more past that. In the proposed regulation what we propose is that the standard be changed a little bit so that is there is a new baseline figure and this would be done a number of trees per acre and this baseline would be on tree per one-tenth of an acre. After that get into a level of actually defining classes of trees that would be encouraged to be protected and there would be two classes of trees. The first class would be trees that have a DBH of between 12 and 24 inches and the class would be trees that have a DBH of greater than 24 inches. What we would do with those classes is that the way we encourage them to be protected is that if those trees are removed then they increase their number of tree plantings that they have to do or what we would call their reforestation requirement. We would still give them credit for the trees that they preserve but this goes a little bit further in actually defining classes of trees we would like to see preserved and then if they do choose to remove those then they increase their replanting requirements. The next major amendment proposed in this text amendment is related to clearing and grading. Right now under our current regulations we don't have any requirements for landscaping or putting in ground cover after a property is cleared and graded and we see some examples around us of where properties have been cleared or graded for some extent of time now and remain in their state of red clay and dirt. So what we have proposed in the text amendment is to have a provision that requires then to install landscaping or ground cover within 90 days after they get their clearing or grading permit. As an alternative to that they can go forward with their building project and get their building permits and get going on that and not necessarily have to meet that requirement but what this will help us ensure is that they are moving forward in one form or another and that we will have a piece of land that will look a little bit better and have some environmental benefits as were outlined earlier or they are moving on their project. That represents the major amendments to the landscape regulations there is a few other minor modifications that are part of this and that are just naturally part of this because we reorganized it but these include: putting the plant material standards in their own stand alone section, reinforcing the purpose of this ordinance, slightly adjusting the transitional buffer yards to make a little more sense because right now we have different types of buffer yard requirements but a lot of them have the same requirements so we have just slightly distinguished them a little bit and reorganization, and then Downtown properties are exempt from a lot of the impractical provisions such as street yards and transitional buffers with what we are trying to create Downtown it doesn't make sense to apply a lot of those standards to those properties. Also we go in there spelling out the requirement for irrigation systems and then lastly the penalty for clearing and grading has been adjusted. Currently the penalty for someone who goes out and clears and grades a property without the appropriate permits is that they cannot develop the property for I believe it is five years and that really exacerbates the problem because now not only do you have a graded piece of land that is red clay or dirt out there but now you are ensuring that nothing is going to happen to it for five years and so it doesn't make a lot of sense to impose that penalty on that property like that instead what's proposed in this ordinance is that their tree requirements for reforestation is doubled and I think that is a little bit more palpable and will help encourage those properties to develop a little bit nicer and not necessarily leave us with something we don't want to look at for five years. At the public hearing there was not necessarily any opposition expressed to this ordinance there was one individual who works in the real estate business who ask several questions about how this ordinance would effect properties that he represents; however, he came to understand that he would still be able to perform clearing activities on his properties so long as he goes in afterwards and installs ground cover over any disturbed and graded portions of the property and he actually applauded that aspect of it so that it is a more attractive and more presentable piece of land for him. The Planning Commission voted four to one to recommend approval of this text amendment and Staff certainly supports its approval as well.
Mayor: Okay well thank you and all of those who participated for all of the hard work you have put forth on this we appreciate that I'm sure. Council this requires two readings so whatever we do tonight will be first reading and if there is some things on there that bring you heartburn we can always come back and address those at a later time that is just information. Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: I'd like to make a motion that we table this for at least a couple of months as there is quite a bit here and it does cover a great deal of regulation for the City I think that we need more time to review it. I do have some things here that give me some heartburn. I'm confident that that some of the other Council members would like to review it so and with the considerable workload that we currently have I think it would be better suited to a later date, possibly sometime in February. So I would like to make a motion that we table this and have it brought back to us in a couple of months. Mayor: Well we don't really need to table it because it's not on the table yet so I guess you could just ask us all not to make a motion and that would accomplish the same thing.
Mr. Curtis: That would accomplish the same thing.
Mayor: I think we get the message so I'm still required to ask though. Would anyone like to make a motion? Well apparently everyone else feels as though we need to review this a little bit more so. Thank you for your presentation Mr. Dyrhaug and I'm sure we will be calling on you again during this process to answer questions and help us consider this. Alright but you are still up there so.
Mr. Dyrhaug: I am so.
