NEWBERRY COUNTY COUNCIL

MINUTES

NOVEMBER 14, 2007

The Newberry County Council met on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 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 Dawkins, Councilman

Edgar Baker, Councilman

Henry H. Livingston, III, Councilman

Wayne Adams, County Administrator

Gary T. Pope, County Attorney

Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council

Debbie S. Cromer, Finance Director

Press: Cindy Pitts, The Newberry Observer

Heather Hawkins, WKDK

Donna Bumgarner, Whitmire News

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. Report from Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Proposed Purchase of Old Wal Mart Building (Wilson Road) and Its Conversion to Use for Law Enforcement and Judicial Purposes.

Mike Davenport, Chairman of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee, reported for the past six months the Committee has been studying the current situation of the Sheriff’s Office. Accordingly, the Committee’s recommendation is that the County purchase the old Wal Mart Building on Wilson Road as well as the parking lot directly in front of the building extending out to Wilson Road. There is some sentiment among the Committee for purchasing the entire shopping center and extending the County’s facilities accordingly.

A price of $1.15 million has been agreed to in principle for the Wal Mart Building and the entire parking area in front of it. There are estimates of $1.75 million for upgrades to the building structure for roofing, size re-enforcement, heating, ventilation and air conditioning. Beyond that $2.2 million is the estimated cost for finishing out the interior space sufficient to house the Sheriff’s Office. In total the planned initial outlay associated with this building is $5.1 million. The proposed financing vehicle would be the installment purchase method. If financed over 20 years, the projected annual debt service would be approximately $400,000, or about 4 tax mills. For this the County would have a 13,000 square foot space for a completely self-contained up-to-date Sheriff’s Office and an additional 60,000 square feet for future expansion and for the potential inclusion of a number of other County agencies.

Cost was not the Committee’s only consideration in evaluating this purchase. The Sheriff assured the Committee that the location presented no ingress or egress barriers either for his offices or for use by the public. The County’s purchase of this property would also enhance the overall viability of the surrounding vicinity, spurring economic development on the remaining buildings located on the site and in the adjoining area.

Taking into consideration the opportunities the purchase of this property brings the County as well as what the Committee felt was a fair price for the building that would ultimately house a number of County agencies, the consensus of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee was to recommend that Council empower Mr. Adams to proceed with negotiations with the owner of the old Wal Mart Building with the goal of bringing the transaction to a successful close and that the County proceed with placing the Sheriff’s Office in the building as soon as practical. It is hoped that additional compatible agencies will also be added further enhancing the economics of this decision.

2. Adoption of Consent Agenda.

Mr. Hawkins moved to adopt the consent agenda; second by Mr. Livingston. Vote was unanimous.

3. Additions, Deletions and Adoption of Agenda.

Mr. Caldwell asked that a legal matter be added in Executive Session.

Mr. Dawkins requested that agenda item 13 (a) (b) and (c) be moved after Executive Session making it 17(c). There is a legal matter that needs to be clarified concerning the subdivision regulations.

Mr. Hawkins requested the addition of another legal matter in Executive Session.

Mr. Baker requested that agenda item 10 be moved after Executive Session, making it 17(d).

There being no further amendments to the agenda, Mr. Waldrop moved to adopt the agenda as amended; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.

4. Ordinance #10-30-07: An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map established pursuant to Zoning Ordinance #12-24-01 so as to rezone a tract containing approximately 1.78 acres, designated as TMS Parcel No. 337-3-5, from General Residential (RG) to Limited Commercial (LC).

Mr. Caldwell moved for third reading; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.

5. Ordinance #11-31-07: An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map established pursuant to Zoning Ordinance #12-24-01 so as to rezone two tracts, the first tract containing approximately 1.85 acres and designated as TMS Parcel No. 340-1-72, and the second tract containing approximately 1.8 acres and designated as TMS Parcel No. 340-1-73, with both tracts being rezoned from Residential (RS-2) to General Commercial (GC).

