NEWBERRY COUNTY COUNCIL
MINUTES
JUNE 12, 2008
The Newberry County Council met on Thursday, June 12, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at the Courthouse Annex, 1309 College Street, Newberry, SC, for a regularly scheduled meeting.
Present were: Henry B. Summer, Chairman
William D. Waldrop, Vice-Chairman
John E. Caldwell, Councilman
Mike Hawkins, Councilman
John David Dawkins, Councilman
Edgar Baker, Councilman
Henry H. Livingston, III, Councilman
Wayne Adams, County Administrator
A.J. Tothacer, Jr., County Attorney
Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council
Debbie S. Cromer, Finance Director
Press: Cindy Pitts, The Newberry Observer
Jimmie Coggins, WKDK
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. Adams had the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. Executive Session to discuss personnel
issue concerning County Coroner’s Department.
Mr. Baker moved to go into Executive Session to discuss a personnel issue concerning the County Coroner’s Department; second by Mr. Livingston. Vote was unanimous.
[EXECUTIVE
SESSION 7:05 P.M. – 7:51 P.M.]
Mr. Waldrop moved to return to open session; second by Mr. Livingston. Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Summer reported discussions were held with James O. Smith, Coroner, regarding the workload in the Coroner’s office since the passing away of Mr. Tommy Hedgepath. The County Administrator will be working on this matter.
2. Personal Appearances:
a. Request from Newberry
Historical Society and Museum for temporary use of part of the Fairgrounds
property to store old farm equipment.
Phil Spotts, on behalf of the Newberry County Historical Society and Museum, requested permission to store old farm equipment given by Bill Ballentine to the Historical and Museum Society in buildings at the Newberry County Fairgrounds up to three to five years.
Mr. Livingston asked how available it would be for viewing of the citizens of the County while in that location. Mr. Spotts said as much as they could get volunteers because they don’t have a paid staff. They have a number of people who would be happy to open it if a group wanted to see it. Mr. Livingston felt this would be great for the local schools and senior group tours. He did express concern about the security at the fairgrounds.
Mr. Caldwell felt it would be a great asset to the county due to the location of Newberry County. Something like this does not come every day, and this would be an educational advantage.
Mr. Spotts said if they didn’t find a place for the farm equipment, eventually it would have to be auctioned off, and it would be a shame to lose all of this equipment.
Mr. Hawkins said Council was first told they were looking for a place to store but if you are going to display it that will take more room. Mr. Hawkins asked if it would fit in that building to display. Mr. Spotts said there were some big pieces of equipment that they probably wouldn’t use because it is too bundle some and too big to be moving around. If they had a big place to go permanent, they probably would. There are so many smaller things that can be displayed and should be displayed, and it would be a shame to let it get out of our county.
Mr. Waldrop asked how much space he would need. The auction area was just one wing. Mr. Spotts said he might need more than one wing and asked if there was not some inside space from the wing.
Mr. Adams said we are talking about going into some of the space we planned to rent, which is part of the resolution we discussed last evening. Mr. Dawkins said we already have rental commitments on some of the buildings for different events.
Mr. Dawkins moved that Mr. Spotts and the Historical Society get with the County Administrator to work out some temporary/permanent housing to possibly create a museum; second by Mr. Hawkins. Vote was unanimous.
b. Request from Harry Greisser concerning
rezoning from RS-1 to RS-1A.
[This portion of the meeting typed verbatim.]
Mr. Greisser: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council, I suspect you are about fed up with some of us talking about this subject. I am going to beg your indulgence a little bit more. It seems as I get older I get more easily confused. And I am in a state of confusion right now. It seemed to me that at the end of the last Council meeting we had finally after a year of debate and negotiation come to a resolution of this thing on RV restrictions in our community. As you know, our community has made a strong argument. We produced a lot of documentation from members of our community that we wanted to keep the RV restrictions that we had under the original RS-1 zoning category. RS-1A looked to be a good compromise. Our folks would be happy with it, and after the last Council meeting I sought guidance on what to do next. I was told to contact the County Clerk and get it on tonight’s agenda for a first reading to rezone from RS-1 to RS-1A. Contacted the County Clerk and she told me what I really needed to do was make a presentation tonight and so I am here to get this thing started and get rezoning of our community to RS-1A, which was the whole point. It is almost as though RS-1A was specifically designed for our community.