Mayor: Alright.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Next item on the agenda is a petition to annex property at 121 Westwood Drive and to rezone this property from industrial to neighborhood commercial and multifamily residential. The map on the wall shows the location of this property. It is owned by Jack and Joyce Pendarvis and you can see it is nestled along West Georgia Road right in between Westwood Drive and Grandview Drive . The proposed rezoning would look as follows right now it is colored purple because as I mentioned it is industrial but the section to the north would be rezoned to neighborhood commercial and the section to the south would be rezoned to multifamily residential. The intent that the applicants expressed is to market the property for neighborhood shops in the neighborhood commercial area and a retirement type village in the multifamily residential area. There was no opposition expressed at the public hearing and (tape stopped). The property is situated between two areas with very distinct characters the area to the east of the property is largely characterized as highway commercial as fittingly so because it is right next to the interstate. The area to the west is the Westwood subdivision which is entirely single family residential. The requested rezoning will provide a more natural transition than the current industrial zoning between the highway commercial to the east and the residential development to the west. Therefore, it is the opinion of Staff that rezoning this property from industrial will have a positive effect and Staff supports the annexation and rezoning of this property as requested.
Mayor: Okay I noticed that you continued to use the term neighborhood commercial perhaps the Planning Commission should consider, I saw the Chairman back there a minute ago, should consider changing our terminology from C1N to neighborhood commercial or whatever so that we are consistent with the Counties.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Well I don't that we want to necessarily get it confused with the Counties because our neighborhood commercial is a little different.
Mayor: Then why do you keep calling it neighborhood commercial then?
Mr. Dyrhaug: That is just the name of the zone the description of the zone but the label it has is C1N and I think it has the advantage of not being confused with the Counties neighborhood commercial zone which is NC because the two zones are quite different.
Mayor: Wow, okay it seemed easier to me but. Alright I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson: I make a motion that we accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to annex the Pendarvis property AXZ-2008-09.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Larson. Do I hear a second?
Ms Sanders: I second.
Mayor: Ms Sanders seconds. Thank you Ms Sanders.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Does that motion include the request to rezone?
Mr. Larson: It does.
Mayor: I guess with the AXZ. Alright any discussion? Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: You said that the Planning Commission approved it?
Mr. Dyrhaug: The vote was four to one.
Mr. Curtis: Four to one. Can you give me some background on the discussion that happened and what kind of concerns the one that voted against it had?
Mr. Dyrhaug: I don't believe that the single person who voted against it expressed their concerns that doesn't come to my mind what his concerns may have been. The primary discussion at the Planning Commission meeting related to its access and the applicant indicated that they are working to get access to Grandview Drive and they are working with some of the adjoining property owners to get access through their properties just because it makes sense to all of us that they don't have access through Westwood Drive because probably not entirely appropriate having access into a commercial area through a residential subdivision. There may have been some other discussions at the meeting but they escape my mind at the moment but I think that was the major one discussed.
Mr. Curtis: I think you mentioned that the border between those two properties between those two zones is a creek? Is that
Mr. Dyrhaug: There is a creek that runs through there. There is a floodplain that is located on the property and the applicant is aware of that. They have indicated that they will work with Staff and the appropriate entities to make sure that they follow the appropriate regulations pertaining to that floodplain. Mr. Curtis: As I recall that is a pretty significant grade change in that area is it not?
Mr. Dyrhaug: There are some areas there that are.
Mr. Curtis: And I believe that a good portion of the property that you are designating C2 to my left of Grandview Drive has a significant amount of backfill as well. How is that going to play into?
Mr. Dyrhaug: The C2 property?
Mr. Curtis: The C2 property unless I misunderstand that is the current property where there is a - I think there are three block type structures there. There was at one time a business that worked on heavy construction equipment. Is that what I does that characterize it correctly or is this a different piece of property?
Mr. Dyrhaug: The C2 property no, the C2 property right here right next to this property is owned by DOT and I can't recollect there being any structures there. Now across the street on Grandview there certainly are some buildings there. There what's probably functions more as a warehouse type business there and
Mr. Curtis: It's further down than where I'm thinking. Okay. Okay that is what I had. Mr. Dyrhaug: Yes, there was a greenhouse on this property but there this GIS map here may show the buildings you are looking at fortunately my pointer these buildings right here and maybe that is what you are referring too.
