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

WORKSHOP SESSION

January 23, 2007 6:30 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER:

Mayor:     I’ll call the January 23 rd Simpsonville City Council Workshop Session to order. Thank you all for coming. 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 here who would like to ask blessings upon this meeting in your own way. All right, Councilmember Garrett would you please ask the blessings upon this meeting in your own way.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CITIZEN COMMENTS

Mayor:     All right, first item on our Agenda tonight is the time for Citizen Comments and we didn’t have anybody that called ahead and asked to be placed on the Agenda but we had a couple of sign-ups and the rules are that we’ll give you two minutes to talk to us about anything you would like to and we’ll listen and even respond since this is a workshop meeting. We would ask you to be as brief as you can and I’ll be generous with the time as long as you don’t start repeating yourself. First sign up is Bill Wasaliewski.

Mr. Wasaliewski:   Thank you

Mayor:     You’re welcome. If you’d state your address for the record your time will begin.

•  Bill Wasaliewski 605 Kingsmore Dr. Simpsonville, Autumn Trace Subdivision.

Mr. Mayor good to see you again. Council people, I know some of you, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Holmes good to see you again. I’ve come to talk about a little bit about our issues with storm water and I noticed it was your workshop meeting so I’m not going to spend a lot of time here saying I told you so, but when Duffy Woods Subdivision was brought forth to the City to be annexed in and rezoned and redeveloped, I stated some very serious concerns about an existing storm water problem that would be further deteriorated as that property behind us was developed. A lot of discussion going back and forth about where the drainage was going to go. A lot of talk about my facts vs the City’s facts and I said it would indeed be a problem for the Autumn Trace Subdivision storm water. Mr. Zitricki obviously was part of the planning process and probably knows my comments very well. Lots of that debate that it was bad for the City to bring that property in and I kind of held my piece because we fought a good battle and we lost that so – now the subdivision goes in and the developers go in and you know wanting to make sure that my property and Autumn Trace existing residents property was protected, I reviewed the storm water drawings for the plan that was approved by DHEC and you know obviously it’s DHEC’s job to review these plannings. The hydrologist, engineers, that sort of thing – it’s their job to look at these drawings and say yes they will work or they won’t work. Never disputed whether the drawings and the design would work or not but I noticed the installed conditions were not per the drawings. There are serious, and today very serious differences between the approved drawings and the as installed conditions. The young engineer from Grey Engineering said well this is good enough and our local DHEC representative quote unquote said good enough, there’s some minor changes here and there but there wouldn’t be any problem. My concern was stated then, and talked to you folks about it – Mr. Hawes, that the fact is that you can’t just make minor changes here and there on an over-all hydrology program and expect it all to work just because well it worked for me before. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. It didn’t work and now we’re having a serious run-off problem into our neighborhood that’s coming directing from Duffy Woods, because the as-approved design for storm water management for Duffy Woods was not followed and so now we’ve got inadequate storm water system that is now infiltrating into our system which was inadequate to begin with, and we’ve got water problems again. I’ve tried to address this through Mr. Hawes and City Council and the City of Simpsonville and about the most animated response I would get is the fact that it’s not the City’s problem. The City does not enforce DHEC drawings, it does not enforce the as installed and it’s not the City’s issue. Although I’m not an old man, I kind of go by some old fashioned sayings, that basically if you touch it you own it. And in my opinion the City has touched this property through annexing it in, allowing for the redevelopment and rezoning as it is and in my opinion the City is absolutely shirking it’s responsibilities by not taking an active role with DHEC, with the developer and saying look, this is our community, we all live here, we want it to be done correctly, we want to have confidence in the citizenry that the City of Simpsonville is protecting our property as existing residents. And I am very disappointed at the City’s role and the City’s response. Though they’re trying to be helpful in some ways, basically saying it’s not our responsibility. And what I’m seeking from council, from the City Administrator, is active enforcement through the proper agencies, whether it be County or State to enforce what has been agreed to by the developers. The developers submitted a storm water plan, it was approved, they didn’t follow it. And I think it’s a very simple request to say look Mr. Developer do what you said you’re going to do. The City has put some amount of it’s reputation, it’s trust, into these developers to do what’s right and I will tell you and Mr. Hawes was at the meeting, that the installation without a doubt was a lower cost solution to what was the approved plan. There are serious elevation issues, as far as how they installed the drainage. There’s serious issues around the out-flow structures that were put in. There are serious issues around the birming, and the grading and the over-all property. Now there are only 8 houses that have now been developed in that house that basically take up the opportunity for the ground to absorb rain water. Only a couple of houses are in of the whole subdivision and we’ve got serious water issues. They’re going to get worse and worse as that property is further developed with the roofs, with the houses, with the paving, with the back yards, with the driveways, and something has got to be done to make these developers do what they say they’re going to do and meet their commitment. You know, I don’t know what that answer is, I understand you’re saying it’s not your jurisdiction and you don’t want to touch it because you don’t want to own it, but to me that’s a total cop out. And I’m just seeking some help from the City to say Mr. Developer, whether it’s through DHEC or through whatever, you’re going to do what you said you’re going to do, because basically everybody sitting behind that desk right now you’re reputation is on the line for everybody in this community. So if I can answer any questions as far as my findings I’d be more than happy to do it.

Mayor:     Well that sounds reasonable. Mr. Hawes what say you.

Mr. Hawes:   Well, Mr. Wasaliewski is correct in the fact that we directed him or explained to him –

Mayor:     Turn that towards you

Mr. Hawes:   That we directed and explained to him that DHEC was the permitting authority on this development and they have complete over sight over the implementation of it. We did attend a meeting out on site and we were there with a few homeowners, the developer, the engineer for the developer, and a representative from DHEC. And at the end of that meeting the representative from DHEC was satisfied that the developers were going to do what was necessary to allay any concerns of the homeowners, Mr. Wasaliewski and others. Basically, what I believe happened recently, was a small breech of the swale behind one of the homes in the new development. What caused that we are uncertain. There’s some speculation that perhaps Duke Power was putting in a power line and trampled down the swale, but regardless, what ended up happening was the check damn was too high, the swale was too low, DHEC went out there. A gentleman from DHEC, the new person that’s there, John Cobb, who I spoke with on the phone today and received a report from today, site inspection form and he indicates that through his review the check damn needed to be lowered and the swale needed to be built back up. With those corrective actions as well as sod being installed, which is planned by the developer to occur within 2-3 weeks, those will be sufficient corrective actions to channel the flow correctly as per planned. So that’s where we are right now. I spoke with or actually met on site with the developer today, I was just driving through to see, you know the level of the check damn and so forth compared to what I saw previously and the developer was out there, and I just happened to talk to him for a few minutes and he said absolutely yes they wanted to get that sod down, that will help absorb the water, rather than having it channel through basically a clear swale area. So, as far as I can tell and in discussing with the gentlemen from DHEC, Mr. Cobb, everything that can be done out there has been done or will be done in the next 2-3 weeks. That being the last thing, being the sodding of the swale entirely.

Mayor:     Does that DHEC plan consider future development. I mean is this plan supposed to be sufficient for once all the houses get built.

Mr. Hawes:   Yes it’s designed for the build-out of the property as submitted.

Mr. Wasaliewski:   Mr. Mayor may I make a comment.

Mayor:     Sure

Mr. Wasaliewski:   I never disputed the design, okay – I found the design and used some of my folks to find that the design was fine. DHEC approved the design. The issue that I brought up back in the summer and an issue that I still have today is they did not build the system per the design. I can tell you that the outflow – the water is supposed to collect in the ditch behind Duffy Woods and flow out through Duffy Woods into their own retention basin, that actually flows back into Autumn Trace retention basin, as far as over-all water plan for that area. But, the ground, the actual grade, okay, and the way the structure is supposed to be built – they’re roughly 4 feet off. The ground behind where the swale actually is

Mr. Mayor:   The elevation you mean

Mr. Wasaliewski:   The elevation is actually 4 feet under where it’s supposed to be. Okay. The structure – the outflow structure – what is installed is just an open drain pipe that drains it back. The actual structure was supposed to be a basin with a lid, the ground brought up, the water flows you know into that structure, this is all very clearly spelled out in the approved plan. When I brought that this was not installed, what the engineer and DHEC said was it’ll work. Well Mr. Mayor it’s not working now, okay – the developer went with a far less expensive way to get it done and we’ve got an inferior solution and I just don’t think that the City or the citizens should accept this.

Mayor:     Well – all right, just one second. What did the DHEC guy say about what Mr. Wasaliewski just said, I mean are the elevations off out there.

Mr. Hawes:   No. I mean he didn’t say that they were – in my discussion with him he said that the management – the water management plan is effective and he is satisfied with everything that has been done on the site save for the sod being put down in the next 2-3 weeks. He specifically said sod needs to be installed within 2-3 weeks – will be installed within 2-3 weeks as told by the developer.

Mr. Wasaliewski:   But sir it’s indisputable that the elevations are off. I mean this is fancy talk around they didn’t build what was approved, but we think it’s going to work, the way it’s installed. Okay, but if you want me to I can walk you out there with anybody you want and show you that the elevations are off, the outflow structures are not what was approved and we have a problem. Okay. And I just don’t think it’s right for the City to say it’s not our jurisdiction and to say it’s okay. I mean now you’re going on a guy who’s walking the site and saying yep it looks like it might work. Well that’s where we were in August and I said it’s not going to work. Okay. You can’t just tweak a system or say it’s not going to work – give me an as – you know if DHEC comes back and says here’s some as-built drawings for the structure, you run your – tell me if it’s going to work – then we might be okay. But, my point is the City has annexed in this land, you know you’re relying on DHEC to come out here and do whatever and you know what I got from Amy Morrow at DHEC, and I don’t know if she’s still there or not, is that we don’t have enough people to enforce. I said I did the inspection for you it’s wrong. It’s very clearly not what was designed you know. I don’t have much power with DHEC, alright, I believe the City has a lot more power with DHEC than I do. All right, I mean that’s why we got Representative Garry Smith involved, trying to put some pressure on there. And you know, we got to get it right because the problems only going to get worse and you know we’re not talking about very major rain yet, and we’re not talking about a lot of development. But not only for this Autumn Trace and Duffy Woods issue, but the City has got to demand that you continue to annex in properties that these developers are doing what they’re supposed to be doing. Because one little problem here and you know you push a problem down stream and then you push a problem down stream and then you push a problem down stream. Well there’s no more down stream left in the City what we have right now. I mean there’s water issues everywhere. I’m not the only guy that’s got a water issue here. Okay, and it’s just cascading errors.

Mayor:     Well it would seem to me that that’s why you have engineer’s drawings is so that you’ll have some road map to go by. Mr. Gecy

Mr. Gecy:   That’s a good point – that leads into my question is – if we have plans that are designed to have an inspector approve those plans, do we – do we – do we approve the plan for the storm water that DHEC has approved – do we oversee the construction and give the final occupancy permits to these contractors.

Mr. Hawes:   I’m not sure what you’re asking – do we approve the plan that DHEC has approved. We don’t approve the DHEC plan no.

Mr. Gecy:   Do we oversee construction of the plan.

Mr. Hawes:   We oversee construction of the subdivision

Mr. Gecy:   So – but the storm water plan is part of the subdivision

Mr. Hawes:   Storm water plan is an aspect of the subdivision that we don’t oversee.

Mr. Gecy:   Okay, well what I’m getting at is if we can prove, and obviously you have the background as an engineer if I understand that

Mr. Wasaliewski:   Yes sir.

Mr. Gecy:   Would our – do we have anybody capable in the City to be able to go behind the contractors when they’re putting the storm water system in place and say that isn’t right?

Mr. Hawes:   We have folks who are capable of observing

Mr. Gecy:   Or that’s correct

Mr. Hawes:   certain consistencies, but they are not engineers. We have no engineers on staff.

Mr. Gecy:   Well maybe we need to get one for our sake if that’s

Mr. Hawes:   Well I guess the way I would address that is DHEC has the engineers on staff. DHEC is the permitting authority. I don’t know that our engineers would be able to change what DHEC approves or disapproves anyway, because we don’t have basically statutory authority over that issue. That is inspected by DHEC

Mr. Gecy:   Well our inspectors thought – our inspectors do approve the whole plan for the subdivision. I’ve seen the storm water plan for CVS. I looked at the detailed storm water plan that our inspector gave me. He obviously has some knowledge that this needs to be done this way.

