NEWBERRY COUNTY COUNCIL
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 7, 2007
Newberry County Council met on Wednesday, February 7, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at the Courthouse Annex for a regular meeting.
Present were: Henry B. Summer, Chairman
William D. Waldrop, Vice-Chairman
John E. Caldwell, Councilman
Mike Hawkins, Councilman
John David Dawkins, Councilman
Henry H. Livingston, III, Councilman
Edgar Baker, Councilman
Wayne Adams, County Administrator
Gary T. Pope, County Attorney
Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council
Media: Heather Hawkins, WKDK
Cindy Pitts, Newberry Observer
Notice of the meeting was duly advertised as required by law.
Mr. Summer called the meeting to order and determined a quorum to be present.
Mr. Baker had the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. Adoption of Consent Agenda.
Mr. Hawkins moved to adopt the consent agenda; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
2. Additions, Deletions and Adoption of Agenda.
The following amendments to the agenda were requested:
There being no further additions or deletions, Mr. Waldrop moved to adopt the agenda as amended; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.
3. Personal Appearances:
a. David Enzastiga, CPA:
1. Presentation of Newberry County Audited Financial Statements for year ending June 30, 2006.
Mr. Enzastiga reviewed the County’s Audited Financial Statements for the year ending June 30, 2006. Newberry County received an unqualified audit. The General Fund balance as of June 30, 2006 was $4.49 million.
2. Consideration of
adoption of Audited Financial Statements for year ending June 30, 2006.
Mr. Baker moved to adopt the Audited Financial Statements for the year ending June 30, 2006 as presented by Mr. Enzastiga; second by Mr. Waldrop. Vote was unanimous.
b. Jennifer Brooks, Director of Programs, Newberry County Disabilities and Special Needs Board
Ms. Brooks requested County Council’s support of their agency’s efforts to obtain a grant from the South Carolina Department of Transportation for a 14 passenger cutaway bus to be used to transport persons with disabilities. The South Carolina Department of Transportation will fund 80% of the grant and the Newberry Disabilities and Special Needs Board will provide the funding for the remaining 20%.
1. Consideration of adoption of Local Government Resolution, 2007-2008 FTA Section 5310.
Mr. Dawkins moved to adopt the Resolution in support of the grant; second by Mr. Livingston. Vote was unanimous.
4. Public Comments.
Louis Neiger spoke on the following items:
Nancy Dickert didn’t come to the microphone, and her comments were not picked up. She did ask that all Council members resign.
5. Ordinance #01-01-07: An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning
Map established pursuant to Zoning Ordinance #12-24-01 so as to rezone a tract
containing approximately 4.59 acres, designated as a portion of TMS Parcel
#340-3-9, from Rural (R-2) to General Residential (RG). [Whitener Road. Planning Commission recommends approval.]
Mr. Summer called for the public hearing. James Sligh did not come to the microphone, and his comments were not picked up; however, he asked the difference between the two zoning districts, and once Anne Peters, Zoning Administrator, explained them Mr. Sligh stated he was against this being rezoned.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Summer declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Hawkins moved for third reading; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
6. Ordinance #01-02-07: An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning
Map established pursuant to Zoning Ordinance #12-24-01 so as to rezone a tract
containing approximately 8.5 acres, designated as a portion of TMS Parcel
#739-38, from Rural (R-2) to General Commercial (GC). [1642 Holy Trinity Church Road, Little Mountain, SC. Planning Commission recommends approval.]
Mr. Summer called for the public hearing. Ansel McClain wants it approved.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Summer declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Baker moved for third reading; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.
7. Ordinance #01-03-07: An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning
Map established pursuant to Zoning Ordinance #12-24-01 so as to rezone a tract
containing approximately 29 acres, designated as TMS Parcel #450-4, from Rural
(R-2) to Residential (RS-2). [Oxner
Road and Highway 219. Planning
Commission recommends approval.]
Mr. Summer called for the public hearing. Ralph Liscio reviewed project costs and what it would mean to Newberry County. The houses would range from $140,000 to approximately $200,000, setting aside some green areas for playground equipment and/or picnic tables for the residents. The cost to the investors of bringing water and sewer to the property would run approximately $600,000 at no cost to the County.
This project would mean approximately $162,500 per year in taxes to the County, and after a three year build out would mean approximately $443,000 to the County and $162,200 every year after that. The investors are bearing the expense of putting in the subdivision at no expense to the County. The roads will be built to county standards. Money would be put in a reserve account and upon a two-thirds completion of the subdivision, the final layer of asphalt would be put on.
Unidentified persons questioned Mr. Liscio about the subdivision, which he answered to their satisfaction.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Summer declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Hawkins moved for third reading; second by Mr. Waldrop. Vote was unanimous.
8. Ordinance #01-04-07: An Ordinance to amend the text of the
Newberry County Zoning Ordinance #12-24-01 (Chapter 153 of the County Code) so
as to amend the district regulations relating to the temporary placement of
manufactured homes in certain zoning districts for the housing of the infirm,
the elderly and others needing assistance.
Mr. Summer called for the public hearing. There being no comments, Mr. Summer declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Waldrop moved for second reading; second by Mr. Dawkins.
Mr. Waldrop asked if this would be from now on or until the person is no longer in need of assistance. Mr. Pope advised this clarified the procedure and provides that the temporary permit is to an individual and not out there forever. It would end when the need was no longer needed or after two years. After two years, they will have to renew it if the need is still there or if they have a new caretaker.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Summer called for the question. Vote was unanimous.
9. Ordinance #01-05-07: An Ordinance to provide tax relief to the
taxpayers of Newberry County for future tax years, so as to allow taxpayers to
pay their taxes in installments, pursuant to Section 12-45-75 of the 1976 S.C.
Code of Laws, as amended.
Mr. Summer requested that the County Treasurer comment prior to the public hearing.
Judy Floyd, County Treasurer, advised this would be a costly law, and the law needs to be amended to make it so a county can afford it. Ms. Floyd’s cost estimate based on 12,000 parcels was:
Postage $ 47,000
Forms and envelopes 20,000
3 employees 110,000 (includes fringe)
Office equipment 18,000
Office expenses 3,000
This is a total of $195,000. No software has been written, and two companies have told her that it would be very expensive because of the details and the implementation.
Ms. Floyd advised the payments would have to be 16 1/3%, which would amount to a total of 6 payments. The first mailing goes to everyone, where they would either opt in or opt out of the payment. They are given a schedule and return envelopes, and each time they make a payment, you have to give them a current balance.
The sixth payment is to balance the amount owed. If they have overpaid, the County pays them back, and if they have underpaid, they pay the balance by January 16.