But I came tonight and got some additional guidance that said no, we got to go back to the Planning Commission and then after going to the Planning Commission all of the properties have to be posted and that we are looking at a minimum of another three months of process. Now, you know, it appears to me that we keep having procedural roadblocks thrown in front of us and so I hope that we can pursue this more expeditiously.
Let me just for the moment say that very candidly the Zoning Commission is not very supportive of what we’ve been doing. And if we go back to the Zoning Commission I would not be surprised if they come back and say no we don’t support this, which means that we would have to go back and marshal all of the folks in our community again and come back to County Council again and present arguments all over again as to why we really want to keep the restrictions that we currently have.
And as far as posting all of the properties it seems to me that that is a short walk from a referendum and we were told referendum is not the way to go on this; that really this needs to be done by County Council.
Mr. Waldrop: Right.
Mr. Greisser: So I guess I am looking for some additional guidance on where we go from here. If we have to go through all the process steps again, needless to say we will because the intention is very clear from the community what we want to do.
Mr. Waldrop: Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement?
Mr. Summer: Yes.
Mr. Waldrop: We have our new attorney here. I did not realize this was the way it was supposed to be. I thought we had the opportunity tonight – the authority – the County Council to go forward with an RS-1A. That’s what I thought.
Mr. Greisser: I thought that was the whole point.
Mr. Waldrop: Maybe he can enlighten me of why we can’t do this, our new attorney.
Mr. Tothacer: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Waldrop, as much as it pains me to say this having just come out of an executive session, what you are asking for would call for me to render close to a legal opinion to you. And it is my practice that I don’t do that in an open session. So if you would like to discuss it, and I am aware that folks have already sat through for some time, I would have to recommend that you go into an executive session for the receipt of legal advice, and I will be glad to answer that question in that format.
Mr. Waldrop: Well, I for one, I don’t really care about going into executive session on this issue. And we don’t have to, do we? Why would you have to go in executive session?
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, if I may Mr. Waldrop. The Planning Commission has a role with every zoning ordinance. It has to go before them. They get a thirty-day comment period under the law. Every zoning ordinance takes that path. And then there has to be three readings and the properties do have to be posted. All of that is required in law.
Mr. Greisser: That may be but if memory serves me right we had a group from South Pointe come in and ask to be changed from whatever they were zoned – I think they were zoned RS-2 or something – to RS-4. And that zoning category was created and they were put into RS-4 quicker than – there is a rural expression about a goose and it was that slick. So how come they could get it done that easily, and we can’t?
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Waldrop: Yes, sir.
Mr. Summer: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: It was my understanding that when the RS-1A zone was created, that true, at least I was told, that the communities up there would have to be rezoned; however, as far as posting every piece of property out there, I was also told that at the entrance of the subdivisions there would be one sign. The property owners would be notified in writing of the zoning change, but you wouldn’t have to individually put up a hundred signs. It would be one –
Mr. Greisser: At the two entrances.
Mr. Dawkins: Right. It is only two entrances. And true it would have to go before the Planning Commission and whether they are for it or not, it still comes before this body. And three the County Council to my knowledge does have the legal right to have first reading by title only to change all of these subdivisions. And it only has to go to the Planning Commission prior to a public hearing here. I believe that is correct we’ve done before. We could actually have I know one reading, if not two, but we couldn’t have the public hearing and the third reading until the Planning Commission blessed it one way or the other. So to save time, I think that we can have a first reading tonight and meanwhile be sending it to the next meeting of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Adams: This is a map amendment essentially so what guidance will you give the staff on the –
Mr. Greisser: We can tell you specifically that we are talking about an area that is bounded by Arrowhead Point Inlet – this is on Lake Greenwood – Arrowhead Point Inlet to Pineland Road Bridge. From Pineland Road Bridge to County Line and County Line from Pineland Road to the Lake. It is a specific area that has been defined RS-1 since zoning began, and I am sure that Ms. Peters could come up with the zoning map coordinates for it, but it is a very clear – it involves four developments. The four developments are Summerset Bay, Summerset Point, Windmill Landing and Waters Edge.