Mr. Curtis: No actually I was referring to property further back but that is okay I understand where I know where you are talking about now.
Mayor: Okay Ms Bagwell.
Ms Bagwell: I just wanted to reconfirm what you said; you said there was no public opposition at the public meeting. Mr. Dyrhaug: There was none presented. Ms Bagwell: Okay.
Mayor: Okay anyone else? Alright I will remind Council this is the first of two readings and I'll call for the vote all in favor signify by saying aye, opposed no, aye's have it. It is unanimous. Alright thank you Mr. Dyrhaug I guess you probably need to hang around close we'll have you back up in a few moments. We are going to move on to old business now. Mr. Hawes I believe you are up to tell us about the finance and operation plan.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mr. Hawes: Yes Sir Mayor and Council as we previously discussed today the City is evaluating operations and finance it is moving forward through the rest of the fiscal year and on into future and beyond. In these changing times it is important that the City of Simpsonville recognize economic fluctuations and adapt its operations to revenue changes. Development related revenues have seen a steep decline in the first two quarters of the fiscal year and this is not happening just in Simpsonville it is happened all around the Upstate and well beyond throughout the Country basically. The revenues that Cities and States have depended on have declined; you have seen the State readjust its budget on multi occasions. There was an article in the paper again today. The City of Greer laid off three people. We had a reduction in force ourselves as an approach here. At the same time that we have had these revenue fluctuations operational expenses have increased and we've had to evaluate and adjust the City budget and operations to this fluid economic situation. As part of this evaluation we've developed a finance and operation plan to navigate the economic downturn. This proposed plan involves moving forward through the next six months and beyond. An integral portion of this plan is the cash flow analysis that Staff has been working on it will guide operations and be monitored day by day. Implementation of this plan will allow the review of trends and items that may be adverse to the projections in the plan. Another words as we monitor the plan we will be looking to see if there is any divergence from where we expected to be day to day and week to week and adjust to those divergences. Those adjustments will be made by City Council upon notification by Staff because Council will be involved throughout the review of this plan and the implementation of the analysis and plan going forward. Staff will review the trends and items on a monthly basis with Council or as needed if we encounter issues that are adverse to the operations of the City through the implementation of the plan. On the expenditure side any divergence from the plan will be Councils decision and I ask that you please remember that City Financial Advisor, Teressa Cawley, of SMA, Southern Municipal Advisors has stated that it is imperative that all five elements of the plan which I'm going to outline to you here in a few seconds be adopted in order to be fiscally sound moving forward. Therefore, I have included a narrative that outlines what would occur with adoption of finance and operations plan. The plan consist of five elements implementation of this plan will allow for growth of the fund balance to strengthen finances in anticipation of any further fluctuations in the economy. Fund balance is central to cash flow in the City as the first two quarters of the fiscal year see very little revenue and that is typical on a year to year basis. This is why the City has issued tax anticipation notes. Adoption of this plan will allow us to lessen and eventually eliminate the tax anticipation notes. The first element of the plan is to minimize expenses during this time of revenue shortfalls. This is absolutely imperative. Expenses will be tracked very closely day to day and week to week. Operations will be right sized with the needs of the community always at the forefront and in light of the shifting economy. The second element is to work to restructure some of the Cities debts. There are possibilities to lower the interest rate or adjust the payment schedules on some of the outstanding lease and bond issuances. I have been working with our bond consultants on restructuring that and this should improve terms and payments. This will provide a positive impact critical cash flow during the economic downturn. The third element is to set the sewer fund as a true enterprise fund. The fund will pay legitimate operating expenses of the sewer system employees, operating and capital cost. This fund and the special revenue hospitality and accommodations fund will have full sustainability through adoption of this plan. The fourth element of the plan monies owed inter fund would be voided in order to eliminate liabilities currently on the books and provide an immediate benefit to the balance sheet. The last step is through the budgeting process soon to begin with City Council we will address any projected revenue concerns. Revenue adjustments will be determined through this process and observation of the plan implementation. This plan adopted as proposed will strengthen all operations of the City and provide for the necessary services for all of our citizens. I emphasis that if there were to be a motion to adopt this plan you would be adopting the plan as proposed in this written proposal.
Mayor: Okay. So you are asking us to adopt this plan at this time?