Mr. Dawkins felt the taxpayers should have the privilege to pay in advance but the State needs to clarify the law before enacting it.
Mr. Hawkins asked if the State law required the County to pay interest on this money. Ms. Floyd thought that would only apply if the County had not paid it back within 45 days.
Mr. Baker asked if this was pre-payment or starting in January. Ms. Floyd advised this was pre-payment, and it was too late for 2007 because the first payment would have to be made by February 15th.
Mr. Livingston stated this would add another 2 to 2 ½ mills just to put a program in place, which probably won’t be utilized much to start with. This is probably a reaction to the high taxes this year, which hopefully will be curtailed some in the future. He didn’t feel this was something to benefit Newberry County tremendously.
Mr. Adams addressed the issue of cash flow and understood this money would not be available for cash flow. Ms. Floyd stated it would not be available until January 16. Mr. Adams advised it was of no value to the County and is a negative value to those who participate.
Mr. Hawkins stated it was too late for 2006. We can get ready for 2008 and that first letter to people telling them of this option, should they choose to go this route, could be in the tax bill that goes out prior to 2008.
Mr. Livingston said if the tax bills go out on time, people could make preparation for it.
Mr. Summer called for the public hearing.
Louis Neiger stated his understanding was there would be tax relief by the school general fund because the state fund is taking over 1%. He felt this should be done on a year-to-year basis because if we are looking at a 2 to 2 ½ mill increase just to implement this, he wants the mills reversed by at least 50 to 60 mills and not add another 2 ½ mills. Don’t add more cost. Just do this on a year-to-year basis.
Mr. Neiger said he had comments that Sheriff Lee Foster sitting in the front does intimidate people in wanting to come up to speak. Mr. Neiger requested that Council have Sheriff Foster sit in the back. He has received comments in just the last thirty days about his presence and he is only passing this on to Council. Mr. Neiger had no problem personally with Sheriff Foster.
Harold Broughton stated the taxpayers of Newberry County are being asked again to take another blunt of $195,000 to implement a system that does absolutely nothing for anybody in Newberry County. Mr. Broughton stated he had heard not one word tonight about what else Council has come up with to cut the taxes. The taxes have to be cut, and everything he has heard is raising them with absolutely no benefit.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Summer declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Caldwell felt the comments from Mr. Neiger were inappropriate, very much out of line and unprofessional.
Mr. Baker moved for second reading. No second. Motion died.
10. Ordinance #01-06-07 An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning
Map established pursuant to Zoning Ordinance #12-24-01, codified in Chapter 153
of the Newberry County Code of Ordinances, so as to rezone a tract containing
approximately 4.65 acres, designated as a portion of TMS Parcel No. 347-35,
from Rural (R-2) to General Residential (RG).
[7905 Hwy 395. No
recommendation from Planning Commission.]
Mr. Waldrop moved for first reading; second by Mr. Caldwell.
Anne Peters, Zoning Administrator, advised that when this request came before the Planning Commission and a motion was called for, no motion was made. The Planning Commission thought it had died at that time, but apparently it still comes before County Council for consideration.
Mr. Pope stated the drawing of the proposed subdivision showed one-half acre lots with a 20 foot wide road. It didn’t look like it would meet our subdivision regulations to begin with and particularly with the 20 foot wide road. The Planning Commission thought that by giving it no vote it would die, but under State law if they had not forwarded their report to County Council, it would have been automatically approved. That is the reason it had to come before Council with no recommendation.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Summer called for the question. Voting for first reading: None. Vote against first reading was unanimous. Motion for first reading failed.
11. Ordinance #01-07-07: An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning
Map established pursuant to Zoning Ordinance #12-24-01, codified in Chapter 153
of the Newberry County Code of Ordinances, so as to rezone a tract containing
approximately 1.24 acres, designated as TMS Parcel No. 288-22, from Light
Industrial (LI) to General Commercial (GC).
[123 Bush River Road. Planning
Commission recommends approval.]
Mr. Waldrop moved for first reading; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
12. Ordinance #01-08-07: An Ordinance authorizing the issuance of not
exceeding $2,400,000 aggregate principal amount of Hospital Revenue Bonds
(Newberry County Memorial Hospital) Series 2007; authorizing the execution and
delivery of a loan agreement and an indenture of trust; authorizing the
appointment of a financial institution acceptable to the County, as Trustee;
authorizing proper officers to do all things necessary or advisable; and other
matters incidental thereto.
Lynn Beasley, NCMH CEO, asked Council to begin the process of authorization to the hospital to borrow not to exceed $2,400,000 through tax exempt financing and the issuance of hospital non-taxable bonds through the County of Newberry. The hospital is not requesting the County to obligate any tax dollars for the purpose of securing this debt or use taxpayers’ monies to pay off these bonds. That will be the responsibility of the hospital to do so.
Approximately $1.29 million is proposed to be used to replace infrastructure within the hospital for such major things as boilers, which are original equipment dating back to 1976 and are very energy inefficient. The energy savings will pay for that in approximately eight years.
John Boozer, NCMH, reiterated that they are trying to replace the infrastructure of the hospital mechanicals. This has no implications for any county property tax, and the hospital is not asking for any tax revenues to subsidize the arrangement. These modifications will reduce the hospital’s energy usage index, and therein lies the basis for the repayment. This project would pay for itself in about 8.2 years because of the energy savings we would enjoy from these mechanical modifications. This project replaces two boilers with three energy efficient boilers, upgrades the cooling powers and installs variable speed motors on the fans.
The other portion of the $2.4 million deals with the one cents sales tax deficit for the laboratory expansion. We are trying to borrow that money and hold on to the cash the hospital has on hand.
Mr. Beasley advised the estimate for the savings on energy alone would be about $150,000 per year.
Steve Sawyer advised the hospital currently has approximately 60 days cash on hand. The intent is rather than take the operating cash of the hospital and reducing that by 28 days, borrow that. At the current rate we can borrow at about 4 ½%. Right now on the hospital’s investments, the hospital is getting a 7% return, for an overall total on the return of 4.6%. If you look at that turn around time over a 10 year period, we would actually earn enough interest to pay all the interest of this bond during that 10 year period. If we can invest the money at 4 ½% and borrow the money at 4 ½%, that is the way the hospital needs to go. We need to keep some of the cash reserve on hand for certain circumstances and emergencies.