Mr. Waldrop: Right.
Mr. Greisser: Any other questions?
Mr. Summer: Any other questions?
Mr. Baker: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on this thing. If we ever talk about this – we are seeing four of y’all up here almost every meeting at least.
Mr. Greisser: At least, and there could have been more and we haven’t brought more. Instead we brought documentation showing their intent.
Mr. Baker: I know. Mr. Greisser, my point is we have – what is that 1% of the population in that group?
Mr. Greisser: That’s a mis-statement of the facts, sir. The fact is that we have 100 properties in our immediate POA, and we had 85 self-directed letters. Not form letters, not solicited. Self-directed letters that we presented to County Council showing that they did not want their RV restrictions changed. Now we could have brought in 30 or 40 people but that would be an inappropriate thing to do. We – Instead we presented the documentation.
Mr. Baker: Okay. So that is about 80 out of 100?
Mr. Greisser: 85 out of 100.
Mr. Baker: But to change the whole thing, wouldn’t we need everybody?
(Several persons answer no at the same time.)
Mr. Dawkins: Just on any zoning, Mr. Baker, you would have a first, second and public hearing and the people against the zoning change certainly has the right to appear before Council and state the reasons but -
Mr. Greisser: We had advice of the County Administrator that it should not be a referendum; that it was up to County Council.
Mr. Waldrop: Right.
Mr. Greisser: He told us that if we did it by referendum that we would run into problems with the State.
Mr. Adams: You could. You could run into problems.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Adams, how many readings can we have prior to – prior to the public hearing or the time frame as far as going back to the Planning Commission? I mean – actually we could have two readings as long as we don’t have the public hearing until after the Planning Commission has heard the –
Mr. Greisser: The Planning Commission meets next week.
Mr. Adams: I am not sure that the law states anything on that.
Mr. Greisser: The Planning Commission meets on the 17th.
Mr. Dawkins: Ms. Peters, is that correct? The County Council would actually have –
Ms. Peters: Yes, they meet next Tuesday.
Mr. Dawkins: I know but County Council could actually have one reading or two readings as long as we don’t have a public hearing prior to the Planning Commission hearing this case.
Ms. Peters: I should probably refer to legal counsel on that. (did not come to microphone and all of her comments not picked up).
Mr. Dawkins: Okay. I know we have had at least one reading, if not two, and my understanding through the previous counsel was that as long as we don’t hold the public hearing which you got to have the public hearing before third reading, that’s why I assume you can do two readings and we could go ahead and proceed. But that is not even – I mean if the Planning Commission meets next week, and we get it on the agenda, I see no reason why we couldn’t have first reading tonight on the rezoning from the RS-1 to the RS-1A and at least cut down one meeting right there.
Mr. Greisser: The only additional thing I would say is that through all of this we finally came to a conclusion by designing RS-1A specifically to meet these – the needs of this community. What was the point if we are not going to make this change?
Mr. Waldrop: That’s right. It’s just a situation here – an issue here with one individual that I know of, and you do have other lots that the same thing could happen if we don’t do something about the situation.
Mr. Greisser: And that’s not to say that he doesn’t have one or two people that would support him.
Mr. Waldrop: Right. We are talking about 75% - 80% of the population in that – those housing developments up there do not want RVs in their area. They already have a – I think in Summerset you do have a regulation already – from the developer that this individual can pull a million dollar camper in there if he wants to or a $200 tent, I guess.
Mr. Greisser: Yeah, but that’s not the -
Mr. Waldrop: That’s not the problem.
Mr. Greisser: Because C&R is separate. This is county policy.
Mr. Waldrop: Right. So it is not a big issue here. We are talking about maybe two places in the whole county. One maybe in – at Lake Murray and one on Lake Greenwood. We are not talking about – I think some of the City might be this way, and you go to use some common sense with this situation. I think they will up there in this area. Most of these homes in this area pay a lot of taxes to this county. They are not – and we certainly don’t want to – for them to come before the Assessor’s office and say well my property is valued too high because of a situation that we have here. That could happen.