Mr. Hawes:   Correct

Mr. Gecy:   And they have plans to build the pipes that go this way and to meet at the culvert and drain out

Mr. Hawes:   Correct

Mr. Gecy:   I see us as having some fiduciary responsibility to making sure that that plan works. I mean that’s how I would like for it to be. I don’t know why it’s not but we

Mr. Hawes:   I would say – the way I would approach that is if we would notice something that is obviously wrong from the experienced eyes of our inspectors that we would notify DHEC typically that there may be an inconsistency with what they’re observing in the field with the plan, and that’s where DHEC would need to step in as the permitting authority to take care of whatever inconsistency is there. If DHEC sees the inconsistency as minimal or something that is non-substantial, non-substantive, or whatever then that is there prerogative and their perview and not ours.

Mr. Gecy:   So when they have a plan, if they approve a plan that calls for a 4 foot high birm let’s say – and they don’t build it to that birm. If they come back and say okay it’s probably going to work anyway. I mean if there’s a plan to build a 4 foot birm – shouldn’t they be required to build that – shouldn’t we expect that to be built that way and settle for nothing less.

Mr. Hawes:   We would typically observe the installation of what we oversee. We don’t oversee the storm water aspect. Now if something is obvious, if there was either no birm or a 1 foot or 2 foot birm, something like that that is – something our inspector would be involved in – he may just observe – he’s not involved in inspecting the storm water flow aspect of the property – we don’t measure grades, we do not measure elevations, things along those lines. We make sure the pipes are placed the way they’re supposed to be on the property as best from the experience of a non-engineer as we can.

Mr. Wasaliewski:   It doesn’t take much of a trained eye to see the difference between a horizontal open pipe vs a vertical basin with an opening and a lid on type. Okay. That doesn’t take much of a trained eye to see the difference between the two of those things. Okay. How the City can again, walk through these very narrow rules of fiduciary responsibility, I don’t understand that. That just does not make sense to me that if you’re annexing property, you’re approving subdivisions, you know citizens bring forth issues, you’re saying it’s going to be okay, we’re going to make sure the developers do what they’re supposed to do. I don’t think this is a gray area, I think it’s very black and white. I was very very specific on my issues with the developer – with the engineer – and I don’t think the developers really care, or feel that they’ve got any responsibility and I believe that’s because they don’t think they’re going to get caught and I don’t think they think anybody’s going to stand up to them. And I think it’s a pattern of behavior that has been established by this City that’s got to change. That you know if you let your kids run wild – they’re going to run wild and you can’t just all of a sudden say behave, because it’s not going to happen. Well you know developers are going to make money, and they’re going to get away with what they can.

Mayor:     Mr. Hawes it would seem reasonable to me that if we, and Mr. Holmes maybe you should comment on this to, if we hold DHEC accountable for storm water plans and if they submit a plan that’s approved and we have reason to believe, and I don’t mean having engineers on staff to go out there and shoot grades and that sort of thing but if we have reason to believe just by looking at something that it’s that the developer or whoever is not following that plan that we could call them or hold them accountable to come and prove to us that in fact it is meeting the plans. Because they’re going to go back to Columbia and we’re stuck with these guys who will come and jump on us so – is that unreasonable? Mr. Holmes is that something that would be unreasonable or something that we shouldn’t do for some reason.

Mr. Holmes:   Well what you’re asking me a legal opinion and I’ll give you a legal opinion and then council can decide what they want to do from a policy point of view. But the issue of jurisdiction is an important one. This is an area that the state has taken over and has legislated in and has established a group that is responsible for this. Given the fact that most government agencies are trying to do a lot more services with a lot less dollars that what they were supposed to, the City has a fine line, that if they begin to step over that line, and the begin to tell DHEC what they’ve got to do and what they are not going to do with regard to this then they may just decide that the City’s going to take that over. And the reason that concerns me is the report that I have that they did on January 16, 2007 says – were storm water devices installed and it says yes. Proper installation – yes. Maintenance of those devices – yes. Did they install these other things and then they apparently got the developers engineer – Gray Engineering out there to discuss a number of things and this reports available. It’s really difficult to read, but there’s an issue about silt fences, there’s some question about the detention pond, and some vegetation around the detention pond, I just can’t read it all. But they went out there and took a look at it and what this gentleman’s issue with the City is from a legal point of view is that the proper governmental authority that has responsibility for it is not meeting his expectations and they may be quite reasonable expectations, I’m not passing on that, and the City doesn’t have the expertise, the knowledge or the staff to go do something different. And so, all I’m concerned about for the City is this is not an area that we have a responsibility in. If the council wants to take that responsibility over that’s up to the council.

Mr. Wasaliewski:   And while the council’s – if I could – if the Council is not ready to take responsibility for that why would I believe the City is responsible enough to make decisions to annex in new properties. And I’m not doing that just to throw barbs at you, but in looking at this thing wholalistically you’re very happy to take responsibility for annexing in properties and rezoning – okay – you touch it you own it – I’m sorry I don’t care what – I understand the legislative issues, I understand all that but one other – if I could make just one other comment – and I’m trying not to repeat myself

Mayor:     Okay I’ll give you one more comment because we’ve got lots of folks that

Mr. Wasaliewski:   I understand, I understand. The design was approved. It was not built per the design, I’ve got a 6 foot stream of water coming in my back yard from that subdivision. Those are the facts. It doesn’t matter what these guys observe the next day. Those are the cold hard facts that cannot be disputed. It was not built per the plan, I got water in my back yard and I don’t think it’s going to get any better.

Mayor:     Okay – Ms. Lawrence

Ms. Lawrence:     Well I do know, because I’ve had it happen to me – when you call up to DHEC and ask who’s responsible for the storm drain, they’re mighty quick to tell you the City is

Mr. Wasaliewski:   Absolutely

Ms. Lawrence:     It’s like Mr. Hawes said though we don’t have an engineer. But I think you hit the nail on the head when you said Amy told you they were so busy. So maybe they do not monitor stuff, you know I don’t know who’s to blame for this – but it seems that

Mr. Wasaliewski:   I did the inspection for her okay. I had the fax – I had the drawings marked up, the as-built condition vs the design

Ms. Lawrence:     But she didn’t take your word for it. I mean, I wonder if there’s not any way that with all that’s gone on if we – I don’t know that it would be us to say that – but it looks like to me that there would have to be a second opinion from somewhere. And I mean I realize you’re an engineer, but I mean from another engineering firm that does strictly storm water – it looks like to me that there would have to be somebody to back the builder up to say yes it’s been done right. I mean I don’t know if that’s feasible. I don’t know if we can make him do that. I don’t – you know

Mr. Wasaliewski:   What you’re asking is for somebody to verify that the as-built condition is okay.

Mayor:     Okay – we understand. All right, is that it. I think Mr. Zitricki didn’t you wave a finger.

Mr. Zitricki:   I’m gonna – I’m concerned about this also is that if it’s not built to the standard – the plans that were submitted – don’t we have an obligation to go back to DHEC to have them come back out here to verify that. Not that we’re going to have an engineer on staff to do this ourselves, but to say we have information and we need this verified by you who are responsible for this.

Mr. Hawes:   To an extent when we were notified of the issue we’ve been working with DHEC

Mr. Zitricki:   But DHEC’s not responding to the allegations that were made – a 4 foot below grade is pretty substantial

Mr. Hawes:   That’s the first I’ve heard that – that is the first I’ve heard of that

Mr. Wasaliewski:   Hr. Hawes that’s not true

Mr. Zitricki:   That’s pretty easy to see. 4 feet is easy to see

Mr. Wasaliewski:    I’ll give you the documentation.

Mr. Zitricki:   Now maybe if you could get the documentation from Wasaliewski and submit that to DHEC to say here’s what was presented to us – and it’s not – the develop the storm water portion is not meeting the design. Here’s where it’s failing. Apparently, we have a report from DHEC that says it meets it

Mr. Hawes:   Again, I would have to say that we do not inspect that aspect of the development.

Mr. Zitricki:   True, it’s DHEC’s responsibility, but apparently DHEC hasn’t gone back to verify that it meets the design

Mr. Hawes:   They have –

Mr. Zitricki:   Well if it would meet the design then there wouldn’t be a disparity between what was said tonight and what was said in their report.

Mr. Hawes:   Well this gentleman went out on a site meeting with the plans and it says proper installation of storm water management devices yes. That’s a verification in writing as far as I can see.

Mr. Zitricki:   Okay, so we should be able to pull the plan out and say yes this meets the plan submitted, that we approved for annexation and development of that site.

Mr. Wasaliewski:   Anyone behind that desk right now can walk out and see that it doesn’t match.

Mayor:     Well here’s – excuse me but here’s the question that I see before us – is who does DHEC answer to. I mean who can we – I mean if we as a City don’t have the authority to do that who do we contact to say look DHEC is shirking their responsibility – we believe DHEC is shirking their responsibility can you get them to prove to us, for the sake of our community, that what’s going on is accurate. Who do we go to Mr. Holmes. Highway Patrol, I’m sorry.

Mr. Holmes:   Well that’s a real good question. They’re funded by the general assembly, so obviously if you control the purse strings then you know we have a local senator and we have a state representative we can go to and all of us know that the Governor’s talking about restructuring, this is part of the one of those issues that where does the buck stop. The question is with state agencies, who is responsible and right now the best answer is members of the general assembly.

Mayor:     So can we as a matter of practice, so that we still maintain that not overstepping our authority or bounds or whatever, can we as a matter of practice, well – call our senator and representative every time we have an issue like this or what

Mr. Holmes:   Well if you’re asking for a recommendation – I guess what I would recommend – the City Administrator can draft a letter for the Mayor’s signature to go to our elected officials to indicate that we – you know that we have a citizen’s group that is strongly indicated that the storm water facilities are not built to the sedimentation and erosion control plan that was approved and there seems to be a problem and we’re not getting satisfactory response from DHEC and we would appreciate it if they would become involved in the problem. And I think that’s appropriate for us to do.

Mayor:     Okay, it would seem to me that we ought to establish that as some sort of policy – not some sort of but as a policy to make sure that folks that are supposed to meet those engineering specifications are doing so. Does anybody have a problem with that. Mr. Bridges

Mr. Bridges:   I wonder why we even have a plan if they’re not going to follow it.

Mr. Wasalewski:   My point exactly Mr. Bridges.

Mr. Zitricki:   Do we need a motion on this or something to get this started

Mayor:     Well it’s not a voting meeting so I think we just need – hearing no objection I’m going to request the City Administrator to implement that as a policy

Mr. Hawes:   Sure

Mayor:     And implement the policy immediately so that we can address this situation over here for you. Any disagreement to that – okay

Mr. Wasalewski:   Thank you

Mayor:     Thank you – the longest two minutes I’ve ever given anybody. Okay, thank you Mr. Wasalewski, next is Lee Law, and if you will – Ms. Law if you’ll state your address for the record your two minutes will begin.

•  Lee Law – 40 Brookhaven Way , Simpsonville , SC

Ms. Law:   The reason I’m here today is because last Tuesday my daughter called me at work telling me that there was equipment in my back yard. I back up to the new Shadow Creek subdivision. I came home and found two large pieces of equipment on my property. I called the Police because I believed that was trespassing. I was told that it was not malicious so there was nothing they could do. I’ve talked to several people about this, and on Wednesday I went home – I went home and found out that there was more damage to my property. They had cut down trees, ran over some bushes that I had planted. And I knew this subdivision was going up so I was trying to prepare for it. I have talked to several people. I called Mr. Al Spain because I was under the impression that Mr. Masson was the one that was developing the property. I found out through calling Greenville County that it is no longer Mr. Hal Masson, it is a man by the name of Mr. Bruce Aho. When I called Mr. Spain to find out his first word was I’d call the cops. Well I said I did and they didn’t do anything. So, I also informed him that Mr. Aho was doing this project, and he said well I guess that’s why Mr. Masson’s not calling me back. My problem is that I’m unfortunately, I think the same thing is happening to us as what happened to this other gentleman’s subdivision. I don’t think the builder that’s doing this now is going by the plans. I have spoken to the builder. He came back out Friday, resurveyed my property and several houses down and several houses up. I have several of my neighbors here tonight and we’ve had damage to several of our homes – the property line and I’m just very concerned because I’m wondering if we are looking at the same problem. You know, are we going to have problems from the storm run-off because we do have a creek in our back yard and I’m afraid with the amount of trees and things that he’s taken down – you know I don’t know what the plan was – what he was allowed to remove or whatever, but I have a plan of the subdivision right here but it doesn’t really show trees. It shows trees in the subdivision, but not between us. And I’m just a little bit concerned because what little buffer I did have on mine is gone. And you know I would just like to know if – who’s responsible – I understand the City can’t help us as far as replacing what was lost – but before it goes any further I would like to know for sure that the man is following what he’s supposed to be doing and you know we had our homeowners association meeting last night and I reviewed minutes from several of the meetings last year and what was stated in the meetings from what I understand is not the way things are going.