Mr. Caldwell moved for first reading; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
13. Resolution #01-07: A Resolution making application to the State
Budget and Control Board of South Carolina for approval of the issuance by
Newberry County, South Carolina, of Hospital Revenue Bonds (Newberry County
Memorial Hospital) Series 2007, in an aggregate principal amount of not
exceeding $2,400,000, pursuant to the provisions of Title 44, Chapter 7,
Article 11, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as amended.
Kathy McKinney, bond counsel for NCMH, advised as part of the process this Resolution had to be submitted to the State Budget and Control Board for approval.
Mr. Dawkins moved to adopt the Resolution; second by Mr. Waldrop. Vote was unanimous.
14. Resolution #02-07: A Resolution consenting to the assignment of
the Fee in Lieu of Taxes Agreement dated December 15, 2004 between Newberry
County and International Paper Company.
Mr. Pope advised that the International Paper Company was being sold to a Canadian company.
Melody Harrison with International Paper Company advised the Canadian company already has two facilities in Arkansas and Louisiana, and they have purchased 13 lumber mills throughout the southeast, and we are one of them. The other two International Paper facilities in Silverstreet and Prosperity will continue to be International Paper. Our facility is the only one being sold. We are very excited about it and feel it will be very good for us.
Mr. Hawkins moved to adopt the Resolution; second by Mr. Waldrop. Vote was unanimous.
14.1 Acceptance of bids for monitoring wells at old landfill.
Mr. Adams advised that DHEC requires Newberry County to maintain the monitoring wells at the old landfill. Bids were taken and the low bid was from Environmental Drilling & Probing Services in the amount of $9,175. Staff has concluded they are qualified to undertake this project.
Mr. Waldrop moved to accept the bid from Environmental Drilling & Probing Services in the amount of $9,175; second by Mr. Hawkins. Vote was unanimous.
15. Committee Reports.
Mr. Caldwell reported on the SCAC Lobby Day for Newberry County.
Airport Commission: Mr. Baker reported that the State would take bids for grading of the new runway this month.
16. Appointments.
Mr. Hawkins recommended the reappointment of Bob Snelgrove to the Board of Rural Fire Control as the representative from St. Phillips Fire Department.
Mr. Caldwell recommended the reappointment of Clarence Chick to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
There being no further appointments, Mr. Waldrop moved to accept the nominations presented; second by Mr. Livingston. Vote was unanimous.
17. Submission of names for Citizens Advisory Committee.
Mr. Adams stated the objective of this committee was to get a well rounded representation of the community to act as a sounding board in discussions of important issues before the County. The method by which Council did that was to collect two persons from a various number of sectors (as listed below). The Council members drew by lot for which appointments they would make. Another goal was to provide representation from citizens who wanted to volunteer to serve on the committee. Those names were put in a hat and Council members were allowed to pick from that hat the names of who would serve to represent the citizens who signed up. One name is missing at this time – Mr. Dawkins has one name to fill from the Agriculture sector.
The following persons have been nominated for appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee from the various sectors as listed:
a. Edgar Baker:
Real Estate Development – Mary A. Arrowood
Small Business Ownership – Michael Thomas
Industry – Blake Johnson
Non-Profit Organizations – Teresa Epps
b. John E. Caldwell:
Industry – Wayne Nichols
Infrastructure – Vina Abrams
Religious Community – Rev. Wayne Pratt
Agriculture – Frances Linder
c. John David Dawkins:
Medical Services – Lynn Beasley
Home Ownership – Doris Cubitt
Municipal Government – O.L. “Buddy” Johnson
Social Workers – Kathy Brehmer
Agriculture
d. Mike Hawkins:
Finance – Mike Davenport
Real Estate/Development – Terry Koon
Public Education – Lisa Toland
Social Workers – Gloria Lemus
e. Henry H. Livingston, III:
Law Enforcement – Charles E. Counts
Public Education – Hugh Gray
Small Business Ownership – Ted Waites
Home Ownership – Tom Crooks
Non-Profit Organizations – Jerry Coffey
f. Henry B. Summer:
Finance – Benjie Chapman
Municipal Government – Andrew Shealy
Senior Citizens – Phil Epps
Senior Citizens – Peggy Schumpert
g. William D. Waldrop:
Law Enforcement – Jerry Wright
Medical Services – Dr. Corey Hunt
Infrastructure – Brent Richardson
Religious Community – Richard C. Crump, Sr.
h. The following names were drawn at random from the volunteer list:
Donnie Sligh (drawn by Henry B. Summer)
Terry Cotney (drawn by William D. Waldrop)
Stuart Peters (drawn by Edgar Baker)
Carl Marr (drawn by John E. Caldwell)
Vickie Mays (drawn by Mike Hawkins)
Mr. Baker moved to accept the nominations as presented; second by Mr. Livingston.
Mr. Dawkins inquired as to the duties of this committee and how often they would meet. In looking at the January 3 meeting Mr. Livingston alluded to appoint a committee to study the reliability of the reassessment. Mr. Dawkins’ assumes one of their first duties would be to look at the reassessment that has just recently begun to see if it was reliable or not since that is the motion that Mr. Livingston made.
Mr. Summer advised at the Retreat Council would discuss other matters that this committee would also handle.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Summer called for the vote. Vote was unanimous.
18. Consideration of approval of Agreement for Engineering Services between Newberry County and TRC Engineers, Inc. for Pugh Road Bridge.
Mr. Dawkins stated this bridge was located on Pugh Road between Highway 76 mid-way between Prosperity and Little Mountain and Macedonia Church mid-way. This road is several hundred years old and is a county road. The bridge went out approximately 2 ½ years ago because of a storm, and the bridge hasn’t been replaced. The County has not yet authorized an engineering company to get certain permits through DHEC and Corp of Engineers, etc. to see what the cost of replacing the bridge would be. We had a similar situation on Pineland, up in Bill Waldrop’s area, and the County paid for the engineering studies for that bridge. The County asked the County Transportation Committee (CTC), and they approved $175,000 to replace that bridge. It was not replaced by property tax money, but by gas tax money. Mr. Waldrop, Mr. Andy Morris and Mr. Dawkins met with the CTC requesting funds be granted. The CTC stated they would look at it but needed to know the scope of the work. Pugh Bridge would not be the scope of work that Pineland Bridge was. The CTC requested that the County pay for the engineering studies. Senator Cromer also appeared before the CTC and requested that this be paid from gas tax money rather than property tax money so it wouldn’t be a tax burden on the citizens.