Mr. Greisser: Yes.
Mr. Waldrop: That’s the way I look at it, and we don’t want to go through that situation - issues. So what I am thinking we need to do at this time is to make sure that this area of the county – these three subdivisions – or four and part of them are already under this RS-1A really. It’s just a couple of them that are not. That they understand that the people who buy lots in there that they will not be able to put a tent on this property. If they purchase it, they will have to build a stick-built home. Am I right?
Mr. Greisser: Right. That’s right.
Mr. Waldrop: That’s what all this discussion is about period.
Mr. Greisser: And by the way, if I could just add, having a premier residential zoning code on the books in this county is good for the county because there is going to be other developments coming in who will look at that and say oh yeah, okay, we can have an RS-A for retirees coming in or for –
Mr. Waldrop: Whatever.
Mr. Greisser: Industrial growth.
Mr. Waldrop: That’s all – and I feel like these people have a legitimate reason to be here in argument with us – debate with us. That we need to look at this issue here and go forward as quick as we can to go from RS-1 to RS-1A in this situation.
Mr. Greisser: It has dragged on a long time.
Mr. Waldrop: Yes, sir.
Mr. Summer: Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Hawkins: Mr. Chairman, I move that we do everything we can to expedite this change. If that requires getting legal advice, that we do it under agenda item number seventeen and that we not take a break right now.
Mr. Waldrop: Okay. That’s fine.
Mr. Summer: All right. The question that I would have for y’all to think about is, you know, since the Planning Commission is going to be meeting next week do you want to have first reading tonight or do you want to wait until the Planning Commission meets?
Mr. Hawkins: We can do that after we get some legal advice.
Mr. Summer: Okay. Any other comments? All right. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Greisser: Thank you.
3. Additions, Deletions and Adoption of Agenda.
Mr. Adams requested the following additions:
Mr. Waldrop requested that Council go forward with the bulldozer right now.
Mr. Summer made the bulldozer 3(a).
Mr. Waldrop asked about the other resolution.
Mr. Summer said we would do both of them right now.
Mr. Baker requested that the amendment for the money for the Rescue Squads to go to Emergency Services Board. He wanted to amend that to go to the Board of Rescue Squads instead of the Emergency Services Board. Mr. Dawkins said that would be done during the budget reading.
There being no further amendments to the agenda, Mr. Waldrop moved to adopt the agenda as amended; second by Mr. Livingston. Vote was unanimous.
3(a) Resolution #09-08: A Resolution to express the intention of the County Council of Newberry County, South Carolina, to cause Newberry County to be reimbursed for certain costs for the acquisition of equipment with the proceeds of tax-exempt obligations.
Tommy Whitehead, Public Works Director, requested the bulldozer in his budget for this year starting in July. Because of the continuing problems and repairs to the old bulldozer, Mr. Whitehead requested that Council go ahead and authorize the purchase of the new bulldozer under a lease purchase arrangement.
Mr. Dawkins moved to go ahead with the lease purchase of the bulldozer; second by Mr. Baker.
Mr. Adams said if Council is amenable to purchasing it and it is in the third reading version of the budget, and was in the first two readings, also, the better course would be for us to purchase it and to pass the reimbursement resolution. That way we don’t tie ourselves to financing with the lender. We can get cheaper money than they can.
Mr. Dawkins said that would be his motion and that we go ahead and pass Resolution #09-08. Prior to a second to the motion Mr. Adams requested that Crystal Waldrop, Purchasing Director, be allowed to present the bids. In addition our new industry needs help in clearing a road into their construction site at the new Industrial Park, and we could go ahead with that.
Crystal Waldrop, Purchasing Director, recommended the acceptance of the low bid from Komatsu in the amount of $84,550. Mr. Adams said we needed approval to accept the low bid and to pass the reimbursement resolution.
Mr. Dawkins so moved; second by Mr. Baker. Voting for the motion: Councilmen Summer, Caldwell, Livingston, Baker, Dawkins and Hawkins. Voting against the motion: Councilman Waldrop. Motion passed by majority vote.