Mayor:     Okay, Mr. Hawes are you aware of all this

Mr. Hawes:   Yes, I am aware of the situation. I was contacted by Ms. Law and another homeowner concerning possible infringement on their property by some tree clearing equipment and folks doing the tree clearing. Mr. Aho, from what I understand has, Ms. Law did Mr. Aho speak with you at all

Ms. Law:   Yes, he called me on Friday – well I met him at my house on Wednesday, after he realized they’d done more damage, he came to my house Wednesday, which I’ll give him credit for that. But I’m just a little bit concerned that you know if we let it go – if I just say okay you do my restitution for me you know what’s going to happen after that. I’m looking in the future. Like I said I don’t want to happen to me what happened to this gentleman that was just up here.

Mr. Hawes:   Right. We absolutely track as builts as we go along in subdivisions for the specific location and which trees are taken down. Specifically on this one we have individual itemized tree count on a map. Mr. Gecy has seen it. It shows exactly which trees are to be touched and if another tree is touched we can go after the developer. So, as far as has been done so far they have kept within that…

Ms. Law:   I’m afraid I have to argue with that because I have pictures from Tuesday night of what was mine that is no longer there Wednesday. My next door neighbor, has since he put up the property line – he has – I mean – I’m pretty sure the gentleman has overstepped his bounds.

Mr. Hawes:   Oh I think there was a mistake made, Mr. Aho admitted that and he’s going to give you restitution for the mistake. But as far as the City overseeing it – that mistake occurred – we were notified of it – we acted upon it immediately and he has gotten with both homeowners that we’ve been involved with and he said he was going to re-sod the lady’s yard where the tractor equipment tore up her sod and so forth and he was going to do whatever. I don’t know what he is going to do for restitution but from what I understand in talking with him that he had satisfied both of you all as far as how he was going to….

Ms. Law:   Well he had satisfied me up until you know I got to looking into some other issues and number 1 it bothers me that one man gets it approved but then somebody else is totally doing it and I’m a little bit concerned about that. Also I had a few of my neighbors who stood out there the day they were cutting the trees and watched the men actually move the ties off of trees to other trees and cut the ones that were marked. And you know, now the gentlemen that were there that day I actually, when the policeman, I filed a report, I made him walk in the back yard with me. I talked to the loggers themselves and told them I want to know who your boss is and they were very nice and I just – I don’t know I just feel like somebody needs to – I think more things might be going on than we realize.

Mayor:     So you just want some stronger oversight is what you want

Ms. Law:   Yeah – well that plus I mean I want to make sure that we don’t run into any more problems that occur

Mayor:     Same thing that the other fella did

Ms. Law:   Right, because where my property is – we have – my property goes down the hill and then it goes up a hill a little bit – well he has cut – exactly to the property. He’s put a silt fencing up on now. He’s told me that’s where the line was supposed to be for the storm drain – where the retention pond they were building. But my worry is if we get a good rain like this gentleman was talking about – I mean what’s going to keep all that stuff from coming down into the creek and – I mean once he’s done what he’s got to do and the silt fence is gone – what’s going to happen then. And I don’t want to come back here in 6 months to a year and have to be this gentleman saying the same thing I told you it was going to do that. I don’t want to do that – I want it done.

Mayor:     Okay, Mr. Gecy

Mr. Gecy:   Just for the record Mr. Hawes. That tree survey that I looked at showed trees marked clearly where roads were going to go.

Ms. Law:   I have it right here.

Mr. Gecy:   There were clearly trees cut outside of that plan along the birm or the border of these houses that were not on that plan. Because none of those plans showed a swath on a property line and then so – I wanted to make that point perfectly clear, because that’s

Mr. Hawes:   Well I think that’s where the mistake was

Mr. Gecy:   Their trees, a lot of trees, more than just on the property lines, had been cut out there and they actually dragged about a 15 foot wide swath along the outside of the perimeter of it. I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s for a road later or some access or something –

Mr. Hawes:   I think that’s for laying the piping to serve the retention facility.

Mr. Gecy:   But that wasn’t listed on that tree survey. The other thing I’m kind of disappointed that the police department didn’t get involved in this. If somebody calls and somebody’s been on your property, regardless of whether it’s malicious or not I think an investigation into this should have started by the police department. And they should head straight in looking for Al Spain and found out all the information for this property under who’s a citizen. So I think the police department may have let us down there. They should have followed up with that.

Ms. Law:   Can I – on Wednesday when I went home I called the Police Department back and talked to the Lieutenant and his advice was I needed to call the builder, that they you know they advised me again that it wasn’t malicious what they were doing.

Mr. Gecy:   That’s good. I mean I just thought that we could have taken more of an active roll in that because that is a travesty I think to come on your property

Ms. Law:   Well I lost time off work and my daughter who was home from school by herself was very upset

Mr. Gecy:   Well I walked in your back yard today as you know and I looked at the trees next door at 38 Buckhead and I have pictures of some large trees on this property and my question is what is our enforcement powers. I mean I don’t care if the guy made a mistake, he went on somebody’s property and cut trees.

Mr. Hawes:   We can shut down the site certainly

Mr. Gecy:   Well I mean – David’s shaking his head that we can’t do that. But I want to know what our enforcement – I mean this is really bothering me because anyone of our neighborhoods any bordering community and we’re annexing all over the place, when a developer goes over the line our inspector, first of all, I’m upset that Al didn’t even know the builder was out there and a new builder was out there. I guess I’ll stop.

Mayor:     Let’s let Mr. Holmes respond to that.

Mr. Homes:   If the building plans, the specifications, codes are being violated we have the authority to shut a job down and that’s what we can do. I wasn’t out there, I don’t know but from a legal point of view when the police are called they’re charged with enforcement of the criminal laws of the state and of the city. There is a crime called malicious damage to personal property. If the damage was done with malice then the police can arrest for that. If it was a result of a mistake, somebody didn’t know where the property line was then that is a civil matter that’s got to be resolved between the property owner and the people that cut the trees down. So it was appropriate for the developer to say I’m responsible for damages. And I think the police investigated it and there was just a limit to what they could do there without their having problems. The shutting the job down because they encroached on somebody else’s property that may be a little bit farther than what we ought to go. But what I’m hoping is that we will be responsive to situations when people like her daughter is at home by themselves and there’s machinery out there that we call some attention to the problems where we can make sure that it doesn’t keep happening.

Mr. Gecy:   Well what about taking the trees down that are not clearly in the plan.

Mr. Holmes:   That is something that would merit our stopping them and until that matters resolved, and that’s going to require him to go put brand new trees out there – whatever it’s going to take to get it fixed.

Mayor:     Mr. Larson

Mr. Larson:   Well that’s what my question was – I agree with Mr. Gecy that if this whole development has changed hands, apparently the City wasn’t even aware of that – how are we enforcing the development if we aren’t aware when a major change like that happens.

Ms. Law:   Can I – I did find out through Greenville County that the property is still under Mr. Hal Masson’s name, but he says – it’s not now

Ms. Lawrence:   No, I checked

Ms. Law:   Oh, okay, because that’s – I’m just a little clear how that works – how it can change developers and we don’t – they don’t have to let the City know.

Mr. Hawes:   To answer Mr. Larson’s question. The PD is not owner specific, it’s property specific. We enforce the PD, the Planned Development, regardless of who is developing it. They have to abide by the plan, by the Statement of Intent. That transfers with the property ownership. That zoning goes with it. The zoning transfers with the property. SO that’s how we work with whoever is developing. They must develop it according to the plan.

Mr. Larson:   Well if we have neighbors who saw them changing the markers on the trees wouldn’t that be violating our recently passed tree ordinance and

Mr. Hawes:   I can tell you absolutely that’s basically – I’d call that close to with malice, because there’s an intent there. No one’s put that in writing to the City – no one has any documentation that has been shown to us. The first I heard of that is right now. I would say if anybody intentionally moved a marker and placed it on a different tree that is illegal, with malice.

Mr. Larson:   So where would the enforcement of our tree policy come into play with that Mr. Holmes.

Mr. Hawes:   They would be in violation of it

Mayor:     Do you want to respond to that

Mr. Holmes:   Mr. Larson just asked me but we would enforce it through our normal enforcement mechanisms. But it is a very serious allegation, that the owner apparently paid somebody to have these trees marked so they would be saved. If someone then came out later and changed them, that would be something that I would certainly hope the citizen that saw that would make a phone call when it occurred. But if whoever saw that is willing to come forward and make some statement about that that’s a pretty serious thing. That would be something we would want to know.

Ms. Law:   He’s here tonight.

Mayor:     Okay, we’ll get to him. Mr. Garrett

Mr. Garrett:   I have a problem with his not knowing where the property line was. I mean that – if I’m out here speeding down Main Street and I say I didn’t know it was 35 they’re going to give me a ticket any way. I mean ignorance, that doesn’t get you off the hook.

Mr. Holmes:   But that’s because you’re operating a motor vehicle on a public highway in the State of South Carolina . We’re talking about two private property owners and the question is if you for example, trimming your bushes out of good faith believe that you were trimming your own bushes and you found out to your horror that you were cutting your neighbor’s bushes and not only got sued for it but found yourself being arrested and prosecuted, I mean that’s the issue. In our criminal law we punish people because they have bad states of mind, not because they did something mistakenly.

Mr. Garrett:   They don’t have to establish that property line before they start.

Mr. Holmes:   They should

Ms. Law:   Can I clarify that for you. Before they started cutting, there were – there was a tree on my property line that had a pink and orange tag on it – there was one from say here to Mr. Hawes from that tree that had a blue and yellow one on it. It was my impression in speaking with the loggers that they were supposed to cut so far from that one over – away from our property. Unfortunately when I came home Wednesday both of those trees were gone.

Mr. Garrett:   That’s all I’ve got

Mayor:     Ms. Lawrence

Ms. Lawrence:     I want to know how we didn’t know that it had changed hands. Because our business license is very specific. I don’t care if it’s a PD or what, whoever’s doing business in the City of Simpsonville has to have a business license and so therefore he’s doing business without a business license if we didn’t know the property had changed hands.

Mr. Hawes:   He already had a business license Ms. Lawrence. He was already doing business in the City. So I mean that’s how we were not notified of a new business license.

Ms. Lawrence:   I don’t know – I would think that any big development like that we’d have a better grip – I mean all it took was looking it up on the internet.

Mr. Hawes:   Well I mean I agree with you it would be good if we could be notified of every change of property hands but are suggesting that perhaps Mr. Spain or someone else look at the internet for every new parcel that’s –

Ms. Lawrence:     No I’m saying that contractors when they start a new project, developers whatever, have to come in and get signed up for that. I mean what

Mr. Hawes:   That’s not currently policy

Ms. Lawrence:     What if he doesn’t do anything else in Mauldin, I mean in Simpsonville. What if he doesn’t do anything else here next year. We’ll never collect on this because he’s paid what – a minimum fee in January

Mr. Hawes:   That’s conceivable – I mean certainly we could do a policy change that requires contractors when they start to

Ms. Lawrence:     They should have to come in on every new thing they do and upgrade their business license. Because they’re not like a regular business on the street that’s going to be here next year to tell us what their gross was for this year.