Mr. Dawkins stated there were 11 houses on Pugh Road and two different developments. A lot of lots have been sold on this road that people will build on. If you are on one side of the bridge, you have to go around because of crossing the bridge, which is approximately 6 ½ miles out of the way. On the other end to go around, it would be 4 ½ miles. It also hinders EMS and law enforcement. It is a legal county road and the County has been maintaining it as long as Public Works has been in existence. Even though the bridge is washed out, we still have the legal obligation to maintain that road. We cannot legally close that road without going through the proper process. There are signs up but the community is upset because they don’t say, “temporary closed – bridge out.” It just says “road closed.” We had one bridge out where they went through the barricade and down into the river but they have backed the barricades back.
Mr. Dawkins moved to go ahead and accept the bid from TRC Engineers, Inc. (who also did the engineering studies for the Pineland Bridge) at a cost of $37,583, which includes the project manager, design, construction documents, expenses of survey, wetlands permitting, etc.
Mr. Summer asked if the money was in the budget or where the money would come from.
Johnny Willis, Road Foreman with the Public Works Department, stated it would come from the Public Works budget and they hoped to be reimbursed from the CTC.
Mr. Dawkins stated there was no promise on the engineering study that the CTC will reimburse that. That needs to be perfectly clear and not stated in the paper that the CTC will reimburse it.
Mr. Waldrop seconded Mr. Dawkins’ motion.
Mr. Livingston asked if there was a total cost for the replacement of the bridge. Mr. Dawkins didn’t feel this bridge would be in the scope of Pineland.
Mr. Waldrop asked Mr. Willis if the Public Works budget was okay with this figure. Mr. Willis said it was.
Mr. Livingston asked when we would know the total cost. Mr. Dawkins said the engineering study had to be done first and then it would be bid out.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Summer called for the question. Vote was unanimous.
19. Consideration of approval of
Agreement for the Enforcement of Certain County Ordinances by Newberry County
within the Town of Silverstreet.
20. Consideration of approval of
Agreement for the Enforcement of Certain County Ordinances by Newberry County
within the Town of Peak.
21. Consideration of approval of
Agreement for the Enforcement of Certain County Ordinances by Newberry County
within the Town of Pomaria.
22. Consideration of approval of Agreement for the Enforcement of Certain County and Municipal Ordinances by Newberry County within the Town of Little Mountain.
Teresa Powers, Economic Development Director, explained that these items involve the County implementing the building inspection programs for various municipalities in the County, and specifically in Little Mountain, Peak, Pomaria and Silverstreet. Building inspection is mandated by the State and all municipalities and counties have implemented the International Building Code. It is unrealistic to expect municipalities of these sizes to bring on personnel to do this for themselves so they tend to be contracted out with the County to implement building codes in their municipalities. The way it is set up there would be no cost to the municipality, but the County would keep any kind of building fees that would be involved in these inspections. The enforcement would go through the County system and any penalties or fines imposed regarding building inspections would be maintained by the County. We do not foresee this involving any additional personnel or cost for the building inspection department. The system is already in place. We do zoning enforcement for Little Mountain, Peak, Pomaria and Prosperity already.
As part of this, we have also included animal control and the exotic animal ordinance. That department is not directly under Ms. Powers, and she could not speak as to how it would affect their operations. It was her understanding that it would allow them to enforce the animal control and exotic animal ordinances within the municipalities and to do any kind of enforcement as required.
Mr. Baker moved to vote on agenda items 19 through 22 as one item.
Mr. Livingston asked who the catalyst was behind this. Ms. Powers advised that building codes are mandated by the State. The municipalities have to enforce those, and they understood the County would do this, and this formalizes it.
Mr. Livingston asked if each of these municipalities had recently requested that we adopt the agreements for them. Ms. Powers said they have asked and each Town Council has reviewed these and had discussions. She has talked with each Town Council and they are asking the County to implement this on their behalf.
Mr. Pope advised they were mandated by State law to have this service, and we are the only ones who can provide it to them. As a matter of custom and practice, County ordinances cannot be enforced inside a city limit unless the city asks them to. This formalizes the relationship so we can provide a service to the taxpayers in those areas.
Mr. Hawkins seconded Mr. Baker’s motion. Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Baker moved to approve the agreements for Silverstreet, Peak, Pomaria and Little Mountain; second by Mr. Hawkins. Vote was unanimous.
23. Discussion of Rescue Squad 14 project revenues.
Chris Johnson with Rescue Squad 14 discussed the redistribution of the Public Works funds. Funds have already been distributed to Prosperity Fire Department in the amount of $87,070. Consolidated received funds from the redistribution in the amount of $78,968. Lake Murray received funds from the redistribution in the amount of $290,000.
Rescue Squad 14 has received an estimate showing their project can be done for what their current budget is now. If the Public Works funds are taken from them, they will have to revamp what can be done, if anything at all, with the building.
The other departments have already received the redistributed funds, and they have spent them so there is no getting that money back. Mr. Johnson asked that Council leave the Rescue Squad14 budget as it is so they can fund the project at no further cost to the County, unlike the other projects outside of the Public Works funds, CTC funds and Board of Rural Fire Control funds.
Mr. Adams asked if the Haz-Mat building would still be done separately. Mr. Johnson stated Rescue Squad 14 was allotted $444,000 with the additional funds from the redistribution of the Public Works funds, but when Haz-Mat was taken out of the project, $120,000 was taken away, leaving a balance for Rescue Squad 14 of $324,000. The estimate they have received is for $289,000, which does not include the site prep fees or permits.
Mr. Dawkins stated the $120,000 was put in the mix to include Haz-Mat at the time this building would be built to add additional bays; however, that funding of the $120,000 is non-existent. It never was created. It never was in our budget. We are not getting $120,000 back from Haz-Mat because it has never been created. Mr. Dawkins calculated the total budget for the project, if in fact distributing more sales tax into the project of $209,000, the total project budget starts at $444,000. Mr. Johnson stated was correct but that was before taking out the $120,000 for Haz-Mat’s portion of the building that the County said they would pick up. That is no longer going to be done because Haz-Mat is not building with us so that was taken away from the $444,000, which comes up to $324,000 budget.
Mr. Dawkins stated the one cent sales tax voted on by the people was $190,000. The first cost to build the building was $606,000, lacking $416,000 ($218,000 over budget), but then it was reduced down to proposed build $444,000 at a difference of $209,000. The $209,000 would be coming from what the people voted on for the Public Works Complex. Consolidated, Prosperity and Lake Murray received funds from that. Mr. Dawkins wanted Council to be clear that was before all of these big meetings at the Opera House, and he thought they said to continue on with the capital projects on what amount of money they voted on when the Library was cut and all of that. Mr. Dawkins asked if this meant the Library was back on the table for extra funds. He just wanted a clarification. He didn’t want Council saying one thing at a big crowd at the Opera House of what we are telling the people we are going to do and come back here with business as usual. He just wants the people to know that are here tonight that you are talking about redistributing $209,000 of sales tax money.