3(b) Resolution #08-08: A Resolution establishing use charges and regulations for certain county-owned properties.
Mr. Adams reviewed the resolution involving charges for the use of Newberry County Fairgrounds, Community Hall and Helena Community Center. As discussed, the civic clubs currently using Community Hall would pay a flat $50 fee per meeting. That would cover all clean up, set up charges and the use of the building. We changed the vendor space rental to be per event rather than per day at the Fairgrounds. There is language on page 5 regarding the consumption and possession of alcoholic beverages on these properties. The consumption and possession of alcoholic beverages is limited to wine and beer at the Newberry County Fairgrounds and to wine only at Community Hall. The Community Hall Commission is strong on this point. They would like to keep it just wine at Community Hall. The consumption and possession of alcoholic beverages would be prohibited at the Helena Community Center. The hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to midnight, and there was a question about the coon hunters and the fact that they camp there overnight and we needed the phrase, “unless specifically extended by special permit from county administration.” Mr. Adams stated also on page 5, next to the last point, the phrase was added “unless permitted under paragraph 6, subparagraph (a)(4).”
Mr. Hawkins moved to approve the resolution; second by Mr. Waldrop. Vote was unanimous.
4. Ordinance #05-13-08: An Ordinance to provide appropriations for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2009 for the Newberry County Library, Piedmont Technical College and the Newberry Agency for the Developmentally Disabled; to provide for the levy of taxes on all personal and real estate properties in Newberry County for said purposes; to provide for the expenditure of said taxes and other revenues coming to the County during said fiscal year for said purposes.
Mr. Hawkins moved for third reading; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
5. Ordinance #05-14-08: An Ordinance to provide appropriations for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008 and ending on June 30, 2009 for the Newberry County Budget for County Ordinary purposes and for other County purposes for which the County may levy a tax and receive revenues; to provide for the levy of taxes on all taxable personal and real property in Newberry County for all County purposes, including sufficient tax to pay the principal and interest on outstanding indebtedness of Newberry County payable during said fiscal year; to provide for matters relating to Newberry County; and to provide for the expenditure of said taxes and other revenues coming to the County during said fiscal year, and to provide for the borrowing in anticipation of tax collections by the issuance of one or more Tax Anticipation Notes.
Mr. Hawkins moved
for third reading; second by Mr. Livingston.
The following amendments were presented to be
considered en bloc (“in one lump’) for purposes of amending the budget for
third reading.
1. Proposed Amendment – As indicated below,
amend Section III. CAPITAL BUDGETS of the FY 08-09 general operating budget by
including “NEWBERRY RECYCLING CENTER as listed below:
|
Capital
Budget |
|
|
Newberry
Recycling Center |
|
|
(Third
Reading Amendment Version) |
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
SC DHEC
Tire Grant |
50,000 |
|
SC DHEC
Used Oil Grant |
30,000 |
|
Lease-Purchase
Funding |
89,500 |
|
Restricted
Carry Forward FY 07-08 |
114,685 |
|
|
|
|
Total
Revenues |
284,185 |
|
|
|
|
Expenditures |
|
|
|
|
|
Construction |
|
|
Paving |
90,500 |
|
Fencing |
20,000 |
|
Electrical
and Wiring for Compactors |
10,000 |
|
Attendant
Station |
15,000 |
|
Septic
Tank/City Sewer Connection |
7,500 |
|
Water
(tap, line, backflow prevention) |
3,000 |
|
Monitoring
Well |
2,500 |
|
|
|
|
Construction-Related
Costs |
|
|
Engineering |
11,138 |
|
Construction
Management |
5,197 |
|
Construction
Contingency |
14,850 |
|
Soils
Testing |
5,000 |
|
Landscape
Buffer |
5,000 |
|
Topographical
Survey |
1,500 |
|
Permitting |
1,500 |
|
Signage |
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
Equipment
Costs |
|
|
40-yd.
Compactors (2) w/ Addl. Receivers |
68,000 |
|
20-yd.