Mr. Hawes: Yes Sir.
Mayor: Okay I will entertain a motion in that regard. Ms Sanders.
Ms Sanders: I move we adopt the proposed plan?
Mayor: Thank you Ms Sanders. Do I hear a second?
Mr. Curtis: I'll second.
Mayor: Mr. Curtis seconds thank you Mr. Curtis. Any discussions, questions, comments or anything else?
Mr. Curtis: Well it is time for comments so I get to talk now. I want to discuss some of where we are and what got us here. I will try to be cautious in what I have to say because this is a delicate subject. I want to discuss the fact that we had so many citizens come in today and voice their opinions. We appreciate everyone's opinion. I hope that the information that you've received is accurate. I can tell from some of the comments that some of the information is not accurate. I can tell that some of it is spot on. The piece that is absolutely right is that it is our responsibility. It is my responsibility. I lay blame on no one else keeping up with the budget and keeping up with finances of this City is absolutely the responsibility of the elected officials that you have put here and I accept that responsibility. We got here because there was information presented to us which was inaccurate when we discovered that that information was inaccurate we have made moves to correct the situation. We got here because the economy turned down and things changed. We got here for a wide assortment of reasons no one thing brought us to this. I know that is has been widely reported in the press that we've met in secret and that somehow there is something inappropriate been going on. What has been going on is that this Council has been working diligently to address an issue that is before Simpsonville that we have to fix. We have done everything that we can do to resolve this issue. We've looked for advice from people we trust and we've gotten that advice. It appears that the plan that is before us is our best way forward and I believe I would support that plan. That is what I have to say.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Curtis. Anyone else? Okay, well hearing no more discussion we have a motion on the floor and I believe this only requires one vote because this is a budget matter, a resolution, so at this time hearing no further discussion I'll call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying aye, opposed no, aye's have it. It is unanimous. Mr. Hawes you can implement this plan immediately and I think we all believe by out votes that this will be the plan that will move us forward and take care of some of these serious issues before us so thank you. Thank you and all of those who assisted in that too. Alright Mr. Dyrhaug you are up again.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Thank you Sir.
Mayor: We are moving on to second reading on some ordinances. You can begin with TX2008-02.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Certainly at the November 18 th City Council meeting a
Mayor: Hold on just a second lets let the noise calm down. Okay go ahead I believe we can hear you.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Thank you. At the November 18 th City Council meeting a draft design ordinance was presented for second reading. I've brought it back again for second reading. At this meeting there was concerns expressed about some of the provisions of this ordinance and some modifications were recommended and these were primarily were related to these topics up on the wall; the drive through service windows, trees in the right-of-way, restrictions on parking lot locations, open space standards and allowing flat roofs in District 4. This purpose includes the preservation and enhancement of the aesthetic character of Simpsonville and the strengthening of the local economy each provision contained in this ordinance plays an integral role in making Simpsonville a more attractive community and fostering a pedestrian environment. Now some provisions are arguably more integral than others so in the report you received I took a look at each of the concerns and merit behind each of the respective provision and I'm not going to go through that whole narrative necessarily at this time for the sake of time. But all of the concerns raised at the last Council meeting are valid and in response to some of these concerns Staff has prepared a modified draft ordinance, a draft of this ordinance, and referred to it as draft C. This new draft contains some of the following modifications; the recommended modification to the drive through service provisions in section 7:6.3 has been incorporated, the encouragement of pedestrian shelter has been moved from section 7:6.7 to section 7:7.6 so that the standard applies to District 1 only which is the Downtown area, the open space requirements have been removed from section 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11 and 7.12 and the suggestion that green space should be combined has been moved to section 7:6.5 and finally the boundaries of Districts 4 and 5 have been adjusted so that some of the concerns that were expressed I think primarily related to the Bi-Lo shopping center in that area and that vicinity so we put that shopping center in a more appropriate District which is the Fairview Road District and I think it is consistent with some of the other things you find there along Fairview Road. Because the regulations pertaining to parking are considered to be of greater importance to achieving the purpose of this ordinance those sections have not been modified in draft C. Furthermore the regulations pertaining to parking are based directly on policies and strategies for the future. It should be noted that these regulations will not apply to existing developments. These regulations will only apply to new developments and significant redevelopment. For example short of them bulldozing the existing building these regulations will not likely apply to the reuse of the former Bi-Lo shopping center. The intent of these regulations is to achieve higher level of development in specifies areas in order to create a stronger sense of place. At this time it is the recommendation of Staff that City Council take one of the following actions; either adopt draft B of the design review ordinance, adopt draft C of the design review ordinance or defer second reading until after this ordinance can be further discussed at the next City Council workshop.