Mr. Waldrop moved for first reading; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.

6. Ordinance #11-32-07: An Ordinance authorizing the amendment of the Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreement dated as of December 11, 2002, by and between Newberry County, South Carolina and Pioneer Frozen Foods South Carolina, Inc. providing for a payment of a fee in lieu of taxes.

Mr. Pope advised the Memorandum of Understanding had already been approved, and this would carry out the provisions of that Memorandum.

Mr. Adams stated it extends the investment period for fee in lieu purposes for another five years to 2012.

Mr. Waldrop moved for first reading; second by Mr. Baker.

Mr. Waldrop asked if this was just an extension of the fee in lieu they already have. Mr. Adams said it was and that this would allow them to include additional investments during the five-year period.

There being no further discussion, Mr. Summer called for the question. Vote was unanimous.

7. Resolution #23-07: A Resolution adopting policy for responding to FOIA requests for County officials and employees.

Mr. Adams explained that the Freedom of Information Act requires the disclosure of information, meeting procedures, meeting times, etc. We get a number of requests from individuals asking for documentation at various times during the year. There needs to be a process for requesting that and a set schedule of fees. This policy attempts to address that specifically for Newberry County.

Mr. Baker moved to adopt the Resolution; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.

8. Committee Reports.

No reports.

9. Appointments.

Mr. Livingston recommended the reappointment of Benji Vinson to the Planning Commission.

There being no further recommendations for appointment, Mr. Waldrop moved to accept the recommendation; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.

10. Moved to 17(d).

11. Consideration of competitive proposals for comprehensive plan.

Anne Peters, Planning/Zoning Director, explained that South Carolina Planning Law requires this be done every ten years. The last one was done in 1998 before the County ever had zoning. Every ten years it has to be revised or updated and every five years we do a catch-up to make sure we are on track.

There are nine elements, which have to be looked at independently. The elements are population, economic development, natural resources, cultural resources, community facilities, housing, land use, transportation and priority investment. The last two are new and will involve interaction with what surrounds Newberry County. Every county is involved with this so every county will have to cooperate with other counties.

Newberry County solicited statements of qualifications through a statewide publication called South Carolina Business Opportunities from firms interested in providing these services. Six firms responded, and all six firms were interviewed.

A group comprised of the Purchasing Director, Chairman of County Council, Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the Directors of Planning and Economic Development interviewed these firms approximately two hours each and rated them on various factors that were presented equally to each of these firms at the interview with each firm receiving scores between 0 and 100 points. The higher points represent better proposals. The top two firms were: Matheney Burns Group (MBG) with 86.60 points and Vismor and Associates with 84.50 points. The remaining firms and points are listed on the agenda.

The County’s procurement code requires that the Purchasing Director negotiate with the top ranked firm in an attempt to arrive at an agreeable price for the services solicited. The price arrived at with the Matheney Burns Group, the top ranked firm, is $71,600. After having discussed planning costs with the six firms interviewed, staff concurs that this price is the most agreeable.

The total budgeting in fiscal year 07-08 for this purpose is $60,000. In the contract they are asking for monthly payments so we calculate $35,000 to be billed in this current fiscal year, and the remaining balance of $36,600 will be billed in the 08-09 fiscal year.

Under our procurement code, the County cannot negotiate with the second highest rated firm unless negotiations with the top ranked firm are terminated. A decision has to be made on this firm first before we can start negotiating with the next firm.

Mr. Baker said we have been given points for all the people interviewed but wished we had the total price from each one to compare. Mr. Summer said they would not give a quote. We asked them about the price and one of the considerations in the bid was if it was going to be in the five or six digit price range.

Mr. Dawkins said they come under professional services, and it is against the law with certain professional services for us to ask for prices. Mr. Summer said some of the charges would be hourly and depending on how many public meetings and public input on these types of things, it can vary somewhat on how long it takes.