Mr. Hawes:   We have amended our business license ordinance with logical amendments previously, if you’d like to suggest a logical amendment here I’d be glad to –

Ms. Lawrence:     Well I would think that would be logical that before work is started on any new project they have to come in – and I mean he should know – what he’s going to get for this project and he should pay based on that. If he doesn’t have to renew next year we will never get the money for that this year.

Mayor:     Well – excuse me – are you done – do we not already have that in place by virtue of the fact that they’ve got to come in and buy a building permit before they do anything or a site grading permit to do site work. I mean wouldn’t he have come in and bought a grading permit.

Mr. Hawes:   Probably the subcontractor did. See the developer is not actually the one who shows up

Mayor:     But that’s notification that they’re about to begin work.

Mr. Hawes:   Well certainly, we have permits all throughout the process you’re correct.

Mayor:     I mean my point is rather than have contractor’s come in and get their license punched every time they do something I mean they come in and buy permits so –

Ms. Lawrence:     Yeah but he’s not a builder. He’s the developer

Mayor:     He’s the contractor out there doing the grading. He can’t do grading without having a permit

Mr. Hawes:   No the developer – the grader is a separate person from the developer.

Ms. Lawrence:   The grader can come in but the grader should, if nothing else, should be made to say who he’s doing the grading for. That should send some bells somewhere.

Mayor:     But your point is to have us notified before a new subdivision starts. Before work starts on it right

Ms. Lawrence:     Certainly. I mean for one thing this is a PD

Mayor:     Well my question is – I mean when they came in and bought a grading permit did they not say we’re about to do some grading at this place – I mean that’s the way it works

Ms. Lawrence:     But they didn’t say we’re doing it for Aho or whatever his name is

Mayor:     Oh so your point is it doesn’t make a connection between the

Mr. Hawes:   Between the new developer and whoever

Ms. Lawrence:     My point is this went before the Planning Commission with Hal Masson, it was like the next day it was on somebody else’s table trying to get sold

Mayor:     But at that point they hadn’t bought a permit right. Nobody bought a permit

Ms. Lawrence:     That’s right they hadn’t bought a permit

Mayor:     So they come buy a grading permit and one of the questions asked is where are you going to be grading.

Ms. Lawrence:     It also should be who are you grading for. All sub-contractors are supposed to give who they are doing the work for. It’s just like if you’re having a house built, your electrician is supposed to say I’m building a house for Waldrop Construction at so and so

Mayor:     I know but when you buy the permit you’ve got to give the address where you’re working – so that’s my point – I’m really confused but anyway – whatever we need to do.

Mr. Hawes:   My only thought is this is like a distinction without a difference in the sense that you’ve got the same grader, the same or whatever grader shows up for a permit – it really – it doesn’t have any real meaning that it’s a different developer from what – because property changed hands.

Ms. Lawrence:     Well then who is liable for the damage they do like this. You know the guys says well I’m just the grader, I just graded where he said to – who’s he – we don’t know who he is

Mr. Hawes:   The developer – we can hold whoever that may be liable. Or the property owner would in this case not the City

Ms. Lawrence:     Yeah, but we didn’t even know who that was when this first happened. Did you not say Mr. Spain told you he didn’t know who it was.

Ms. Law:   His comment was when I said Mr. Aho, he said well I guess that’s why Mr. Masson’s not returning my phone calls.

Mayor:     Does that do it.

Ms. Lawrence:     I guess for now.

Mr. Gecy:   Here’s another question. We have several Planning Commission members here, past Chairman and Chairman sitting now and a member – we are all excited about a planned development because why – they come back to the Planning Commission to be able to give them guidance on what they want or show changes or have a buffer here or move a pool away from the next neighborhood. They have to notify us who they are – who are they – the developer’s got to register when he starts a project and we have to write that in the rule. The developer has got to disclose who he is in the beginning because our Planning Commission people have nobody to go to I mean technically. And all this discussion the reason we approved that whole program is there was a lot of give and take on the planning commission and on council. The developer came with his attorneys and with his engineers and it went back and forth and had all these agreements. And the new developer is like what

Mr. Hawes:   Well the new developer has to abide by those

Mr. Gecy:   Well I know but does he know what they are because we don’t know who he is until be accident we found out from a homeowner. That’s bad.

Mayor:     Well as Mr. Hawes said earlier or maybe it’s Mr. Holmes I can’t remember which one said earlier, the zoning and requirements for zoning apply to the property not to the developer. So if the property is PD then whoever starts doing the grading or doing the developing is responsible for meeting those obligations, it doesn’t matter if the original property owner entered into the agreement with us. So I mean it’s still attached to the property and that’s why I’m having a hard time understanding what Ms. Lawrence is trying to get me to understand. I mean if we – we should know if a contractor is working on a property because he buys a permit to work on a particular property

Ms. Lawrence:     I can’t believe that we would sit here and say there’s a 200-300 house subdivision going in and we don’t know who’s developing it. It makes us look so foolish. God.

Mayor:     I don’t feel foolish. I think once it reaches the point our laws require them to come back to City Hall for an inspection or whatever at that point we’ll know.

Ms. Lawrence:     But he will never come for inspections because he’s not building. He just has sub-contractors. He has to pay based on the money he gets from selling those lots to the builders. And if he’s out there even getting ready to grade then he is doing business, so therefore he needs a business license, but Mr. Hawes said he already had one. But by

Mayor:     So your point is to collect the business license fee not to determine who

Ms. Lawrence:     Well I mean I want to know who it is but I want to make sure we get the business license fee to. I want to know the accountable party.

Mayor:     Now I understand the angle you’re coming from. I thought we were still talking about who’s liable for damages done in this whole thing. All right Mr. Zitricki you haven’t had a say on this thing I’ll let you talk.

Mr. Zitricki:   Mr. Hawes, I think that we’re failing here in the fact that we didn’t go out there and address the issue when it happened. Our building inspector should have been on this since a) it is a PD; and we’re supposed to have control over this and monitor it very closely. For him or a representative of the City to go out there and say I see some issues when they were brought up by a resident who lives next to this development and addressed those issues to verify whether they’re correct or incorrect is our failure.

Mr. Hawes:   I would have to disagree with you Mr. Zitricki only in the sense that we cannot be on every property that is under construction at all times.

Mr. Zitricki:   That’s true but this the City was specifically notified of this –

Mr. Hawes:   We acted immediately upon notification.

Mr. Zitricki:   I heard the lady here saying that Mr. Spain couldn’t get ahold of the developer. I didn’t hear her say he came out there and talked with me to look to make sure the trees aren’t being cut that are marked. That the lines aren’t being moved. Isn’t that our responsibility to do this.

Mr. Hawes:   He did got out and observe the site that day. I don’t know that he met with Ms. Law. I spoke with Ms. Law when I was notified of it and

Mr. Zitricki:   Well I think it’s imperative that we touch all bases when we do this to make sure that we’re doing what we’re supposed to be doing, especially for a PD

Mr. Hawes:   Well I will say that I agree with you when we are notified of a situation we need to react and I believe we did react. This was a property owner to specific developer or grader or whatever, a property line issue. It was not identified as a violation of the development plan per se other than a single mistake.

Mr. Zitricki:   Well shouldn’t we be investigating this Mr. Hawes

Mr. Hawes:   We did

Mr. Zitricki:   and say the plan is being followed, trees aren’t being cut in reference to the tree survey we have out there to verify that the marks are still there on the trees that are supposed to be there, the police are called out to investigate this – shouldn’t we go back and verify that there isn’t something malicious going on and that the plan is being followed. Since it is a PD we’re supposed to be monitoring this step by step during the course of development – this is in our jurisdiction here.

Mr. Hawes:   Certainly. Every aspect of that PD, save the storm water aspect is our jurisdiction.

Mr. Zitricki:   Well we’re not on storm water yet we’re just on trees

Mr. Hawes:    I know that I’m just saying that the ones that we oversee that are our jurisdiction.

Mr. Zitricki:   I think that we need to be more proactive in this and not reactive when something happens. When we’re called to look at something that there is an issue, especially when a development is starting – we’re cutting down trees that aren’t to be cut, crossing over property lines, we should be able to go out there and say yes we know where this property is, we know these trees are marked, these trees should still be here when we come out.

Mr. Hawes:   Short of a survey

Mr. Zitricki:   We have that don’t we

Mr. Hawes:   Well we have a plat – it’s the same plat that the developer is using. I don’t think that there was any question that he overstepped into some property owners property. But it was identified as a mistake that was being addressed between the property owner and the developer directly. The developer met directly with these people on site. We saw to it that that happened. As a matter of fact I believe we supplied his direct cell phone number to these folks.

Mr. Zitricki:   Well it bothers me that if this issue was handled and taken care of we wouldn’t have somebody out here complaining about what is already taking place.

Mr. Hawes:   If we could be at all places at all times, we would be, but we really can’t.

Mr. Zitricki;   But we’re not asked to do that. I mean this is a PD, this is the start of a new development, this is just starting, we should be on this to make sure it’s starting correctly.

Mr. Hawes:   So you’re suggesting that we be there for how long of a period at the beginning of a development

Mr. Zitricki:   I’m not suggesting that we be there a certain length of time but be there to verify that development is taking place correctly and following the plan.

Mr. Hawes:   Well I think that’s what we attempt to do Mr. Zitricki, absolutely.

Mr. Zitricki:   Well I believe you failed this time. That’s what it sounds like to me. If I’m mistaken correct me.

Mr. Hawes:   No, no, in the sense that we were not there to observe the developer breaching the property line, if that’s how you want to define failure.

Mr. Zitricki:   And not being there when we were called to verify it.

Mr. Hawes:   From what I understand the police did appear there

Mr. Zitricki:   The police did but our building inspectors

Mr. Hawes:   Our building inspectors drove by the property – I don’t know that they went on it

Mr. Zitricki:   Well that’s my concern. I think we need to stop and get out of the car and go look at it – that would probably be a good idea.

Mr. Hawes:   I can understand what you’re saying there.

Mr. Zitricki:   Thank you.

Mayor:     Okay, Mr. Larson

Mr. Larson:   I have a question. Did anyone when you pointed out to the loggers, were the trees already cut before you could try to tell them they were the wrong trees or I mean did they continue after they were warned or was it too late to

Ms. Law:   Yes sir, they kept going

Mr. Larson:   Even after you told them it was

Ms. Law:   Yeah, I told them they were on my property and cutting down my trees and they kept going, and the next day they kept going. And I will say when I invited the police or asked the police officer to come out – you cannot see what’s going on from my front – he had a chat with me in my driveway and told me there was nothing he could do it was not malicious and I made him walk to my back yard to see the equipment sitting in my yard because he wasn’t even going to do that. And that upset me because- I guess what I’m asking is I would like someone to come to my house – I will meet them – I will take time off work with a plan that shows me what he’s allowed to cut – not on my property – on his property and let me know if he’s gone by regulations. Because, you know I understand – I want the man to build his subdivision. I’m not against it. But my property you know – this really upsets me because I’ve called a lot of people and all I’ve got is well you need to talk to this one- you need to talk to this one- you need to talk to this one. And I don’t appreciate that.

Mr. Larson:   That doesn’t sound like an innocent mistake if somebody tried to warn them and they just continued ahead anyway without finding out if they were correct or not.

Mr. Hawes:   You’re correct about that

Mr. Larson:   going back to changing markers on the trees – and it seems like we need to – it doesn’t sound like an innocent mistake to me that they proceeded even though they’d been warned that there could be problems (TAPE CHANGED SIDES)

Mr. Hawes:   intent from the beginning on the development

Mr. Larson:   So who should the neighbors contact next – us or you or – if they wanted to pursue this as not being an accident but as a malicious

Mr. Hawes:   If they feel it was malicious they should go to the police

Mr. Holmes:   Mr. Larson I wish that things were as simple as you just described them – but if these people are willing to appear in front of a judge and sign their name under oath that this was done with malice, understand that if that turns out not to be correct they can be sued for false arrest and false imprisonment. You know everything, the laws of motion, for every action there’s an equal and oppose reaction. All I’m saying is the police who did not observe that cannot under state law make an arrest. But this lady and any of her neighbors who want to appear before a judge and swear under oath that the cutting of the trees was done with actual malice they can certainly do that and whatever consequences flow out of that they’re responsible for. But the police cannot arrest for a misdemeanor that did not occur in their presence. They’re absolutely forbidden by state law from doing that. The cutting of these trees was a misdemeanor under our law and it didn’t occur in their presence – so they couldn’t judge for themselves whether or not it’s malice. As a result of that these people will have to go to a local magistrate or even to the City Judge when he’s holding court and appear in front of him and swear under oath to a set of facts that they can convince a judge that it was done with malice. He will issue a warrant for the arrest of whoever did this.