Roll-Off Containers (3) |
21,500 |
|
|
|
|
Total
Expenses |
284,185 |
Explanation of Proposed Amendment: For the construction of a new solid waste recycling/convenience center, fund line item 010-010-08111-04190 (convenience center capital) in the amount of $114,685 by reducing line item 010-010-08130-04150 (building maintenance) by $34,685, and by carrying forward $80,000 in restricted grant-match funding from FY 07-08.
For the equipment needs of a new solid waste recycling/convenience center, fund line item 010-010-08111-04100 (convenience center equipment) in the amount of $15,440 by reducing line item 010-010-15000-02011 (council contingency) by $15,440.
2. Proposed Amendment – The amendment
provides for revised appropriations for the County’s Fleet maintenance
contractor, First Vehicle, reflecting the company’s requested consumer price
index adjustment of 3.7%.
Explanation of Proposed Amendment: In order to fully fund
fleet service maintenance, increase
contracted services for fleet maintenance (expenditure line item 010-010-08120- 02021 by $11,661, from $416,817 to
$428,478; reduce County Council Contingency (expenditure
line item 010-010-15000-02011) by $11,661.
3. Proposed Amendment - The amendment
provides for revised appropriations for the legal department’s budget,
appropriating funding for enough work hours to qualify the county attorney’s
position for state health insurance.
Explanation of Proposed Amendment: In order to fully fund
sufficient hours to qualify the county attorney’s position for health insurance
benefits, increase the following line items in the legal department’s budget by
a total of $12,317, as follows:
Expenditure Increases
Increase expenditure line item
010-010-01200-01010 $10,500
Increase expenditure line item
010-010-01200-01110 $ 803
Increase expenditure line item
010-010-01200-01120 $ 986
Increase expenditure line item
010-010-01200-01200 $ 28
Total $12,317
Expenditure Decreases
Reduce expenditure line item
010-010-01200-02090 $12,317
Total $12,317
4. Proposed Amendment - The amendment provides
for revised appropriations for the County’s service contract, which
covers the router to SLED.
Explanation of Proposed Amendment
- In order to fund the service contract, increase
contracted services (expenditure line
item 010-010-07200-02050 by $1,344 from $50,800 to $52,144;
reduce County Council Contingency (expenditure line item
010-010-15000-02011) by $1,344.
5. Proposed Amendment – The amendment, in the form of a Proviso, instructs county administration that capital funding for rescue squads
($105,000 in FY 08-09) be distributed among the various rescue
squads based on recommendations of the Board of Rescue Squads, rather than the
appropriation being evenly divided among them.
Explanation of Proposed Amendment – Council has expressed
the desire to have this appropriation
distributed among the seven rescue squads based on actual needs, as determined by an independent body,
recognizing that some of the squads have greater capital need than others.
Amendment Proviso Language -
BOARD
OF RESCUE SQUADS
PROVIDED that the division of
current-year appropriations for capital purchases among rescue squads ($105,000 in FY
08-09) shall reflect recommendations of the
Board of Rescue Squads and the Emergency Services Coordinator to the County
Administrator. The County Administrator shall present these recommendations
to Council prior to the
expenditure of these funds.
6. Proposed Amendment - The amendment provides
for clarification in Section III. Capital Budgets to include a section for
Lease Purchase Capital as recommended by bond counsel.
Explanation of Proposed Amendment – The Resolution passed by County Council will enable the County to be eligible for reimbursement of any expenditure authorized by lease purchase.
LEASE PURCHASE CAPITAL FY 08-09
REVENUES AMOUNT
Lease Purchase Proceeds FY 08-09 $ 1,622,000
TOTAL $
1,622,000
EXPENDITURES AMOUNT
Communications Lease Purchase Proceeds $ 162,500
Rescue Squads Lease Purchase Proceeds 162,500
Board of Rural Fire Control Lease Purchase Proceeds 412,500
Public Works Lease Purchase Proceeds 85,000
Collections Lease Purchase Proceeds 89,500
Ambulance Lease Purchase Proceeds $ 710,000
TOTAL $ 1,622,000
Mr. Livingston requested an additional amendment
putting a moratorium on establishing the additional shift of EMS until
additional information can be gathered from all stakeholders via a work
session. That is not to take the money
out of the budget. It is to leave it in
there. It is just for clarification on
a couple of issues before that process is implemented.