Mr. Adams said the way the procurement code in Section 34.38 reads with regard to professional services is that we solicit statements of qualifications. We then interview firms and rank them on qualifications. Then the Code requires that we choose the top rated firm and negotiate with them. We can’t discuss price with any of the other firms until we have done that with the first firm. It precludes presenting an array of prices as you would with a straight bid for an item you are going to purchase.

Mr. Hawkins said we found out several years back that it was illegal for us to bid out these kind of jobs. Mr. Pope stated that technically engineers and architects are the ones covered by that. You cannot bid those out on a straight price basis. Some of these may have been engineers. These are basically planners as opposed to engineers, but they are considered professional services under our ordinance, which is a little stricter than the State requirements. Basically on engineers and architects you cannot do it on price. By law you do it on qualifications.

Mr. Livingston stated on the rating by each individual person or each group, some of the groups have a 0 and asked if that was because they were that bad or because they were not interviewed by that particular person. Mr. Summer explained they were all interviewed. Some of the people missed a meeting and didn’t get to interview some of the firms. Ms. Peters interviewed every one of them. There was a consensus on the interviews as to how they were ranked. We were sensitive as to what they were charging. We talked about what they did; where they are located. The company we chose is located in Columbia so you won’t have a lot of expenses with some of the other firms. Proximity was a consideration in the ratings. Other things considered were familiarity with the community. If you are going to pay this kind of money for a comprehensive plan, you want something you can use and not just a cookie cutter that is not very useful.

Mr. Adams said Mr. Livingston was asking if the numbers were skewed by the fact that some people didn’t rate some of these firms. They weren’t because the total number of points received was divided by the number of raters so nobody suffered from the fact that somebody didn’t rate them. We still averaged the scores among all those who actually participated in the rating. In some cases more raters were present for these meetings, which went over three different evenings, than for others.

Mr. Waldrop moved to approve the firm of MBG; second by Mr. Summer.

Mr. Hawkins said we are not voting to conduct the study because we have been told we have to conduct the study. We are just picking somebody to do it.

Mr. Baker inquired into whether the procurement code could be changed in the future so Council could compare points against the estimated pricing.

Mr. Baker said they anticipate $35,000 this year and $36,600 for next year with an overrun of $11,000, which will be put in next year’s budget. Mr. Adams stated that was correct if Council chooses this firm. Mr. Summer said $60,000 was budgeted this year, but we only have to spend $35,000 this year. The total price is going to be $71,600.

Mr. Summer said a lot of other counties are having to do this, and if we don’t go ahead and contract a firm that we feel will do a good job at a reasonable price and start negotiating with other people, that firm will go out and get some business somewhere else, and we won’t be able to get them.

Mr. Baker agreed it was a state mandate, but it was another unfunded state mandate that they tell the county to pay for.

Mr. Dawkins requested that the Chairman call for the question.

Mr. Summer called for the question. Vote was unanimous.

12. Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding between South Carolina Budget and Control Board, Office of Research and Statistical Services, the South Carolina Geodetic Survey Section and Newberry County, for purposes of establishing accurate coordinate mapping and the sharing of that information among governmental agencies.

Mary Arrowood, Tax Assessor, requested Council’s support for an agreement with the South Carolina Budget and Control Board that will assist the County in securing grant funding to pay for new digitized tax maps. The approximate cost of these maps is $50,000. State law requires that we fly new tax maps every ten years; however, the advances in technology and increasing needs for this mapping information make having more frequent updates a better practice. On September 25 Ms. Arrowood met with representatives of the South Carolina Geodetic Survey and asked that they explore grant opportunities to assist the County in paying for these map updates.

This agreement states that as a condition of the State providing this grant funding Newberry County will share the new mapping data with State agencies on an as needed basis.