Ms. Law:   May I ask Mr. Holmes a question and then I won’t say anything else.

Mayor:     Yeah, we’ll give you the last word

Ms. Law:   When you say malice, if there’s markers and the markers – they cut the trees down that the markers were on that they knew they were supposed to go away from those markers and they cut those past on the other side – is that considered malice.

Mr. Holmes:   Mr. Mayor I don’t want to start giving legal opinions to citizens – they can appear in front of a judge. They can express the same concerns, and if they can convince that Judge that that was malice then that’s something they certainly have a right to do. In fact citizens have an absolute right to appear in front of a grand jury in the state of South Carolina and ask a grand jury to hand down indictments where there is no arrest warrant. So they do have the options to get that done.

Mayor:     I think he explained that part of it pretty clearly. But the other issue I believe that we were discussing here was we could certainly – I think she was asking could someone meet with her – I think it would be very easy to have one of our building inspectors along with perhaps the developer to set up a meeting with her and say here’s what’s going to happen. You may even want to invite some of your neighbors that have an interest and just say here is what he’s promised us he’s going to do and here’s what we expect him to do and make sure everyone is on the same page.

Mr. Hawes:   We can set that up for tomorrow. I mean basically I can have our building inspectors or construction inspectors contact Ms. Law and set up a meeting at your place.

Mr. Larson:   I’d like to – I’d be glad to represent Council at that meeting to. I’d like to see – I guess anybody else who would want to come. Can I add one more thing

Mayor:     Certainly you have the floor.

Mr. Larson:   Going back to what Geneva – Ms. Lawrence and Mr. Zitricki were talking about it seems like we should put this responsibility back on the builder or developer or the property owner that they should inform the Planning Commission if a change, such as a change of ownership is going to be made rather than us trying to track everybody down and find out if they’re following the rules. They should be responsible to come back and inform us before hand if like Mr. Masson went through the whole process of getting it approved and then he just sells it or passes it off to someone that we haven’t actually approved. I mean there was a lot of talk about the quality of work that Mr. Masson has done in the past and it’s a developer acceptable to the City’s standards and then for him to switch it off onto someone else that we aren’t even aware of. I feel like they should have the responsibility of informing us rather than us trying to track down who is responsible. I don’t know if that’s something the Planning Commission make part of their approval process saying if anything changes from what we’re doing at this point that they would have to come back before the Planning Commission.

Mayor:     Well let’s get our money’s worth out of our attorney tonight. What would be the legality of me as a property owner having to notify the City before I sell my property to someone.

Mr. Holmes:   I have a great deal of concern about that. The issue is that the City can lawfully engage in land use regulation. It has nothing to do with the name of the individual asking for it. It has nothing to do with where they come from, what money they have, or anything like that whatsoever. It has to do with what is the appropriate use of that land. If the council wants when a development changes hands to be notified as a matter of courtesy simply so that we have appropriate contact information that would be okay. And that would certainly be appropriate. But to make that a part of an approval process I’d have some real concerns about it.

Mayor:     Ms. Lawrence

Ms. Lawrence:     No, Mr. Mayor that won’t work for me.

Mayor:     I punched Ms. Lawrence and said does that work

Ms. Lawrence:     That won’t work for me. Because they need to be on record. It doesn’t need to be a courtesy because we can fall back on the business license ordinance. Yes it would be nice if we knew who it was but we have an ordinance that says how you will do stuff and we need to fall back on that and get them in here. And also if somebody represents their self as was the case with this, to where the Planning Commission was looking at the quality of home, that particular person was going to develop and then the next thing you know it’s sold to somebody else who might not have the reputation or build that type quality home, that’s where we’re going to start seeing slums growing up in this City, if we don’t start getting on board and holding these builders to a higher standard and making sure that all this stuff is done like it’s supposed to be.

Mayor:     All righty.

Ms. Law:   Thank you

Mayor:     Thank you very much and I have to apologize for Mr. Wasalewiski, I think I have a new record for the two minute conversation. But a good conversation. Thank you for that. Ms. Lawrence you had something you wanted to say.

Ms. Lawrence:     I just wanted to be first with council comments

Mayor:     Okay, well we’re not quite there yet. Well we are. Just one minute. Mr. Gecy did you have something you wanted to say.

Mr. Gecy:   One more comment. One of the neighbors had a statement I think that related actually to witnessing some of the tree cutting. If one of you folks would like to come up and make a statement, I’d leave it open even if you didn’t sign up –just for a few minutes.

Mayor:     Thank you for changing our rules.

Mr. Gecy:   Yeah

Mr. Zitricki:   Mr. Mayor before the gentleman starts speaking may I make a comment.

Mayor:     Certainly

Mr. Zitricki:   I’d like to ask Mr. Hawes to put this on a higher level of attention – this development – since it’s been brought up this evening and we’ve been discussing it for a length of time. It seems very important that we shift our concern and make sure this is done correctly. So put it on the upper tier.

Mr. Hawes:   It’s on a very high plain.

Mr. Zitricki:   Please

Mr. Hawes:   It will – when it comes to this level and it’s discussed to the extent that it has it will be you can be assured of that.

Mr. Zitricki:   Thank you, I appreciate that.

Mayor:     All right, now I’ll ask you to identify yourself and give your address and be very brief because this is really beyond our rules of order here. I would suggest that when you’re through that anyone else that wants to do what your about to do come up after the meeting and speak with the City Administrator and perhaps the attorney, since we’re trying to get our maximum value out of him tonight – but go ahead if you will.

•  Jeff Justice - 104 Brookhaven Way , Simpsonville

I was out in my yard. I got off work and my neighbor beside me we walked down to the bottom of my yard. We seen a guy get out of a truck for the cutting equipment. He got out – there was a big old tall pine tree there – he took the ribbon off of that tree and stuck it on a little tree with the bark or the trunk about that big (indicated a diameter of approximately 4-6 inches) and cut the big pine tree down. To me why would he move the flag off of one tree and put it on the little tree with the bark on it or the trunk that big.

Mayor:     Good question. But if you all want to file a complaint as

Mr. Justice:   But you know if you go to court it’s going to say you’re word against my word and I wished I had my digital camera and…

Mayor:     Were you alone.

Mr. Justice:   No, no

Mayor:     Well then two words against one word is

Mr. Justice:   Yeah my wife was there to. You know he got out of his equipment and took that flag off the tree – that little tree that had a trunk on it that big and cut down the big old pine tree. I guess it’s for money.

Mr. Gecy:   I think you ought to take the advice of our City Attorney and follow-up on it.

Mayor:     Absolutely. Thank you.

Mr. Gecy:   Thank you Mr. Mayor

Mayor:     All right, now Council Comments. Ms. Lawrence would you like to go first.

COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ms. Lawrence:     Yes please, Mr. Mayor, thank you. I have – something has come to my attention with our tree ordinance that we worked so hard on. I have a copy as do other members of the tree committee of what we presumed, presumption will get you in trouble, what we presumed was coming to council. We have only just recently found out that what actually came to council had an insertion in it that said that PD’s and C-1’s were not – were exempt from the Tree Ordinance. That was not in – I’ve been back to every member of the tree committee, none of them – they all say there is no way we did not exempt PD’s and C-1’s from our tree ordinance. This is mine, but yet when you read the one that actually came through council, I presume it came through council, I don’t know. When you read the one that’s in the brand new zoning book it exempts PD’s and C-1’s from the tree ordinance. Which was certainly none of our intentions. So I would like to send it back to the Planning Commission and let them do their thing, whatever needs to be done.

Also I wanted to report on the KATS. For those of you who don’t know the City has been supportive of an organization called Kitten Action Team that’s been trying to help Ferrell cats and things. We finished the year with over 200 cats that we had got off the street, spayed, neutered, fostered, found homes for. So that is a big amount. Also the pay day lenders, we’ve talked about that before. I know our Planning Commission is working on that fast and furious. I was real surprised to see North Carolina and Georgia neither one allow them, anywhere in the state. I think that’s something that since we’re inbetween them that might be a good thing for Simpsonville.

I had complaints again over at Westwood, well they want speed bumps. And they want to know why the noise ordinance and the speeding is not being enforced. They get no enforcement over there they say. The speed bumps I told them all I knew about it was that the policy that we have is that if you want a speed bump you are to call Public Works and they will put you on a list. Nobody seemed to know about the list but I’ve got the policy. So that’s all I know about that. I guess there’s a list started now because –

Mr. Hawes:   We do have a list, yes absolutely,.

Ms. Lawrence:     Great – and I believe that’s all I’ve got.

Mayor:     All right. So we’re doing good on the Cats but not so good on development is that what you’re saying.

Ms. Lawrence:     Exactly, if we were doing as good on development as we are on cats we’d be A-1 first class.

Mayor:     If we had as many developers as we have cats we’d have a bigger problem. Mr. Gecy

Mr. Gecy:   I want to talk about the – Mr. Hawes I asked you to give me a report on the culvert that runs under Eastview Circle from 105 Eastview Drive and property owner determination for that 15 inch line.

Mr. Hawes:   That’s actually an agenda item Mr. Gecy – if you want me to cover that right now I certainly can but if you want to wait.

Mr. Gecy:   That’s all right, we’ve kind of jumped all over the agenda haven’t we. All right I’ll back off that until it comes up again.

Why not talk about the update on the sewer issues – what can you tell us about the Hunters Woods Sewer overflow and the families that were affected by that. Just report on the record where we are with that and what you know about it.

Mr. Hawes:   Where we are in progress right now is implementing City Council’s directive to redirect the flow from the Arbors off of that line, which will thereby reduce the flow on that line by approximately 68,000 gallons per day. That has actually been awarded to a contractor and we will undertaking that – they will be undertaking that in the coming weeks. So that’s a good positive step there certainly. The homeowner who was displaced from his home by the overflow that was caused by foreign material at a construction site is back in his home and as far as I’m aware is back to normal I guess in his home. I haven’t heard anything otherwise.

Mr. Gecy:   Does the City have any intention of any restitution to any of the property owners for their losses.

Mr. Hawes:   I guess that’s a City Council item. I can tell you specifically the insurance has denied any City responsibility or any payment by the insurance for that purpose.

Mr. Gecy:   The monies that the City has paid to put these people in their hotels for the months and some for just a few weeks, do you have a plan on how to recover that money from someone who might be responsible.

Mr. Hawes:   Certainly the City will, perhaps Mr. Holmes can explain his approach with regard to that.

Mr. Holmes:   Well what we’re doing now is we’re trying to find out exactly what the total damages are. The individual that Mr. Hawes spoke about has only recently moved back to his house so we’re in the process of presenting a formal claim to Home Depot Insurance carriers.

Mr. Gecy:   So that would be for the amount of money the city actually paid for the hotel expenses

Mr. Holmes:   And the cost to repair the line and cleaning it and that type of thing.

Mr. Gecy:   But – so if responsibility – if they accept responsibility for that likely should they or will they do you think accept responsibility to pay the homeowners their expenses that they’ve lost.

Mr. Holmes:   Our position is that they are responsible and that they should do that. We’ve informed them of that we’ve provided them CD’s with photographs, with videos, we’ve offered to meet their people on the site at more than one more occasion. We had the ground open to let them come look at it. As council knows they chose not to appear. We fully documented that graphically and we provided all that data to them.

Mr. Gecy:   The other sewer overflow that we had over in the Boyd Avenue area. What is happening with that and how did we clean that mess up, excuse the pun.