Mr. Johnson’s understanding was that Council voted not to do was seek out the extra bonds for the additional $144,560, and that we would go back to nothing but the proceeds from the one cent sales tax, Board of Rural Fire Control and CTC. That wouldn’t include the additional $144,000 from bonds, which you decided not to go forward with. As far as the overbid on the project initially versus what was designed from $190,000 to $600,000, Mr. Johnson cautioned Council to look at the design layout that Rescue Squad 14 offered when they requested the building and then the design layout that DSP came up with of what they thought the Rescue Squad needed, which is completely night and day. They included bunk rooms and double showers and two offices. It was a lavish building, which is not what we requested. Mr. Johnson took the original design back to the people who gave us the quote to request the one cent sales tax, and they said in putting the building codes passed since approved and the increase in construction costs since approved, we can still do the building within budget of what we currently have, which does not include any future bond referendums or any additional money that would be added to the County’s taxpayers. It could be built strictly from the budget already there and not any additional bonds.
Mr. Caldwell asked if the building was located on Johnstone Street. Mr. Johnson said it was. It was an old 1960 filling station.
Mr. Caldwell asked what kind of disservice it would be if the building were not funded. Mr. Johnson said they are currently fixing to have to put the ambulance out in the weather. The City of Newberry Fire Department has been kind enough to allow us to house the ambulance there. The current building does not allow for any type of construction changes to allow the truck to fit in there outside of letting the airbags out of it and backing it in, and it is just a matter of time before you are asking for an accident. There is no heat in the building; no security as required by Homeland Security. The front bay door is off the hinge. It has been welded numerous times and continues to break. That is money coming out of the Rescue Squad 14 fundraising that the members have worked for.
The Rescue Squad has several programs in line. We have several members who are going to teach CPR on the weekends free to the public. We have plans but we can’t invite the public into the building we are in now for fear they will get hit by ceiling tiles. There is no heat and it is not conducive to teaching anything that may further the County, the citizens, or our members.
Mr. Caldwell said we funded not too long ago what some of us consider the Taj Mahal building. Even with the renovations of this building, it won’t be close to that. Mr. Johnson said this building could not be renovated and do justice to the money spent. It would be putting paint on a bad situation already. It will make it look pretty, but it will still be an unfunctional building.
Mr. Baker said Newberry Rescue Squad is the busiest rescue squad in Newberry County. They have the worst building in Newberry County. If they don’t deserve a building, nobody does. They need something up there. We gave already allocated $209,000 on top of what they had to put them in a building. Everybody else has gotten theirs from the Rescue Squads and Fire Departments, and Newberry should get theirs along with the rest of them.
Mr. Dawkins wasn’t saying they didn’t deserve a building. The people asked us to look at ways we could save money. There are 7 Rescue Squads in Newberry County. Five of those Rescue Squads are housed in the same building as the Fire Department. There are only two that are not housed where you have only one utility bill; only have to buy one generator; maintenance and insurance. If you look at this beginning budget, it looks like if you house 4 agencies in that one building you come up with $1.7 million. Lake Murray houses the fire department, the rescue squad, an EMS substation, and a Sheriff’s substation, which is 4 units for $1.1 million.
Mr. Adams asked for clarification. Was the CTC amount of funding of $15,000 and the Board of Rural Fire Control funding of $30,000 specifically for the Rescue Squad 14 building? Mr. Johnson indicated that was correct. They received $190,000 from the one cent sales tax, $15,000 from the CTC, $209,000 from the Public Works redistribution, and $30,000 from the Board of Rural Fire Control, which came to $444,000. We were wide open with going with another department and making a dual department out of it. We never balked or disapproved of it. It was either some Council members or the department itself that decided that wasn’t going to be what they wanted to do, and that is the reason that money was taken back out.
Mr. Adams confirmed that in effect Mr. Johnson was only asking for $89,000 of the $209,000 redistribution because $120,000 of that was for Haz-Mat. Mr. Johnson indicated that was correct; they were only asking for a total of $324,000.
Mr. Adams asked if the interpretation of Council’s instruction is that we would only spend funds for projects for which those funds were specifically approved, then there would be no funding for Haz-Mat because the $120,000 is part of the $209,000 redistribution from the Public Works. It was not approved on the ballot. Mr. Dawkins stated the $120,000 was not included in that. Mr. Baker stated the $120,000 was put in the budget but was never funded.
Mr. Adams stated that Mr. Johnson was taking it out of his expenses. Mr. Johnson confirmed they were taking it out of the expenses from the Public Works redistribution.
Mr. Adams stated the only thing not approved for them is the $209,000, and Mr. Johnson wants $89,000, and the Haz-Mat building was $120,000. Where does the $120,000 go if it doesn’t go for Haz-Mat? Mr. Johnson said they were trying to do what was based on the budget so we backed out $120,000.
Mr. Adams stated that might be an error of staff in budgeting that $120,000 from that amount of money, but what is certain is that he is only asking for $89,000. Mr. Johnson stated they were asking for the $89,000 to make their budget up to $324,000. The Rescue Squad owns and operates our building and property, and that would be sold and the funds put into a budget to help finish our building out of our own pockets and not the County.
Mr. Adams asked Mr. Johnson if he planned to go through a procurement process. Mr. Johnson said they would still go through the normal process. The company in Columbia is a design build company. It is an architect and construction company all under one roof, which saves us money. They were the ones nice enough to donate their time and figures to help us come up with a budget without having to spend County money to pay for an architect.
Mr. Adams asked if this was going to become a building of the County. Mr. Johnson said either the building would become ours until the point that either the Rescue Squad ceased to exist or we move from that location and then it would revert back to County ownership, or let it stay a County building and then the County could pay for the repairs.
Mr. Dawkins stated it was County property tax so how could it be anything but a County building. Mr. Adams said funding has been given to other projects where we didn’t retain ownership. If the answer is that it is a County building, then the design build process raises a question do we have oversight in the building of the building that is satisfactory to the County Council since the building is going to be our building. Mr. Johnson said the County could maintain its ownership or hand over the project. The only thing they are asking is that this type of company be looked at as far as the bid process because it has come in much lower on the bid process than any of the regular construction companies and architects that all the other buildings were designed. Mr. Adams said not only this company but this method, design build as opposed to using an architect. Mr. Johnson said they have a history of building fire and rescue stations all over North Carolina and South Carolina so this isn’t a fly by day company. They are grounded in the State.
Mr. Adams advised they had staked off an area on the Fairgrounds.
Mr. Baker stated the County ordinance says if you build anything by the County, you have to get three bids. Mr. Johnson agreed with that, but they want to go with a design build company to bid on it. Mr. Baker stated for a design build company to bid on it, you aren’t talking apples to apples. Another design build would do something different.
Mr. Adams said if it is going to be another method of construction, it is different from what the County has done with the oversight of an architect for the previous projects and also with project management from Carter Goble Lee. What does the Council think if we go with design build best protects its interest in terms of oversight of construction?
Mr. Hawkins stated we are talking about County property at the Fairgrounds and $190,000 that the people voted on from the penny sales tax. We are talking about $89,000 that came from Public Works; $15,000 from the Transportation Committee; and $30,000 from the Board of Rural Fire Control. Somebody is asking the question “Is this going to be a County building?” Who is asking the question?
Mr. Adams stated he was asking the question because the method proposed here for the construction, the oversight of it is different from those projects the County has already implemented. You have two areas of oversight with these projects that have already been done or are underway. There is an architect approving the payment to the contractor, and there is Carter Goble Lee doing the construction project management. In this method the contractor will determine whether he should get paid or not. There is no oversight other than the contractor with design build.
Mr. Hawkins moved to take a ten minute break; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.
[BREAK 8:55 P.M. – 9:15 P.M.]
Mr. Summer called the meeting back to order and asked the County Attorney, Mr. Pope, for clarification of the $209,000, which is part of the sales tax money.
Mr. Pope stated the $209,000 was part of the redistribution from the Public Works project, which Council adopted by Ordinance #10-36-06 as a supplemental appropriation. That did not include anything for Haz-Mat. At the work session Council held on August 30, 2006 Mr. Dawkins moved to leave Haz-Mat at the City Fire Department and that the County work with the City to add a bay. That vote was unanimous. Haz-Mat was taken out of the Rescue Squad 14 at that point. What you had in this ordinance including the County debt, which was the 9 mills added, was $588,560, but you take out the $144,560 and come back to $444,000, which is the amount Council voted on for Rescue Squad 14 by ordinance.
Mr. Summer stated the original vote on the sales tax project was $190,000 and then part of the Public Works project was redistributed over to Rescue Squad 14 so it is all part of the penny sales tax. Mr. Pope confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Adams understanding was that either all of the $209,000 or none of it belongs to this project. Mr. Pope advised that was correct. The question from the Administrator was there was some question as to whether the $209,000 had been affected by some of the votes, but the ordinance has not been amended. The $209,000 is left intact for Rescue Squad 14.
Mr. Adams asked if there was $120,000 somewhere else for Haz-Mat. Mr. Dawkins stated it was never allocated.
Mr. Hawkins asked about reallocating the $209,000. Mr. Pope said it was done by ordinance and Council would have to reallocate it by ordinance. Design build is not something currently in the County’s procurement ordinance. The State Supreme Court says if you do design build, it has to be done a certain way and make certain findings. In order to do that the procurement ordinance may have to be amended to put in design build. Until you actually find out the cost of this project, you won’t know exactly how much money you need. What Mr. Johnson is saying that a good bit of money left over and at that time you could reallocate it.
Mr. Adams asked if this was going to be a County building, was the Council comfortable with the level of oversight provided by design build. Under that arrangement the architects work for the builder, and they say whether the builder has met his obligation to construct the building well, and they say it is time to pay the builder. They work for the builder. With the method by which we have been doing these projects an architect works for the County and says that these specifications have been met and the construction is done in a quality way so you have that level of oversight, which you don’t have in design build. We have another layer, which is project management through Carter Goble Lee. Mr. Pope has raised the additional question of whether we can do that under our procurement ordinance.
Mr. Hawkins asked if it would be in order to make a motion right now that this is going to be a County building. Mr. Summer stated it would be a County building because County dollars are going in it. Mr. Johnson stated the Rescue Squad was not arguing that; it would be the County’s. The only thing they want to do is house their members and trucks in it.
Mr. Adams stated when this is done it will be the County’s product. Are you satisfied with the design build concept in the way that it will be done and the oversight you would have?
Mr. Summer said because of design build you are putting a lot of trust in the person who is doing the design build. Before you decide on design build you have to be sure you are looking at somebody that has a reputation for doing a good job. You don’t have a third party independent architect supervising the project.
Mr. Pope said you would have to amend the procurement bid to allow for design build. There are certain factors you have to find according to the Supreme Court in order to utilize that process.
Mr. Johnson said there are plenty of companies out there to bid on design build. We still have control over the bids and the specs we draw up so the County will still have control over how it is designed.
Mr. Adams advised the architect would draw the specs. Mr. Johnson said the County would still have the approval over the specs. Mr. Adams stated you would do an RFQ that describes a general broad scope of work of what you are trying to achieve. You will take submittals from interested design build firms, and you will look at what each one of them presents. At the point where construction occurs, it is the architect who works for the builder who says it is done well.
Mr. Johnson asked if it did not still have to pass the county building inspection. Mr. Adams stated you could pass building code and still have not such a grand building. The building codes are very minimal. That has nothing to with the County’s inspectors. It has to do with the fact that the building code has very minimal requirements and is not the performance most of us would expect in a project that we were paying for.
Mr. Summer stated there seem to be a lot of issues to be worked on before moving forward such as design build versus non-design build; should we fund or not fund the project; how do we do it; do we need to change the procurement code. Mr. Summer said he would entertain a motion to postpone this and work on it and come back at either the next meeting or the retreat to work out the details so when we vote on something we know what we are voting on.
Mr. Johnson’s concern was that the project has been postponed for three years now and that is the reason the costs have been run up. Our ambulance is about to be out in the weather, and the building is falling in. Mr. Johnson strongly discouraged any postponing and move forward one way or the other.
Mr. Baker said if we couldn’t go forward with the way to build it, he would like to go forward with the funding.
Mr. Baker moved to fund this building at what they are asking and take up the design build or whatever later; second by Mr. Caldwell.
Mr. Summer asked if the funding was $444,000. Mr. Baker said that was correct.
Mr. Adams advised the Haz-Mat building is also approved as part of that ordinance. Mr. Waldrop stated we were not funding Haz-Mat right now. Mr. Johnson said at a later time Council could add on to the building for Haz-Mat but right now it is not in the specs.
Mr. Livingston had a hard time with the fact that we have one building that apparently is coming in at budget and understands the design build concept creating a problem to an extent but if this is coming in at budget, how much is the third party costing to administer this stuff. Mr. Johnson stated it was $34,433 just for the DSP budget.
Jack Grimes with Carter Goble Lee stated that was not an actual figure. That is based on 7% of the construction costs. Mr. Prothro is only charging 7% of the original project way back when. As the projects grew, his fee did not grow. His fee will stick with the original budget.
Mr. Livingston stated there would be recourse since the design build people are bonded. Mr. Adams stated that would be on the back end rather than on the front end of approving the payment for the quality of work done. If Council is comfortable with that, that is fine. Mr. Adams’ reservation was design build works well and arguably saves money where you have an in-house expert who can look after the County’s interest. You had this experience with the Courthouse where the County Administrator then looked after the County’s interest with respect to a design build project. Council’s experience would mean more than Mr. Adams’ reservation. Mr. Adams didn’t know anyone on staff who was qualified to look after this builder to say he has done a good job and he is exercising fidelity to the specifications. The big expert in this mix will be the builder’s architect.
Mr. Johnson advised they had offered to meet with Council. The consensus of Council was for them to meet and discuss this.
Mr. Dawkins asked if Mr. Johnson came in tonight requesting $324,000. Mr. Johnson understood they had $324,000. Mr. Dawkins said we are fixing to pass and give them $444,000. What is wrong with that picture? The motion is to fund them at a cost of $444,000 when they are asking for $324,000. Mr. Johnson said they were not asking for $324,000; they were told that was all they had because the rest was coming out for Haz-Mat. Mr. Dawkins said earlier Mr. Johnson indicated they could build what they wanted for $324,000, but if they had $444,000 would they use all of that. Mr. Johnson said they would not; they would turn back what was not used into the County. They were not changing their design and were not changing what they were building. The extra money would be turned back into the County.
Mr. Grimes stated the figure Mr. Johnson had is for construction costs. This does not include soft costs, which would average around 35%. Soft costs include testing, engineering support, permits, fees, etc. The $324,000 is not the actual cost of the project. That is what has happened to a lot of these projects.
Mr. Livingston agreed with bringing the people in but he wants a solid cost before making a final decision.
Mr. Baker stated of the $444,000, we are talking about $399,000 from the sales tax; $15,000 from County Transportation; and $30,000 from the Board of Rural Fire Control. Coming out of Council’s money right now is $399,000.
Mr. Johnson said even if the construction cost is $324,000 and with the engineering and soft fees, they would still not run over budget near like the other projects.
Mr. Grimes was not saying they didn’t have the money to do it; we just need to consider all of the costs.
Mr. Livingston was not arguing they were going over budget. Based on how many projects bid recently, he wants a firm answer.
Mr. Dawkins said anything over $190,000 is over budget as far as the other projects. Mr. Baker said $190,000 is over budget when Mr. Dawkins’ went over $600,000.
Mr. Baker said this is the only group he has talked to who said give us what you can and we’ll do what we can and we’ll finish it at a future date. Mr. Johnson said their membership has offered to do the painting or whatever to cut costs. Mr. Baker said no other group has ever offered that.
Mr. Dawkins said he met with all of them. He met with Newberry Rescue Squad at the beginning when all of the projects went over budget and requested what they would be able to give toward a project – zero. Prosperity Fire Department themselves gave $10,000 toward their building. The Town of Prosperity gave $23,000. Prosperity Rescue Squad has nothing to do with the fire department, but they gave $5,000. Lake Murray gave $10,000; the Rescue Squad gave money. Every department he went to except Newberry Rescue Squad so Mr. Baker is totally wrong. Mr. Johnson said Council was welcome to their financial records, and if they had the money to give, they would give it.
Mr. Baker asked how much Fairview contributed to their building. Mr. Dawkins said $10,000.
Mr. Baker asked how much was it over. Mr. Dawkins said by percentage of overruns Fairview was toward the bottom of overruns. Mr. Summer said this could be discussed later.
Mr. Hawkins asked if the $30,000 from the Board of Rural Fire Control could be pulled out for the Silverstreet request coming up next. Mr. Pope advised they could have first reading of an ordinance to amend this ordinance to do whatever it was they wanted to do.
Mr. Dawkins advised that according to information from Carter Goble Lee Rescue Squad 14 came in 218.95% over budget, Consolidated 77.12% over budget, Lake Murray 40.74% over budget, and Prosperity Fire Department 38.92%. Mr. Johnson said that was based on two different designs; the one they offered and the one the County’s architect offered, which is the reason it was so high over budget.
Mr. Summer asked if Council needed to take some of the Board of Rural Fire Control money that is currently budgeted for Rescue Squad 14, did Mr. Johnson have a problem with that. Mr. Johnson said if they were funded at $444,000, there would be no problem at all.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Summer called for the question. Voting for the motion: Councilmen Summer, Waldrop, Caldwell, Livingston, Baker and Hawkins. Voting against the motion: Councilman Dawkins. Motion passed by majority vote.
Mr. Waldrop moved to approve the location at the Fairgrounds; second by Mr. Baker.
Mr. Dawkins said 5 of the 7 rescue squads are housed with another department. Friendly Fire Department has offered for them to build on the same lot as the fire department, which is centrally located. Why disturb another piece of property when that lot is ready.
Mr. Waldrop said at one time there was talk about Friendly being enlarged. Mr. Dawkins said Friendly doesn’t have the best station and you could add on this building you are about to build.
Mr. Baker stated Newberry Rescue Squad asked for a piece of property and didn’t understand why Council was now fighting and trying to tell them where to go.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Summer called for the question. Voting for the motion: Councilmen Summer, Waldrop, Livingston, Baker and Hawkins. Voting against the motion: Councilman Dawkins. Councilman Caldwell abstained.
23.1 Sheriff’s Office
Building on Highway 219.
Mr. Livingston said Mr. Baker read a statement at the January 3, 2007 meeting into the record and stated there was never any reaction to his statement. Mr. Baker stated that was correct.
Mr. Livingston then read the statement into the record:
“As you all know, the County has sued W.E. Baker & Son, Inc. and me personally for money damages in connection with the building. Before suit was filed, we tried to reach an agreement with the County that would have allowed us to make repairs to the building, at our expense, but the County rejected our proposal. Since the suit was filed, we have continued to try to reach an agreement that would allow us to make repairs. The County allowed us to visit the site one time and do some work we recommended, which we did as soon as we were given an opportunity. We asked to be allowed back onto the property to evaluate the effectiveness of our repairs and to do some more work, if needed. Several months have gone by and the County has never given us that opportunity. By deciding to sell the property “as is,” the County has essentially prevented us from trying to help. We still want to solve this problem, if there even is one, but I have personally been excluded from the County’s decisions, and we cannot do anything more as long as the County refuses to cooperate with us.”