Ms. Arrowood worked with the Finance Director to submit an application demonstrating that the County has already spent, or budgeted, $60,000 for final implementation of its GIS program, which funding is to be considered as matching funding for the mapping cost. The application agreement is already approved by the State and gives the County credit for these expenditures and pledges up to $60,000 of grant funding for producing the new tax maps, the cost of which is not expected to exceed this amount. This means the County would receive these new tax maps at zero cost. State officials will assist us with the procurement of the maps and ensure that the final product meets all required specifications.

Mr. Dawkins moved to approve the Memorandum; second by Mr. Baker.

Mr. Baker requested clarification. We have requested a grant for $60,000, which should cover the GIS map. Ms. Arrowood said that was correct; zero cost.

Mr. Baker said in the Memorandum of Understanding from the Budget ad Control Board on page 3, item 4, it says they would grant us $60,000 if the County furnished twice that amount. Ms. Arrowood said it was a combination of both, and we have the funding for that. We already have enough in our budget for about $70,000 of it, and you count the fly over, too, as part of that, so it will come out zero.

Mr. Adams stated the total cost is twice that amount for all of the work related to the map.

Mr. Adams asked to what degree people would be able to access this from home. Ms. Arrowood said after it is put out for the public in the Assessor’s office and run for a while, it will then be accessible on the Internet.

There being no further discussion, Mr. Summer called for the question. Vote was unanimous.

13. Moved to 17(c).

14. Requests by Councilmen.

No requests.

15. Public Comments.

Vassie Pugh addressed Council about the finances of J.F. Hawkins/Springfield Place and about county taxes.

16. Vote for Executive Session, When Necessary.

Mr. Summer advised an Executive Session was needed for discussion of a contractual matter relevant to purchasing of the old Wal Mart Building on Wilson Road, two legal matters, the Saluda River Estates request, and the gift certificates. Mr. Dawkins moved to go into Executive Session and requested that Council first discuss the Saluda River Estates, return to open session to make a decision, and then return to Executive Session for the other matters; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION 7:52 P.M. – 8:18 P.M.]

17. Executive Session.

Mr. Waldrop moved to return to open session; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.

17(c) Saluda River Estates:

a. Acceptance of Deed of Roads for Saluda River Estates.

Mr. Dawkins moved to accept the deed; second by Mr. Livingston. Vote was unanimous.

b. Approval of Performance Bond.

Mr. Dawkins moved to approve the Performance Bond; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.

c. Approval letter of credit.

Mr. Dawkins moved to approve the letter of credit; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.

Mr. Dawkins moved to return to Executive Session to discuss the gift cards and two legal matters. Vote was unanimous.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION 8:20 P.M. – 9:21 P.M.]

17(d) Consideration of $25 gift card for each County employee for Christmas.

Ms. Fellers reported that Bi-Lo gives a 6% discount to businesses on all orders over $500. Food Lion gives a 5% discount on orders over $5,000. The County would need 210 gift cards at a cost of $4,935 from Bi-Lo and $4,987.50 from Food Lion.

Mr. Baker moved to accept the low bid from Bi-Lo at a cost of $4,935; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.

18. Necessary Action on Matters Discussed in Executive Session.

See Item 17 above.

Mr. Caldwell moved to authorize the County Administrator to look into the particulars of naming the 121 and I-26 interchange in honor of the late Israel Brooks, who was a U.S. Marshal and a native Newberrian; second by Mr. Waldrop. Vote was unanimous.

19. Comments from County Administrator.

No comments.

20. Comments from Council Members.

No comments.

21. Future Meetings.

Mr. Summer announced the meetings of December 5 and December 19 at 7:00 p.m.

22. Vote to Adjourn.

Mr. Waldrop moved to adjourn.

23. Adjournment.

There being no further business, Mr. Summer declared the meeting adjourned at 9:26p.m.

NEWBERRY COUNTY COUNCIL

________________________________

Henry B. Summer, Chairman

________________________________

Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council

APPROVED: December 5, 2007