Mr. Hawes:   Well that mess was caused, again it’s a similar situation, caused by foreign material in the City sewer line, which should never be in the City sewer line. What we found, I observed this on site was millions of, I would estimate millions of these polymer beads that are used at the Cryovac facility that somehow escaped that facility and went through our sewer system. I also observed, and it’s well documented with photographs and so forth and video, metal rods that are absolutely foreign to the sewer system in any way shape or form, but apparently they originated somewhere on the Cryovac property as well. As well as a hair net that was pulled out in the presence of a gentleman from Cryovac and said that’s one of ours. So, obviously that was foreign material and the City denies any, again the City’s insurance carrier has denied any City responsibility and the insurance will not pay with regard to this. Now the person who is displaced because of this very unfortunate incident we are working with him and his family right now on – he had virtually no insurance, on an emergency repair loan through the State Housing Authority and we’re very – we expect that that will be awarded in the next 2 – when I say a loan – a grant – it’s a grant not a loan of $5,000 that we expect to be granted in the next two weeks, which will allow him to clean his house up.

Mr. Gecy:   And as far as you know, and Mr. Carter’s here – that particular line that this occurred, this backup at the manhole. What condition was that line in before this – is it over capacity in any way.

Mr. Hawes:   Well when you say the condition of the line – you’re talking physical condition or the amount of flow it’s carrying.

Mr. Gecy:   Was it one of our lines that was needing to be upgraded.

Mr. Hawes:   It was identified for an upgrade and as a matter of fact we have been working with the Greenville County Redevelopment Authority on creating a new line to direct the flow from Cryovac directly to a Western Carolina line because the flow was using up virtually all the capacity in that neighborhood line from Cryovac.

Mr. Gecy:   So what would the Redevelopment Authority have to do with it.

Mr. Hawes:   They are a funding means – the City receives CDBG funding which is used for low to moderate income areas. To benefit low to moderate income property owners and as well as economic development so this is money that is allocated to the City by the Federal Government. The Greenville County Redevelopment Authority is an authority that is created to distribute those funds through the State and Federal processes to the City of Simpsonville for eligible projects. They have identified the project that I’m speaking of as eligible and have in fact been engineering it for the past nine months and we’re ready to go to construction on that project very soon.

Mr. Gecy:   So this is another line where commercial flow is running through a residential neighborhood

Mr. Hawes:   I’d change that probably to Industrial flow but yeah.

Mr. Gecy:   So I guess that’s a little different. Okay, I guess that’s about it for now.

Mayor:     Okay. All right, anyone else. Council Comments we’re still on. Mr. Larson

Mr. Larson:   I just wanted to ask real quickly about the streetscape project. I noticed they were working on the sidewalks the past couple of days.

Mr. Hawes:   Yes, the streetscape project is underway. It began January 16 th . The first step in the project, Phase I, involves placing the utilities for the blocks between Trade and College on Main St , placing those utilities underground and removing the telephone poles. Also, for a section of Curtis Street as well in Phase I. That project is underway and it should be complete before May.

Mayor:     Okay. Mr. Garrett

Mr. Garrett:   Could you just for the record give us a quick update on the 4-way stop signs so we’ll have it on record.

Mr. Hawes:   Absolutely Mr. Garrett. We’ve been working with SCDOT to get approval for what the City has identified a dangerous intersection at the corner of South Street and Richardson. There was a 3 car accident just the other day, I believe it was last night actually, in addition to a number of accidents over the past few years which we documented and supplied to SCDOT for that purpose of review to determine whether a stop light or a stop sign were warranted. A 4-way Stop sign situation were warranted at that location. We received notice today from SCDOT that they will approve a 4-way Stop sign. The notification of that needs to go up basically for at least two weeks prior to the stop signs going up. So they’re going to produce the signs that say 4-way stop sign coming soon or something along those lines so that people are aware that soon they’re going to have to stop at that intersection – because it’s a fairly blind intersection. There’s a hill and a curve that lead to it and it was one of the warrants that it actually met to warrant the 4-way stop. But we could expect, should expect that the 4-ways will be in entirely – all 4 stop signs up by the end of February.

Mayor:     Okay anyone else.

Mr. Larson:   What determines the difference between a 4-way stop and a traffic signal.

Mr. Garrett:   Money

Mr. Hawes:   In some situations it could warrant both or either. And then money certainly can be a determining factor as Mr. Garrett just said. But there are different sets of warrants. Certainly traffic flow, a lighter traveled road probably isn’t going to warrant a traffic light, where a heavier traffic flow with the same types of conditions might. So there is basically a quantitative analysis done on the turn activity, the traffic flow volumes, the site differences, topography and a number of other factors that just angular analysis I guess. It’s not a perfectly straight intersection, it’s sort of angular – things along those lines that determine the signal warrants as opposed to stop sign warrants.

Mr. Larson:   So it adds up to the money.

Mr. Hawes:   It can certainly.

Mayor:     Why don’t you start answering your answering quicker.

Mr. Garrett:   Well that’s what I was told.

Mayor:     Mr. Gecy

Mr. Gecy:   Quick comment – I had a discussion with you briefly and you mentioned a program where we can send a crew out to pick up trash areas, blighted areas in the City and you know we talked about Eastview and Fernwood and Oakland Avenue and just tell me a little bit about that for the citizens out there to share that service that we might offer. And has that been taken care of.

Mr. Hawes:   I believe that we’re going to be sending somebody out tomorrow as a matter of fact.

Mr. Gecy:   But tell us about that program.

Mr. Hawes:   Well the pro – it’s more just the allocation of a crew to go out and clean up an area that may be inordinately unclean I guess with regard to trash or something. If someone observes that there has been construction traffic and all of a sudden there’s a big pile of trash along the roadside for a block or something – we’ll be glad – or Public Works will be glad to react to that by sending a small crew to go out there and basically pick up the trash off the side of the road if it’s an inordinate amount.

Mr. Gecy:   This was mostly cans and beer cans and trash.

Mayor:     All right. Is that it. Anyone else. All right everybody’s been heard.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE QUARTERLY REPORT

Mayor:     Next item on the Agenda is the Quarterly Report from our Chamber of Commerce. Michael Sokoloff is here tonight. Tell us what you fellas got going on over there.

Mr. Sokoloff:   Michael Sokoloff representing the Simpsonville Chamber of Commerce. Hi everybody. Just a quick update on the Chamber and where we are so far. This is our last quarter. Currently we have 380 members to the Chamber. A very strong year and we’re hoping to continue to grow our member numbers through 2007. We have some past events that have happened where the Christmas Parade was a great success. We had many, many floats this year and we had a huge spectator turn-out. I don’t have exact numbers but I was told that it was 4 and 5 deep in certain places throughout the route. So, and thank God we had no lightning like the year before. So it went off without a hitch this year. We had our monthly Leads Meeting that occurred. We had a very high turnout. Somewhere around 35 people. We had Mr. Hawes there as our speaker and from what I understood, I didn’t actually participate, but I heard it was a really good event and a lot of good networking going on. Our next meeting is going to be held on February 12 th .

As far as upcoming events, we have our pre-planning retreat which is going to be happening at the Rotary Hall on this Thursday the 25 th between 11:00 in the morning and 2:00. This is an opportunity for people that are not going to be going with us to Charleston to speak to the Chamber to help us in organizing the Chamber and what direction we’d like to take the Chamber the ’07 year. The retreat itself is scheduled for Charleston on the 9 th , 10 th and 11 th of February. And we have the annual banquet coming up on March 22 nd at Holly Tree Country Club.

Other items that we wanted to bring up in front of you people were the Chamber’s working on a new map that is currently in development, we’re looking to have it out in about 2 months. And that we’ve established a committee to work with Freedom Weekend Aloft people to make sure that the Chamber members and the community can benefit from having Freedom Weekend here. We have a lot of businesses that you know are part of the Chamber and we want to make sure that Freedom Weekend enhances their businesses and doesn’t take away or cause issues for their businesses as well while they’re here in town for that event.

Mayor:     Great, well that’s an admirable goal, I’m glad to here that you folks are doing that. And I just want to say before I open it up to other council members, I want to publicly thank you all for a great Christmas Parade this year. I mean – it was different, a lot of new things and live animals. Didn’t see any issues with exhaust on the streets or anything and it was just a great parade. I received a lot of compliments from people outside the community about it and I want to thank you all for that. Anyone else have any comments for this young man. Ms. Lawrence

Ms. Lawrence:     Well I just would reiterate what the Mayor said. It was a great parade. I mean to have 3 bands that’s unheard of these days. So I don’t know how you all got them there but you did good and I appreciate it.

Mr. Sokoloff:   There was somewhere around 100 different floats or groups that were in the parade this year. It was pretty long.

Mayor:     All right, anyone else.

Mr. Larson:   I’d just like to thank the Chamber for getting involved with Freedom Weekend Aloft. I know from talking with them they’re really making a strong effort to get local businesses involved in the entertainment and the vendors and try to make it a community event, so I think that’s great the Chamber’s helping with that.

Mr. Sokoloff:   Thank you.

Mayor:     All right, well thank you very much for coming and we’ll look forward to seeing you next quarter I guess. Thank you.

NEW BUSINESS:   

•  Storm Water

•  Autumn Trace/Duffy Woods

Mayor:     All right, we’ll move on now to New Business and first under New Business is Storm Water – Mr. Gecy

Mr. Gecy:   Well we kind of talked about Autumn Trace already and the Duffy Woods issue but I guess having it on the Agenda I guess we can just agree, or I hope we can agree on moving toward a way we can take this issue that I think we clearly, several of us, think there is a discrepancy between the storm water plan and the storm water plan that’s in existence right now. And I kind of forget what we decided we were going to do but I would like to reiterate that for the record again.

Mr. Hawes:   We were going to write a letter to the legislators regarding the oversight of DHEC on this issue.

Mr. Gecy:   Okay, and then I wanted to say something more about that but I guess we can leave that particular issue tonight. I would like for that to go out very soon and be as stern as we can be to expect a response back. And in the meantime I would like to personally have the evidence from Mr. Wasalewski presented to the City. I would personally like it, I think the rest of council should get it that compares the built portion against the planned portion and if we get a response back from the legislature or not, maybe we’ll take it to the legislature personally. So I’d like to have that evidence and weigh it and maybe get a second opinion. But certainly have that in file.

Mayor:     Could I make one comment there. I’d like to also add to that that rather than just sending a letter to the legislators and encouraging them to put pressure on DHEC, let’s encourage them to set up some sort of system – some sort of pecking order – a phone number we can call or something like that – rather than – because you know if we have to call them everytime they’re down in Columbia. In other words a go-to person or go-to agency or something that says yeah we’re going to make sure that DHEC is making sure those people are following this. Is that okay. All right. Thank you. Excuse me, go ahead.

•  Eastview Drive Culvert

Mr. Gecy:   And the second item is Eastview Circle Culvert. I witnessed this and this is – the history’s right here with several council members who live right around the corner from it. An 18 inch pipe goes under our road and it funnels down to a 15 inch line. That doesn’t – it isn’t easy or I mean it isn’t hard to understand that if the flow of water comes a little faster than normal it’s going to back up into some properties. The question was that property where the 15 inch line runs through is Mr. Ralph Hendricks property. The presumption was that the City put that line in to funnel that water and that somehow there was a thought that maybe that line can be upgraded to help this situation. Is that property – was that property ever deeded, a portion of that property ever deeded to the City.

Mr Hawes:   There is no record of that happening.

Mr. Gecy:   Okay. Mr. Mayor, does that ever ring a bell to you about that issue.

Mayor:     Oh, I’ve stood in Mr. Barrett’s yard several times in pouring down rain and talked about that very issue and down through the years we’ve attempted to do everything that we can legally do to assist Mr. Barrett. We’ve made some changes to a line up the hill from him that some folks believed was part of the problem and you know we just can’t control everything God does to us but..

Mr. Gecy:   Well specifically I was asking about that line. The 15 inch line that goes through

Mayor:     What about it.

Mr. Gecy:   Well do you know whether there was some agreement to – if 18 inches under the road – let’s just say that would pull a volume of water – 18 inches and then it funnels down to 15 inches, any little twig in there is going to back that up. And these are issues all over the City. It just happened to be the next one on the list that comes up and this has been perking for years. But, I guess the question is do you know anything about that line going across the Hendricks property that you can shed light on.

Mayor:     I know that line – and this has been the issue down through the years. I’ve told Mr. Barrett on several occasions, the issue is that line is on Mr. Hendricks property, it’s not on a City easement, it was never deeded to the City – it’s not a City line, the City doesn’t have anything to do with so legally there is nothing we can do to that line. You know, a civil action may force something to be done about that but there’s certainly nothing we can do from a legal point as our attorney has told us for years to enlarge that line or reroute that line or whatever.