Mayor: Okay thank you Mr. Dyrhaug. Do I hear motion in this regard? Okay then I'm assuming since we don't have a motion that we are going to take option 3. Ms Sanders. Ms Sanders: I move we adopt the proposal from the Planning Commission from Mr. Dyrhaug.
Mayor: Okay we have a motion do I hear a second?
Mr. Dyrhaug: Which draft?
Ms Sanders: I'm going to say C the final product.
Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Larson: I'll second.
Mayor: Mr. Larson seconds. Okay, do I hear any discussion?
Mr. Curtis: Sure you do. Mayor: Alright Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: Alright I see in draft C, I've noted the changes that you have made to draft C and respectively disagree with the parking restrictions that remain. I believe that part of what we are suppose to do is to protect the character of Simpsonville that does not mean reshape Simpsonville to be something that it never was and this draft is a good move toward getting some good legislation out there; however, the parking restrictions if they had been in place when Simpsonville was created would not, Simpsonville would not look like it looks today it might not exist today because of the discouragement of business in this town would have been dramatic. I cannot support this draft in its current state. I would hope that some of my fellow Council members would see it that way as well and not vote for this draft at this time. I think that there is still some good parts of this I think there is some legislation in here that could be moved forward and that we could have some benefit for Simpsonville. I just don't think this is it yet.
Mayor: Okay Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson: When you mentioned that Staff reviewed draft C, did the Planning Commission review that also?
Mr. Dyrhaug: The Planning Commission has not review draft C yet. Under advisement of some legal counsel before the changes in draft C I don't believe were significant that it would warrant their re-review. It still accomplishes the same intent that was expressed from the beginning.
Mr. Larson: I guess this would be more for Mr. Holmes, if we accept this draft C and then we realize that there still needs to be some fine tuning we can go back and revisit it?
Mr. Holmes: Well Council has authority to send it back but under State statues and your City ordinance once they pass it up for you to review they have ended their involvement with it and it is now up to Council to either adopt it, change it whatever.
Mayor: May I make a suggestion Mr. Larson and everybody? I hear some concern in both of your voices I have a few of my own and I think there are some others here who are not totally comfortably with that and I know sometimes we drag things out a long way but it is nearing the time when we need to have our annual joint meeting with the Planning Commission where we all sit down together and talk about our vision for the future and the types of things we would like to see our Planning Commission involved in I recommend that this motion be withdrawn and that we schedule this meeting for sometime in January for Council to sit down with the Planning Commission and perhaps BOZA and have the Board of Zoning Appeals come in there could be some value in that and we can just talk about planning in general. We are in the midst of our comprehensive planning session so there should be plenty of information and plenty of public input that we will have to work with and let’s just have a day long or half day long retreat and discuss. Mr. Hawes I'm talking to you, we could have a half day or a day long retreat with a joint meeting with Council and the Planning Commission and perhaps BOZA and just talk about this specifically and other things in general and then we can come back with a comprehensive, comprehensive plan. Is that, would that work for you Mr. Dyrhaug? Does that work for you?
Mr. Dyrhaug: Yes
Mayor: Does that work for everybody up here? Ms Sanders.
Ms Sanders: I'd like to withdraw my motion.
Mayor: Well thank you very much, how generous of you. Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson: I just have a comment that I would like to thank Mr. Dyrhaug and the Planning Commission for all the work they have put into this over the many months and months and hopefully we will get it fine tuned at your meeting recommendation.
Mayor: Thank you. Yes, David you and all of those folks certainly deserve that praise. Thank you Mr. Larson for that. Alright so Mr. Hawes you got it?
Mr. Hawes: We'll set a joint meeting in mid-January.
Mayor: Alright let’s do that then. Alright thank you very much. Alright Mr. Dyrhaug take another shot.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Alright we are in the stretch run here. This next agenda item AXZ-2008-08 is a petition to annex property at Howard Drive near Burdette Road and to rezone this property from suburban residential to planned development. The location of this property is depicted on the map on the wall. You can see that it is in very close proximity to Heritage Park and also next to the Bryson Meadows subdivision. The proposed development of the site includes the following a parking lot facility for use in association with events at the Heritage Park Amphitheater. The parking lot facility will occupy 12 acres. The applicant anticipates completion by January 2009. The second portion of this development is a wood chipping facility to grind brush into mulch then the mulch will be used in City maintained landscaped areas throughout the City. There will be a 50 foot wide berm constructed along the edge of this facility that borders residential properties. The wood chipping facility will occupy 3 acres. The applicant anticipates completion in April 2009. The final component of this development site is a walking trail area for recreational use. The walking trail area will occupy 20 acres. The applicant anticipates completion in July 2009. The City is also constructing a road through this property that will provide access into Heritage Park from Howard Drive . The PD zoning district has already been established along Howard Drive adjacent to this subject property therefore, this zoning classification will be consistent with the current zoning in this area. The PD zoning district will also enable the City that ensure that appropriate and landscape treatments will be provided around the of the facilities proposed at this property. At the public hearing the Planning Commission voted unanimously to six to zero to recommend approval of rezoning this property to the PD zone and Staff also supports the annexation and rezoning of this property to the PD zoning District.
Mayor: Okay
Mr. Dyrhaug: This is second reading.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Dyrhaug. Do I hear a motion? Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson: Make a motion that we accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to annexation and rezone AXZ 2008-08.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Larson. Do I hear a second?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Bridges seconds.
Mayor: Mr. Bridges seconds. Thank you Mr. Bridges. Any discussion?
Mr. Curtis: Hey why not.
Mayor: Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: As I've discussed everything else I have a question. Is the development you are referring to would of course have a cost involved? Is any of that cost currently in our plan? I noticed you had some dates you were looking at is there money for that plan?
Mr. Hawes: The intent here is too clear the property with timbering whereby the clearing will be done for the value of the wood products so there would be no cost to the City. Also the City will be able to clear beyond just the timbering when we have a grading permit from South Carolina DHEC and the County. We will be able to use our own equipment to prep the wood chipping facility and the actual base of that facility will be 4 inches of woodchips so there is no and it will also be permeable so it will benefit the water runoff and the well the lack of water runoff and also the water quality because the water will filter through the woodchips which is basically a sub wooded area type of scenario so it is basically a minimal change environmentally. So this particular wood chipping facility will have minimal cost to get up and running and that cost will be recovered by the sale of some of that mulch within the first six to twelve months.
Mr. Curtis: Okay. What is the projected sound impact to the residents? I see that there is some residential property there bordering it.
Mr. Hawes: There will be a buffer between the residential property and the actual location of the wood chipper itself will be over 350 feet from the back of the residences so it does make some sound but with the buffering, berming and the creation of the woodchip piles it will be mitigated quite strongly and DHEC takes that into account when they approve a wood chipping location.
Mr. Curtis: Okay thank you.
Mayor: Okay anyone else? Ms Bagwell.
Ms Bagwell: I understand that this is the City owned property that we are bringing in I want to make very sure that nothing is done on that property until we know exactly how much that is going to cost us. Whether we are doing it or whether someone else is doing it to the penny if it is going to cost us anything.
Mr. Hawes: I would agree 100%.
Mayor: Okay anyone else? Alright, hearing no further discussion I'll remind Council this is second and final reading and I'll call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying aye, opposed no, aye's have it. It is unanimous. Alright folks we appreciate everybody being here. We do appreciate your comments and questions and we will look forward to responding to you very soon. We heard what you had to say and we will get information out there that will give you something to look over and chew on and consider. We have a need for an executive session to discuss a personnel matter so I'll entertain a motion right now. Ms Bagwell.
Ms Bagwell: I move we go into executive session to discuss a personnel matter.
Mayor: Thank you Ms Bagwell. Do I hear a second?
Mr. Larson: Second
Mayor: Mr. Larson seconds. Motion of second all in favor signify by saying aye, opposed no, aye's have it. We will take a five minute recess while we clear the room so we can go into executive session. Thanks again to all of you for coming.
Respectfully Submitted,
Melinda Zeller City Clerk |
|
|
| 118 N E Main Street, Simpsonville, SC 29681 |
|