Mr. Dawkins stated the County’s response was in the paper.
Mr. Livingston has had several constituents call and ask if a person has made an offer that would cost the County absolutely nothing, why would the County not take him up. There were two independent engineering firms that made recommendations and suggestions for that to be done. Mr. Livingston asked Mr. Baker if he would do the repairs as outlined by the independent engineering firms.
Mr. Baker responded there were two engineering firms; one by the County and one by him. The one by the County is ridiculous and wants to tear out all exterior walls and replace them including masonry, studs, sheetrock. Mr. Baker’s firm says several feet of the inside can be taken off, clean it up, put it back and it is finished. If they can negotiate with each other, Mr. Baker would be willing to go.
Mr. Dawkins stated our lawyer responded and it has been published in The Newberry Observer and requested that Mr. Adams read it into the record. [Clerk to Council left to get a copy of the response.]
24. Consideration of
requested change order for Silverstreet Fire Department.
Mr. Waldrop met with the Silverstreet Fire Department about the problem with the overhead doors. They thought the doors would have glass in them. When the bid was sent out, it was for solid doors. The glass doors will be a cost overrun of $5,707.
John Pollard, Chief of Silverstreet Fire Department, stated when this project was started several years ago plans were drawn up by them to include solid glass doors on the station. Since then it has been redrawn, and the doors came back with one glass panel in the middle. The members of the fire department would like to have solid glass doors.
Mr. Grimes advised there is money in contingency for this and no additional funds are needed from the County. They just need approval of a change order.
Mr. Waldrop moved to go forward with the change order in the amount of approximately $5,707 to install glass doors in front of the fire department; second by Mr. Livingston. Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Pollard stated the second part of the change order is that the front of the new building will be brick. The bricks for the new building were donated at no cost to the County whatsoever. With the two buildings sitting side-by-side, they want to change the brick on the old building. The work consists of removing existing brick and hauling off, installing the brick, provide regular gray mortar, 22 ga. corrugated wall ties, rework gable trim and side trim as required, repainting of certain items, for a total cost of $11,077.
This money is also in the contingency account and they only need approval of a change order.
Mr. Livingston moved to approve the change order for the brick; second by Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Baker said there was no increase in money but that didn’t mean there would not be an increase. There is a contingency fee right at $20,000. We don’t have money going off this table to him, but in the end we aren’t going to have any coming back to this table either. The contingency could come back but you are fixing to use most of it. It is a cost.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Summer called for the question. Voting for the motion: Councilmen Summer, Waldrop, Caldwell, Livingston and Hawkins. Voting against the motion: Councilmen Baker and Dawkins. Motion passed by majority vote.
Mr. Adams read the response of Frank Smith, the County’s attorney, regarding the Sheriff’s Office on Highway 219 into the record:
“County Council has requested that I respond to Mr. Baker’s statement provided at the January 3, 2007 council meeting regarding the pending lawsuit between Mr. Baker and County Council relating to the sheriff’s office. County Council has retained the engineering firm of H2L Engineers to inspect the building and to determine the scope of repairs necessary to correct the building defects. This information has been provided to Mr. Baker and he was given an opportunity to make the repairs recommended by H2L Engineers.
It was the County’s original intent to allow Mr. Baker to make repairs to the building. Unfortunately, Mr. Baker does not want to perform the repair scope recommended by our expert. We do not believe that the repairs proposed by Mr. Baker will correct all defects in the building. Further, at Mr. Baker’s request, he was allowed to make minor roof repairs. The effectiveness of those repairs is still in question.
Since we have been unable to reach an agreement with Mr. Baker regarding the scope of repairs, the County has decided to seek bids for the repairs. Mr. Baker will be allowed to participate in the bidding process along with any other interested contractors.
The County has cooperated with Mr. Baker and will continue to cooperate with him; however, the County must ensure that the building is repaired properly. It cannot accept a lesser scope of repairs that “might” correct the defects.”
There was a line in the response nullified by Council because Mr. Smith was not aware of concerning the procurement ordinance, which now disallows Council members from bidding on projects. The stricken line is “Mr. Baker will be allowed to participate in the bidding process along with any other interested contractors.” Again, that was stricken from the original statement.
25. Executive
Session (if needed).
a. Personnel
matter regarding Assessor’s Office
b. Legal
advice concerning the J.F. Hawkins Nursing Home, the Eagle Container lawsuit
and Magistrate.
Mr. Waldrop moved to go into Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter regarding the Assessor’s Office and to receive legal advice concerning the nursing home, the Eagle Container lawsuit and the Magistrate; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION 9:58 PM. –
10:45 PM.]
Mr. Hawkins moved to return to open session; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Adams reported that Council was briefed and it was made clear that the disciplinary action taken with regard to the Assessor’s Office is not related to the incident that occurred at the Assessor’s home on January 31 to which the law enforcement agencies responded.
Mr. Summer advised that Mr. Pope briefed Council on some legal matters at the nursing home, the Eagle Container lawsuit (which is going to the Supreme Court), and a former Magistrate.
26. Future
Meetings:
a. February
21, 2007, 7:00 p.m.
b. March
7, 2007, 7:00 p.m.
c. March
10-11, 2007 (Planning Retreat to be held in the Conference Room at Springfield
Place – times to be announced)
Mr. Summer announced future meetings of February 21 and March 7 and the Planning Retreat on March 10 and 11.
27. Comments from
County Administrator.
No comments.
28. Comments from Council Members.
Mr. Hawkins said the agenda had not been changed to reflect it, but a few months back we allowed the press to ask questions before we left and didn’t know if we wanted to continue that.
Mr. Dawkins has been approached by several constituents as far as tax relief items and budget reductions and if Council members have any other budget cuts or tax relief, it should be on the next agenda.
Mr. Summer said we discussed increasing the Homestead Exemption for county purposes, and we have talked about giving back the loss from the State reimbursement for the first $100,000 but we can’t go forward with that until we get the Tax Anticipation Notes repaid and our cash flow gets better. Those are the things we have discussed and approved in theory.
Mr. Dawkins said when the budget cuts were made at the last meeting at the Opera House, comments were made by Council that this was just the beginning of budget cuts, and if there are more budget cuts, we need to hear them; if not, we need to say there are no other budget cuts or any cuts.
Mr. Summer allowed questions from the press.
29. Vote for Adjournment.
Mr. Waldrop moved to adjourn. Vote was unanimous.
30. Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M.
NEWBERRY COUNTY COUNCIL
_________________________________
Henry B. Summer, Chairman
_________________________________
Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council
APPROVED: FEBRUARY 21, 2007