Mr. Gecy:   Okay, well that was my point there trying to determine the ownership. The other question was the way the water funnels under the road right there – there was some discussion in years past and once again, these things you guys may have talked about, but there was at one time a plan to kind of funnel the edges and make a little wash-way in a way for the water to instead of banking against the road and the grass and the weeds there to make a little trough for the water to run into and under the road. I think Mr. Carter maybe had a comment about in the past. Is there any hope that we could do anything like that because that seems to have been one of the solutions that I heard and it was just never acted on. And I know that wouldn’t be you but you

Mayor:     You know I frankly don’t recall any of that, but there’s a lot of things I don’t recall. So I’m not saying that wasn’t said, we had a different City Administrator, we had a different Public Works Director at that time, I think Mr. Stenhouse was on staff, I know he was on staff when we enlarged a culvert or something up the street from you. I don’t recall that conversation. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, and I quite frankly don’t know whether if we said that was going to happen whether it ever happened. Mr. Carter do you have any – I mean this is probably not fair to ask you – but do you have any information that you inherited from your predecessor that would give you any input onto that or into that.

Mr. Carter:   Since I came we rerouted the pipe up on Oakland .

Mayor:     Was that since you’ve been here. Okay, I’m sorry. That shows you how much I remember. But you did you know anything about what is it the feathering of the shoulder or something. You need to come get a microphone. I’m sorry but – where’s our wireless

Ms. Bodkins:   It’s here

Mayor:     Well throw it back there to him – we need to have one back over in the back there.

Ms. Bodkins:   I’m going to just put one back there by them

Mayor:     Well let’s get a stand and put one about half-way back for those people.

Mr. Carter:   This has probably been 5 years ago, maybe longer. We redid the route of the pipe up there on Oakland . Turned and came down Aster and rerouted all of that water that was coming off the road. The reason we did that was that was road water. That was water that we was actually collecting on the road and in the ditches and then it was spilling out in his back yard. Here again, it’s I guess an issue of how you want to address it. The water that’s actually there now is run-off water between the adjoining houses and the Church and that, but it’s not a road water issue, but as far as the 15 inch pipe on one side and 18 on the other. You’d probably have to do a hydrology study to see if that would work, but no it’s not a good practice to put 18 into a 15 but if the 15’s big enough it – 15 will handle it it doesn’t matter that much. And yes sir you could put a head wall on the end of that pipe. It would be kind of bulky and cumbersome and to me it would probably be an eyesore, but unless it started eroding and had a real – I don’t know if you’re asking my advice, or what you’re asking here – but unless it started becoming an erosion problem I’d leave it alone, but that’s just me if I lived there. Because a head wall’s ugly. Rip-rap’s ugly, especially when it’s in your front yard and that’s the only two things I know you could do to it to channel that water into that 18 inch pipe. Either one of those is an option but…I think it’s preference.

Mayor:     Okay – Mr. Gecy

Mr. Gecy:   Can I start a little conversation – I just want to ask Mr. Barrett a question

Mayor:     Sure go ahead

Mr. Gecy:   Mr. Barrett do you have – do you have something that you would like to add that you think would help the water on your property. I mean

Mr. Barrett:   Boy I sure do. First of all Mayor, your memory is quite erroneous in what has happened here. It’s been 20 years since he stood in my yard and looked at any water. The truth of the matter is that we have an adversarial relationship with the City of Simpsonville for some time after having tried diligently through Garry Smith, Pam King and a number of Public Works Managers to get something done about this problem up on Oakland Ave. Ended up meeting with the City Attorney, I ended up retaining council, Margaret Chamberlain represented with me and met with Mr. Holmes and Mr. Carter, in this building. The City committed to do something about it. Mr. Holmes asked Mr. Carter if the improvements had been made, if any of the City had touched anything on the west side of Oakland Ave. And Joe’s response was yes, we dug a ditch up there and we routed the water down Aster. Now what happened was the woman that moved in that house in the corner of Oakland and Eastview called and said she couldn’t get across the street to her neighbor’s house and the City promptly came out and filled that ditch in with dirt and turned the water right back down on me and Wes Mayfield, my next door neighbor. You talked about DHEC earlier in this meeting. DHEC is the only person that’s got anything done about it. Mr. Holmes can tell you that. Margaret Chamberlain wrote him letter after letter after letter after he had admitted the City had made this mistake and he did nothing. So my wife called DHEC one morning and got in touch with someone in Columbia and they set somebody up here and they said that situation will be cured by the end of the week. And my wife said yeah, right. No, no it will be fixed. Now the City didn’t do anything to fix that problem that DHEC didn’t make them do. The fact of the matter is there was a culver there that had been covered up for years right in front of Fred Browder’s house – I had asked the City to clean that out I don’t know how many times and they didn’t do it. After almost 15 years the City finally got the message from DHEC because they were going to be fined if they didn’t fix that situation. They came down there the next day and started putting pipe in. And I was told the problems not Oakland Avenue , the problems Jack Barrett. And there have been a number of occasions when members of council have mentioned my name, in a negative fashion. So, why am I upset, because it took me so many years to get something done about this. I have called the Public Works Department a number of times and asked them to come out and look at this culvert that we’re talking about on Eastview Drive , it’s on Eastview Drive , Bob not Eastview Circle . Herb Beck who was part of the Storm Water Committee with Dave Knapp did a survey of this pipe years and years ago, never would tell me what the results were, would not share the results with me. So I have no idea who this pipe belongs to. Ralph Hendricks says it’s not his. He’s my neighbor. Now I haven’t seen the Plat. The Plat shows that it’s Ralph Hendricks property but it does show an easement through there. The question is who owns the easement. The fact of the matter is when that pipe was put in it was put in on my side of the road at 18 inches in diameter and after it traversed Eastview Drive it nipped down to 15. That’s a 30% reduction in flow. I’ve had Clemson University Extension to come out at Dave Knapp’s behest – look at the situation and tell me. If the City would simply come out and just cut around that pipe and concrete it it would improve the flow of water through this situation over 15%. I have asked Joe Carter to do this a number of times and have gotten no response. The City has this situation come up years ago, we’re absolutely not going to do any work on storm water on private property. Mr. Holmes has given judgment on that I don’t know how many times. Yet it’s been done in other instances. If it’s me that has nothing to do with it- we’re addressing issues not personalities. Now, all I’m asking for somebody to do is come out and look at that pipe and cut out around it and put some concrete in it to stabilize the wall so that that pipe will carry 15% more water. Because when we have more than 5 inches of rain in a 24 hour period the stream of water across mine and Mildred Faber’s property next to me is over 15 feet wide and over 3 ½ feet deep and it has come in my basement. That’s all I’ve asked anybody to do. But go on record, the City did not do anything to help me on Oakland without DHEC saying you’d better do it or we’re going to fine you. That is a fact. Mr. Holmes knows that, Mr. Carter knows it and the Mayor knows it. I don’t expect the City to do anything for me that they haven’t done for anybody else. But there is a spill way on N. Almond Dr a block and a half up from the Mayor’s house on the right hand side going back up towards Powderhorn there’s a spill-way between two houses there and the City put that spill-way in years ago. Now I asked Bob to look at that situation to see if there’s a possibility – I’ve even offered to buy the material – the City Council came up with this situation one time before – if you will provide the material we will provide the labor. And Dennis you know that’s right.

Mayor:     Yeah

Mr. Barrett:   What did Jack Barrett have to do. He’s the grandfather of this – Elana Zack and I we’re the two people that started this mess on storm water over 25 years ago. Now, I’m below grade and I realize that, there’s nothing I can do about being 25 feet below grade with respect to Curtis Avenue . But after getting this situation cured up on Oakland Avenue by DHEC, the first Presbyterian Church built a new sanctuary. I came to a zoning meeting here in this Chamber and objected to it and the zoning commission told the First Presbyterian Church of Simpsonville you will not go beyond 190 feet beyond the center line of Curtis Avenue toward Mr. Barrett’s property. The church came in there with a contractor, similar to what this lady stood right here and told you a minute ago about her trees and dug everyone – knocked everyone of those trees back over 245 feet beyond the center line from Curtis Avenue and turned water down on me again. So if I’m not fighting the City of Simpsonville I’m fighting the First Presbyterian Church. Now here’s the bottom line, if that pipe is on Ralph Hendricks property, and I don’t know that it is. He says it’s not and if it is then it’s a civil situation. I have a son that’s a corporate attorney in Georgia . And he’s told me if that’s the case you get a civil suit, go to court. That’s not between the City of Simpsonville and Jack Barrett that’s between Ralph Hendricks and me. But if the City has the responsibility to maintain that 18 inch pipe going under Eastview Dr. and it’s not being maintained where it’s not getting the maximum flow of water because the City refuses to come down there and bank it up and put some concrete around it then that’s a whole other issue. So, I just want to go on record on letting you know that some of what’s said here tonight was not right. The people who have stood in my back yard and looked at this situation are Garry Smith, John Stenhouse, my own councilman will not come down there and look at it. So I have been fighting this thing since Pam King was Mayor. And that’s all I asked Bob to do was to look at the spill-way over on N. Almond Drive, because the City put that in and I expect that to be done on my property. I don’t care if it is private property – that’s private property on N. Almond Avenue to. But that pipe’s got me concerned because with the way we’ve got – with the weather changes we’ve seen in recent years where we get deluges of 10 and 15 inches of rain in a 2 and 3 day period – it’s a river between Mildred Faber and myself. Fortunately, she’s far enough uphill where it doesn’t matter. I’m not. So I’m not asking for anything that I don’t feel I’m entitled to. And I want to go on record as saying that I want this to be the last time that I hear a City Council mention my name negatively with a response to my coming before this body as a tax paying citizen of this City and of this State and fulfilling my legal right to stand here and tell you how I feel irrespective of what the tone of my voice is and irrespective of what my demeanor is. I have the right to stand here and tell you that and I’ve exercised that right. So Bob I hope that explains it.

Mayor:     Well let me respond to that – you do have the right and we’re glad to hear from you. A you said that I knew that DHEC required us to modify a line up on Oakland and I was not aware of that. Maybe I should have been. Maybe I should have been aware but I was not aware of that. And secondly you said I didn’t stand in your yard, I’ve stood in your yard several times, no it’s been several times. Once I stood there and had a City Councilman tender his resignation so I remember that well. I remember coming to your yard a couple of times when you arrived home – I was talking to your wife and you completely ignored me and wouldn’t speak to me and went on past – so there’s twice I can identify. Well okay, whatever – I just wanted to clear the record or at least put my comments on the record in that regard. I’ll also say we have tried, we have tried to help you Mr. Barrett, we tried years ago to help you. I’m sorry we haven’t been successful but we did everything that we can legally do and if you have a son who is an attorney, I’m sure he’s talked to you about this. We have certain things that we can legally do and certain things that we can’t do legally. And in my humble opinion we’ve done everything that we can legally do to assist you with your problem down there. So I’m sorry you feel that way but nice to see you again. Mr. Gecy

Mr. Gecy:   Well just to summarize. I think we have the wherewithal to help our citizen and taxpayers with storm water problems. Now we can’t get involved in every issue, but where we can help I think we should help and I would like for us to look at this issue, look at this little flow of water that goes into this pipe and see if we can’t compliment it some way. I mean it may not be – we’re not talking about a major thing here – we’re talking about a way we can compliment our citizens and putting aside all the past and putting aside any confrontations that may have occurred I want to be just an inbetween guy who says maybe we can help this guy. Maybe we can help this whole block and it might not cost us a whole lot if we just want to do it. And I witnessed and looked at the other – I don’t know what that’s called again – the little trough that was built that funnels water down into the storm drain – that works well and it’s been in there 20 years but that would work well here. Something like that, but that’s what I would like to look at that – see if in fact our Public Works Dept would agree with Mr. Barrett that that would help the flow. If he has engineers that he wants to forward that information to us to digest, that would be helpful as well and then just to consider it. That’s all we can do. I think if we ask council to consider that I would like to see us stick our necks out and help our citizens where we can and I’ll stop with that and go to the next one.

•  Storm Drain/Sink Hole – Hunters Woods Drive

Mayor:     All right. Well you still have the floor because the next thing is also under your name and that’s the sink hole.