Mr. Summer called for the vote on amendments 1-6
first. Mr. Hawkins moved to adopt
amendments 1-6; second by Mr. Livingston.
Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Summer asked Mr. Livingston if his amendment
was to leave the money in the budget but get clarification on how it would
operate. Mr. Livingston said he did not
want the money taken out of the budget because it is something we will carry
through with. He just wants to make
sure we have some clarification.
Mr. Livingston so moved; second by Mr.
Waldrop.
Under discussion, Mr. Dawkins understood the
money would be kept in the budget but we already stated this would be a roaming
and that the Emergency Services Board would make determinations as to whether
this particular ambulance for the extra 12 hours would be stationary or
roaming, and we have not said where it would be. Mr. Dawkins asked if the question was whether we needed a third
ambulance in the county and he would have to vote against it. We have already stated publicly and in the
recorded minutes that the money is in there and the Emergency Services Board is
going to look at the implementation of this 12-hour.
Mr. Livingston wanted to make sure all facts
were correct on the actual number of calls, etc. What are actual emergency calls and what are just other calls and
things of that nature that were brought to his attention that may be in
question before proceeding and the location.
Mr. Summer called for the question. Voting for the motion: Councilmen Summer, Waldrop, Caldwell,
Livingston and Baker. Voting against the
motion: Councilmen Dawkins and
Hawkins. Motion passed by majority
vote.
After discussions as to scheduling a work
session and no consensus being reached, it was recommended that Mr. Livingston
contact Bill Grigsby regarding his concerns.
After those discussions if Mr. Livingston still had concerns for him to
contact Mr. Summer and a work session could be scheduled at that time.
Mr. Dawkins moved for third reading as amended;
second by Mr. Livingston. Vote was
unanimous.
6. Ordinance #05-17-08: An Ordinance acting on a request 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 two tracts containing a total of 4.31 acres designated as TMS Parcel Nos. 339-4-54 and 339-3-55, from General Commercial (GC) to Single Family Residential (RS-1).
Mr. Summer called for the public hearing. Misty West signed up to speak, but when
called upon said she would only speak if there were questions. There being no questions, Mr. Summer
declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Dawkins moved
for third reading; second by Mr. Waldrop.
Vote was unanimous.
7. Ordinance #05-18-08: An Ordinance acting on a request 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 a total of one acre designated as TMS Parcel No. 698-24, from Single Family Residential (RS-1) to General Commercial (GC).
Mr. Summer called for the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Mr.
Summer declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Livingston
moved for third reading; second by Mr. Livingston. Vote was unanimous.
8. Ordinance #06-19-08: An Ordinance authorizing certain economic incentives, including payment of a fee in lieu of property taxes and other related matters, pursuant to a Fee Agreement between Newberry County, South Carolina, and Trucast, LLC, a Limited Liability Company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 44, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as amended, for a project involving an investment of not less than $5,000,000.
Mr. Hawkins moved
for second reading; second by Mr. Livingston.
9. Ordinance #06-20-08: An Ordinance acting on a request 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 10 tracts containing a total of 19.34 acres designated as TMS Parcel Nos. 335-25, 335-50, 335-53, 335-55, 335-56, 335-58, 335-60, 335-76, 335-77, and 335-80, from Single Family Residential (RS-1) to Single Family Residential (RS-3).
Mr. Baker moved
for first reading; second by Mr. Hawkins.
Vote was unanimous.
10. Committee Reports.
No committee reports.
11. Appointments.
No appointments.
12. Acceptance of bids for single/triple
treatment of county roads. Bids, which
are based on unit pricing, were due June 10 at 3:00 p.m. The County Transportation Committee will determine
roads to which this paving will be applied on June 18.
Mr. Adams advised that Mr. Whitehead had to leave the meeting for Public Works reasons.