Mr. Gecy:   In Hunters Woods there’s two sink holes that come out every time we have a heavy rain. Mr. Carter I think knows about this. I would like to get the council to give direction to our City Administrator and Public Works to fix this problem. They know what it is. It’s a separated storm drain that’s causing a sink hole between property. It’s the storm water that’s coming off the development where Happy Plants used to be and the storm drain comes right to Hunters Woods Drive and then under Hunters Woods Drive and into the creek. And that goes between two houses – the right of way there for this pipe and I think it’s our pipe and I think we know it’s separated. Our Public Works people know it – at least they can document it by tving it and if that is in fact the case we should fix it.

Mayor:     If it’s our pipe.

Mr. Gecy:   Well it’s not Mauldin’s pipe. It’s in the City of Simpsonville

Mayor:     Well I know it but I mean if it’s a City pipe on a city easement – that’s what you’re saying – I’m asking – I’m clarifying what you’re saying – is that what you’re saying.

Mr. Gecy;   Yeah. Now that’s what I would like for us to do. Look at this, assign Public Works, we’ve got our camera, find out what the problem is. Because these property owners have been filling this sinkhole in every time so it’s probably full of dirt. It’s probably not functional and now we have new development and probably 30,000 gallons more of sewage is going to be coming into the Hunters Woods line to make up for the 60 we’re going to give off so our net is less 30 probably. But this is storm drain coming from that development on the old Happy Plants property. I would like for us to look into that and see if that is in fact our line and fix it if it is.

Mr. Hawes:   We’ll be glad to look into that.

Mr. Gecy:   Thank you very much.

Mayor:     All right. Thank you Mr. Gecy.

•  City Logo and Branding

Mayor:     All right next item on the Agenda is City Logo and Branding. Mr. Hawes this sounds like a shift in mood.

Mr. Hawes:   Well Mayor and Council what we’re looking at is a little marketing strategy and positioning as the City of Simpsonville grows and competes in the overall Greenville County Community it’s important to position itself as a thriving, vibrant community that is welcoming to visitors, tourists and so forth and one aspect of that is really identifying the strengths of the community. What our cultural make-up is, what our thoughts for the future may be. And defining a logo that reflects that and a marketing strategy basically beyond the logo as well that reflects what we hold important here in Simpsonville. And before you I’ve placed a proposal from a research firm, a market research firm and design firm as well that has done numerous projects of this type for cities and businesses and done a fine job. I’ve looked at a number of companies that do this type of work. I’ve been exceptionally impressed by this one with regard to the level of thought and analysis that goes into what they produce and really what I wanted you all to do tonight was just take this in. Take it home with you. Look at the proposal and we could discuss this further at our voting session. There is some money allocated for the streetscape project as well as for the cultural arts center or Arts and Cultural Center that the city has allocated. Either one of those could help fund this type of study and analysis. The streetscape specifically, because one of the items of the streetscape is creating signage and way-finding signs throughout the downtown area and leading to the downtown area where this logo could be used. So, if you all would give that some thought I feel it’s a very good proposal and something that would be worthy of the City’s consideration.

Mayor:     Okay. Thank you sir.

OLD BUSINESS

•  Water Quality Permit Inter Local Agreement

Mayor:     All right next is Old Business. Mr. Hawes you’re still up. You’re going to tell us about water quality permit of some sort.

Mr. Hawes:   Yes sir, Mayor and Council, in 1987 the U S Congress amended the Federal Clean Water Act to require EPA to implement an NPDES Storm Water Permit Program and without going into the specifics of what that acronym is basically it regulates municipal discharges of storm water with regard to the water quality, not to the amount but to the quality. The EPA basically they used terms like promulgated, the phase I storm water NPDES regulations. Basically they put into effect a requirement that certain sized, certain population centers create a regulatory procedure and permitting procedure. City of Simpsonville is considered a small metropolitan area. However, it is part of a larger metropolitan area of which Greenville County is. There are two of these MS4’s Metropolitan Statistical Area number 4, Greenville County and Richland County in the State of South Carolina . And they have already received NPDES permits through DHEC. The City of Simpsonville is what’s called a Phase II small MS4 with regard to these regulations and the requirement is now that the City have a permit as well with regard to these discharges. The City has I believe discussed this in the past in 1999-98 time frame. Our understanding is that City Council had intended at that time to enter into an Agreement with Greenville County for the purpose of piggy-backing on Greenville County ’s permit. In other words, this agreement, inter local agreement whereby Greenville County would provide the oversight and planning and so forth with regard to storm water quality issues as required by the Federal Government. We have included in your packet an agreement that’s been negotiated with Greenville County called an Inter-governmental Agreement for the Implementation of the Greenville County Storm Water Management Plan NPDES Permit No,. SC230001. And this is an agreement that is ameniable to both Greenville County and to the City but we have negotiated. And I would ask that you consider this and at the next meeting please – or actually do we need to have an official action David – yes – at the next meeting I would ask for official action to allow us to enter into this agreement.

Mayor:     Okay, Ms. Lawrence has a question about that.

Ms. Lawrence:     Yes, they are not going to tell us that we can’t use pervious concrete are they. Because it says they conduct all activities necessary to carry out the storm water management program.

Mr. Holmes:     Ms. Lawrence this has to do with storm water quality. It has nothing to do with

Ms. Lawrence:     Well I know but I can see them saying there’s something in the pervious concrete that would not be quality – that would be

Mr. Holmes:   If there was a finding by the EPA or DHEC that pervious concrete put pollutants in the water then they could tell us not to use it whether we go along with this permit or not. I think what’s happening now is that EPA is saying okay Simpsonville you need to have this permit and it’s extremely expensive and what we’ve told them is but we agreed to work with Greenville County and we did it almost 10 years ago and to be candid with you what we’ve done is we’ve gone back in your minutes. There was a lot of discussion and agreement but apparently we never actually authorized the signature on a contract. So what we’re trying to do is do that so that we can piggy-back on Greenville County ’s permit and we don’t have to go through all the studies and all the engineering that Greenville County already did about 10 years ago.

Ms. Lawrence:     Okay, well then it says on 3 it says the obligation of the City – any fees, taxes or charges implemented by the county. That’s kind of like letting them write their own check – I mean

Mr. Hawes:   No it doesn’t say that we’re paying them. It says that any fees, taxes or charges implemented by the County shall be uniform in the incorporated and unincorporated areas, which is what we have now anyway.

Ms. Lawrence:     Well it says that’s an obligation of the City.

Mr. Hawes:   They’re saying that we would have to agree to have uniformity in those regulations – in those charges.

Ms. Lawrence:     So what’s it going to cost us – what’s the bottom line

Mr. Hawes:   There really isn’t any cost to us.

Ms. Lawrence:     No cost at all.

Mr. Hawes:   None

Ms. Lawrence:     They’re going to do all this free. They’re not going to take our road paving money, they’re not going to do

Mr. Hawes:   I wouldn’t say that it would be free because (CHANGED TAPES)

Mayor:     Well maybe we can think of more questions between now and our next meeting.

•  Code of Ordinances

Mayor:     All right next is Code of Ordinances – Mr. Holmes you’re up again.

Mr. Holmes:   Mr. Mayor I just wanted to report the City Clerk is distributing or has distributed copies of the City Code in a Word document format. What we’re going to ask you next meeting is to vote to adopt that as your Code of Ordinances for first reading and then the month of March to do second reading. What we intend to do is this is a rather big step forward – is up to this point all of us have always had bound copies of the Code of Ordinances and that has been difficult to maintain because some council members have the revisions and some don’t. And what we’re going to be doing is providing the Code of Ordinances once it’s adopted in an adobe acrobat format the City’s going to have Accumen post the Code of Ordinances, once adopted on the City Web Site. It will be word searchable and it will be indexed. So we won’t have to be concerned about bound volumes anymore. We’ll actually have it electronically and all of you will have it and all city residents who have access to the internet will be able to go to the City’s web site and will actually be able to look up, print and read the City’s Code of Ordinances. What you have before you right now is the most recent version – in other words it’s updated with the most recent ordinances you have. SO I’m going to ask you to move quickly before you start adopting other ordinances so that it doesn’t become outdated before we get you to adopt it as a whole. What we hope will happen then is that the City Clerk will be the only one that will have the authority to go into the system and update the ordinances and you won’t have to turn in your ordinance books. You’ll simply be able to go to the web site and look up what the latest version of your ordinances are.

Mayor:     Okay. These notations in here were made by whom –

Mr. Holmes:   Well the initials would indicate who they were made by – when you see DWH that is me. And so there were some issues – frankly that is not going to be in the final form. They probably shouldn’t have been printed as part of your comments because you’ve been through most of this. Ms. Lawrence has been through it in total. It’s my understanding that all of her suggested changes have already been incorporated as a part of this. Each one of you – what happened was let’s see there’s only two members of council I think that are here now that were here the last time we did a complete revision of your Code. There was some question among the council then that once you adopted the code that all of you hadn’t had the opportunity to go through it. What I’m asking you to do now is to do that, so that if you have anything else you go ahead and do that and we can make sure that’s incorporated.

Mayor:     Well I’ve got a quick question for you. It was my understanding that once we were presented this that changes would be notated either through red line process or something – all the changes that were made to this.

Mr. Holmes:   Okay – what we did is you may recall – we started going chapter by chapter and we put it up on an overhead project and we had a computer here and we asked all of you to go through it. Frankly it was like pulling teeth or trying to walk through molasses and we did several chapters that way but those were very long and difficult meetings. So what we decided to do or what I’ve decided to do at this point is I’ve presented it all to you at one time. Ask you to go through it and let’s just try to get it adopted. Now if you want to go through chapter by chapter we will certainly start that process. But I know the meetings started to grow very long and all of you grew weary. We did a number of rather significant changes. Your animal control ordinance was changed – we took a long time and went through that. We went through a number of other ordinances and spent quite a bit of time during your workshop meetings getting you to approve it. I’m glad to do it any way you want to do it but I’ve heard a number of you say I want to get it done and I want to get it done now so what we’re trying to do is to get it done and get it published and get it on the City’s web site.

Mayor:     Well we need to get it done – but I just don’t want to have any surprises. I mean I don’t want something to pop up six months from now and our ordinance says that and I missed it some how. Because it was changed. Ms. Lawrence I’m sorry but go ahead

Ms. Lawrence:   None of my comments have been incorporated in it except the animal control ordinance and the part I did on the alcohol ordinance. That’s all of my – those are just my suggestions – you know like David put his in here and who’s VGC.

Mr. Holmes:   That’s Charles – no

Mayor:     The company that we hired to do this

Mr. Holmes:   Oh absolutely not. Colleen Emanuele participated in that. Some of them –

Ms. Lawrence:     I don’t know who VGC is

Mr. Holmes:   I’m not saying that – at the time – because this all came up a year ago – in fact if you have the documents electronically my comments are almost two years old. But Chief Reece went through it. We provided a copy to all the Department Heads – all of them went through it. You have their comments. The animal Control Ordinance I remember Colleen Emanuele and I don’t know her married name and I apologize. I told her I was going to continue calling her Emanuele because I’m hard to teach new names and for some reason I’m thinking the computer terminal she was on poster her initials as VGC – I could be wrong about that – I just don’t remember at this point. But that’s why I’m asking all of you to go through now and take a look at it. I don’t want there to be surprises. But it’s basically the Code that you’ve been going with except for the changes we all labored many hours to….

Mayor:     Just changes we made – not by this fine company that we hired to show us the error of our ways.

Mr. Holmes:   No. We’ve tried to remove things like – I don’t mean to be trite but you know running horses too fast and some of that type of thing. We took a lot of that out.

Mayor:     Okay. You had something else Ms. Lawrence.

Ms. Lawrence:     No, I just want to say when he gave it to us I had mine on a disc and I just did my part and sent it to David and nobody else –

Mr. Holmes:   Okay – so what you have by the comments is what her suggestions were – so it’s going to be up to you to decide whether you accept her suggested changes or not.

Mayor:     All right. Fine, anyone else have any comments or questions. Well happy reading. All right, Ms. Lawrence I believe you’re next on the Agenda.

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
Phone 864-967-9526 Fax 864-967-9530
Email Us!