Crystal Waldrop, Purchasing Director, said it was the same vendor. Only one bid came in at $2.36 per square yard and $1.16 for the single treatment per square yard. (Vendor name was never announced.) There is also a listing of roads, which Ms. Waldrop did not have.
Mr. Livingston stated the handout on the roads stated that the County Transportation Committee was asking permission to improve the surfaces of the roads. The roads listed on the handout were: Bill Dominick Road, Hanging Oak Drive, Blade Runner Road, Holly Circle 1 & 2, Jack Wilson Road, Lang Wise Road, Benson Drive, McFall Drive, Milner Road (Island Ford to Sam Point), Arbor Knoll Road, Hidden Valley Road and Boyd Road. (Copy of list attached).
Mr. Baker moved to accept the bids; second by Mr. Livingston. Vote was unanimous.
13. Consideration of approval of Joint Law
Enforcement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding between Newberry County
and the Town of Whitmire.
Major Todd Johnson stated this Agreement had already been approved by Whitmire Town Council that would allow their officers to assist the Sheriff’s Office in the Whitmire area. There are donut holes where one house might be in the city and the next house in the county and the next in the city, and it causes problems with jurisdictional issues. They can get there much more quickly if we are in another area of the county tied up on a call. This is an agreement between the governing bodies to allow us to authorize them to go out and standby for us until we can get a deputy on the scene.
Mr. Baker moved to approve the agreement; second by Mr. Waldrop. Vote was unanimous.
14. Consideration of approval of
recommendation of Newberry County Accommodations Tax Committee for disbursement
of funds for tourism related and promotional.
Mr. Dawkins moved to accept the recommendation as presented; second by Mr. Livingston. Vote was unanimous.
15. Requests by Councilmen.
No requests.
16. Public Comments (by those who signed up at the meeting)
Sam Martin presented an additional 200 signatures for the no property tax petition. He got all of these signatures personally and except for three, they are all registered voters.
He requested that Council reconsider and go ahead and put this on the ballot.
17. Vote for
Executive Session, When Necessary.
Mr. Baker moved to go into executive session for legal advice on the RS-1A rezoning request and on the video poker issue; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.
[EXECUTIVE
SESSION 9:15 P.M. – 10:00 P.M.]
18. Executive
Session.
Mr. Baker moved to return to open session; second by Mr. Waldrop. Vote was unanimous.
19. Necessary
Action on Matters Discussed in Executive Session.
Mr. Tothacer reported that County Council went into executive session to receive legal advice. No action was taken in that session.
20. Comments
from County Administrator.
Mr. Adams welcomed Jay Tothacer as Interim County Attorney.
Mr. Adams also thanked Debbie Cromer, Finance Director, for her work on the budget over the past three months.
20. Comments
from Council Members.
Mr. Dawkins proposed having first reading of the RS-1A rezoning request. After discussing it with the Attorney and Planning Director, he felt it advisable not to have the first reading tonight and it go before the Planning Commission this Tuesday, and they go ahead and start all of the paperwork and get it ready. It will be submitted to the Planning Commission on Tuesday and come back to Council. Approximately 150 letters have to go out and that process needs to get started.
Mr. Livingston thanked Wayne and the staff for the work on the budget.
Mr. Waldrop appreciated the work by the staff on the budget.
Mr. Waldrop agreed with Mr. Dawkins on the issues discussed on RS-1 and RS-1A. His understanding is that things will work out for the best and they will be meeting next week on this issue. He hopes it will work out to the interest of the people in the community.
Mr. Summer thanked the staff for the hard work on the budget. He also reminded Council, the County Administrator and Teresa Powers that Monday, June 16, at 9:30 a.m. is On the Move with Margaret Brackett on WKDK.
Mr. Hawkins welcomed Jimmie Coggins with WKDK, who was attending the meeting tonight.
22. Future
Meetings:
Council meeting on July 2, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Summer reminded Council of On the Move with Margaret on June 16 at 9:30 a.m.
23. Adjournment.
Mr. Baker moved to adjourn. Mr. Summer declared the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
NEWBERRY COUNTY COUNCIL
________________________________________
Henry B. Summer, Chairman
________________________________________
Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council
APPROVED: