City Council - Regular Meeting

Hey, good evening and welcome to our first meeting of June. And if you stand with me, I'll lead us in invocation and respect to the plan to be given by Councilman Cowley.

Please rise.

Thank you for this meeting. We thank you for this body of elected officials as they go about the works of making good policy for our city. As always, we ask that you protect members of our team as they face our So the minutes of our May 18th meeting were distributed. Are there any corrections or additions to those minutes?

I make the motion to approve the minutes.

I have a first by Mr. Newton. Second. Second by Mr. Harbin. All those in favor sign. Aye. Opposed? The minutes of May 18th pass unanimously. Yeah, three items of old business. And the first item is request second reading of ordinance 26-09 through zone 1502 and 1504 East Greenville Street from NC Neighborhood Commercial to GC Journal Commercial. Ms. McEwen.

Thank you. We do have some additional information on this. Mr. Maurice McKenzie, our planning and development director, will present that to you.

Thank you. This request came to you at your May 18th meeting. You considered it on first reading, but last week the applicant contacted us and requested to withdraw the request, so it is no longer on the agenda. No action is required by the city council tonight, but that project has stopped.

Thank you, sir. We'll go ahead and move on to the next agenda item.

Mr. McKenzie, does that mean the application could come back to us at a later time?

They withdrew it, so it is closed.

If they did, they'd just have to go back to a first and second reading again?

That's correct. They would have to reapply.

Any other questions? I'm sorry. Thank you. Our second item is request second reading of ordinance 26-10 to rezone 1200 South Tower Street from LI Light Industrial to RM-10 multi-family residential. Mr. McEwen.

Thank you. Mr. McKenzie will cover this item as well. We'll second reading.

Thanks. Again, this is coming to you for second reading. You heard this at your May 18th meeting as well. And just a quick recap, the applicant wishes to rezone the property from LI to RM10 in order to bring the existing single family house into zoning compliance and also have the ability to subdivide the lot so they can build an additional house. The property is over 16,000 square feet in size. So if it is rezoned, they will have an opportunity subdivide it and also construct a single family house. Comprehensive plan, trends in that area of being residential in this Tower Street area. In fact, past couple of years we've seen some new residential development in that area. So we are recommending approval of this. This did go before the Planning Commission and they recommended approval as well. Again, this is coming to you tonight on second reading.

Thank you. Any other additional questions from our last meeting? First by Dr. Thompson. Second. Second by Mr. Horgan. All those in favor sign. Aye. Opposed? I pass this unanimously. Thank you. Our third item of old business is request second reading of ordinance 26-08 adopting the budget for the fiscal year of 2026-2027. Mr. McEwen. Aye.

Yes, second reading on the budget. In accordance with the general statutes of the state of South Carolina, the city council is required to adopt a balanced annual budget ordinance prior to July the 1st. The city's annual budget serves as both a policy framework and a financial plan. While the budget provides a comprehensive 12-month financial outlook, it is developed within the context of the city's ongoing five-year budgeting model. The proposed budget was reviewed with city council during the council retreat and, again, the April 27th work session. A public hearing on the proposed budget was held on May 18, 2026, and no comments were received from those in attendance. Administration recommends the approval of Ordinance 2608, adopting the budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 2027, for a total budget for all funds of $94.234 million on second and final reading.

Thank you, sir. We've gone through the budget process. We went through the first reading. Are there any additional comments, questions? Mr. Stewart.

Mr. McEwen, with adopting this budget, does that dictate how additional budget line items will be billed to city taxpayers? Say, for instance, the addition of our sanitation fee being put on to the water bill. I know I've had some conversations with our county auditor about possibly putting that off taking that off the water bill putting it on the tax bill and I know they're open to that and just don't know if this is the time that we talk about that as a council you know or is that a policy after the budget is approved?

Sure. Great question. Thank you for that. The budget ordinance in this case does not change anything as far as the billing. So in the case, the billing would remain the same on the water sewer utilities bill. I will say I did look at it because... Councilman Stewart, you gave me a call about this item here, that we would not be able to transition to it for the actual 2026 tax year. We would not be able to incorporate into that tax bill, and we would need to look ahead to the 2027 year to do so for the timing. They require that they receive everything by August. And there are some pros and there are some cons to doing so on the sanitation fee on the bill, the tax bill itself. We can talk about that now, Mr. Mayor. The main reason, Mr. Stewart, for the transition, the time frame that's required there is that the... The courts are not linked to the TMS task map number. And so we would need to actually build that full database out and do that and then actually transition that and be able to provide that to the county for their billing on the tax bills. We would not be able to do that for the 2026 tax year bill, but I think it's worth the conversation for that and the stormwater fee. maybe for 2027.

Did I understand you said you talked to John Binker? You had a meeting with John Binker?

I spoke with him on the telephone and asked him would that be a possibility and also What's the other gentleman's name? Jason Phillips. Jason Phillips. Y'all spoke with Jason. They do it for another municipality right now in the city of Easley and said that they think that that's something that they could do if that's so elected by the city council to do so. I'm just, you know, my thing is it's always been we're raising up fees that goes on to your water bill and your utility bill. A lot of senior citizens, $10 or $15 may not mean a lot to us, but it could be a lot for senior citizens or people who just can't afford it. And if you pay your water bill and you can't pay that sanitation fee, then your water gets cut off. you know, see that happen and, you know, at least if it goes on the tax bill, it gets passed along to a property owner if it's a rental property. A lot of people in my district, they rent. So that'll be passed on. That price won't go directly to the person who's renting the house. It'll be passed along to the actual property owner themselves who pay the taxes on the property. So I just...

I mean, we can open up for discussion. I guess... My understanding, even I would assume that the landlord would pass that expense back on to the... More than likely, if you're looking at a... Most landlords would...

Anything that probably passed along, but again, if they don't, at least that... That person who's renting, they're not having to worry about, you know, they can pay their water bill and not having to worry about, you know, hey, I've got this fee on top of it. If I can't make it this month, you know, my water gets cut off.

Dr. Thompson.

I was just saying, that's not relevant to this particular... budget we're passing now. Is that what you're saying, David? That would not be relevant for this particular year.

Correct, because we would not be able to administratively change that.

For the next year, for the next budget year.

The next taxable year, 2027. 2027.

When would the deadline for that be?

That would be August of 2027, right?

So it might be something that would be appropriate to revisit for the next budget year because we can incorporate that discussion as part of that.

Everybody good with that? I just want to make sure that staff puts it on their calendar to truly revisit. I know we talk about things that's a year away, just don't want it to, you know, drop, you know, get dropped on deaf ears and we don't think about it and then we're into another tax season. Oh, definitely. I don't think we will.

Yeah, I mean, I wasn't aware you had that meeting until you told me.

I had a phone conversation. A phone conversation with John Beek. About possibly putting that on the tax bill.

How do they do it with, you said they do it with another city?

They do it with the city of Easley. When you and I spoke, Mr. City Manager, you said you think that would be great because we have a hard enough time collecting. We could add on the stormwater fee because... We as administration have a hard time collecting stormwater fees as it is, so you thought it would be a good idea if we could look at that.

The stormwater fee, but I do not believe that for the sanitation fee. That would not be my recommendation.

Good. So we're good to talk about this for the next fiscal year?

Yeah, look at both of them. Not just the stormwater fee, but the sanitation fee as well.

Everybody good with that? Yep. Good. Any other questions as regards to this issue? Ms. Newton?

This is nothing important. On Section 2, where it talks about the levy of taxes, it's spelled out 116, but I know that's prior to us rolling back to Bill 109. It has the 109 in parentheses. I'm assuming that just carried over from a little documentation. Yeah.

So it will, it will, yeah, the current millage, um, is 109. And so it will say 109. And, um, as a reference in 1983, we're at 127 mills. Um, and, uh, 1998, we were at 100, 2022, sorry, 2022, we're at 116 mils. 2008, we're at 127 mils. In 2022, we're at 116. And then it was reduced in 2023 to 109, where it remains today.

Reassessment will begin next year. Reassessment's next year.

2027.

Just like that, just ask one more thing. Sanitation fees really give me a little heartache. As we look at raising it this year and raising it again in next year's budget to try to get up to 75% of what I guess the actual general fund expenditure is. Are we're not adding a little bit, you know, because then what is that going to take us five years down the road? We're going to be back at supplementing 75% of it again or how does that go in and look five years down the road, you know, 10 years down the road? Because I think that's what got us in the predicament is where we're at now. We just didn't do anything about it for a long time. And I say we we as a council and is to look at it. And and so now we're up to doubling the fees and then raising it again the same dollar amount the following year. So What do we do to prevent us from getting back into that same rut again?

Well, the model that we built out to show you we're moving to 50%, $5, 50% cost recovery, included 3% escalation cost built into it, and then included for the next year or two to get us a 75% recovery cost of just O&M. That didn't include the capital, and that was the presentation we provided. You would get back in that situation, and that's why you see so many budgets of cities continuing to raise their rate every year to keep up with 100% recovery. I know the city of Greenville just passed theirs. They just raised it again. We sit at the lowest in the state at the current rate that we have for our service charge for this item. As you saw, there were cities that go all the way up to above $24, $25. A month.

Is it like, was it a city agreement with some of them, like they go up at least a dollar every year trying to keep up with it? Yes, they do, yeah.

They made some drastic changes to move that direction about 10 years ago, and then they're keeping up to make sure they're getting full cost recovery on that, and I think they went up a dollar again this proposed budget year that they just adopted. That's what I read.

So after next year... We're just going to take a pause until it bites us in the butt, or are we just going to keep, you know, what's our overall?

Wouldn't that be a council conversation if you want to get to 100% recovery or not?

That we would have to go through like we do every year. I mean, I would assume at some point in time we would have to look at other fees and rates that we charge people in different, the enterprise funds and other funds that we have.

In my recollection of that, I guess those conversations we had, that was one of the reasons for saying essentially rip the Band-Aid off and get back to where we need to get so that in the future, because I don't think anybody likes raising it at the rate we've had to over the next two years. you know, in two years, maybe we can revisit and tie it to, you know, a 2% or 3% every year increase. Because then you're looking at, you know, instead of going up $5, you know, that would be $0.30 to $0.45. That's much, you know, easier to swallow for everybody up here, you know, to keep us in line with, you know, paying the 75% for the sanitation.

That's my memory of it. I think we were unanimous in that when we did make that recommendation.

Mayor, if I may add, these rate increases include that 3% inflation yearly, correct?

Yes.

So we're not losing ground.

You're gaining ground because that model that we built out, the 50% and the net step 75% cost recovery included the 3% cost escalation. Right, including the 3% increase. Mm-hmm.

Anything else? Mr. Hover?

Mr. Mayor, excuse me. I was just going to say, you know, since I've been on council, we've tried to keep up, you know, or just make a dent in the reliance on the general fund to subsidize the sanitation. And, you know, I don't know if we'll ever get to 100% of the recovery. Don't know if we, you know, should put that. should shift that way but it's something that you know we look at and i just want to thank miss martin and her staff for you know the diligence working on this budget and um being responsible of the taxpayers uh taxes that they pay and with that like my motion would prove it second uh first by mr hargan second by mr newton for discussion

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? We'll pass this unanimously on the second and final reading. Thank you. Good job, guys. Good work. Good questions. We have four items of new business. And the first item is request consideration of an ordinance rezoning 504 South Hampton Street from limited office to NC neighborhood commercial. Mr. McEwen?

The Planning Commission considered this at the request of their June 2nd meeting and recommended approval to you. This comes to you on first reading. Mr. McKenzie.

Thanks. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property 504 South Fence Street and an adjacent lot from LO Limited Office to Neighborhood Commercial in order to open up a bakery. The LO zoning district does not allow retail restaurants so that's the reason for the request because Neighborhood Commercial currently allows restaurants and also includes bakeries and Just a little bit of info about the applicant. They currently use our the city shared kitchen to make their product They're selling out of a temporary location, but they now want to have a permanent home for their bakery So this is the reason for the request st. John's Church owns the property, but if the property is rezoned the applicant intends to buy That's two lots The city's future land use map and the comprehensive plan does show this area as being commercial. And as you know, we're also undergoing a zoning ordinance change, zoning map change. And looking at that map, although it's not approved yet, the draft of it shows this area being zoned a neighborhood commercial in the future. as you know we've been talking about it through the process but the LO and NC districts are going to be blended together with different conditions just handled a different way but again if everything goes through this property will be zoned neighborhood commercial in a few months. But the applicant, instead of waiting for that to happen organically, they would like to go ahead and get this property rezoned so they can start with the purchasing process and getting their plans ready and everything else. But if it is rezoned, the building obviously is vacant. It hasn't been occupied in a while. So there are some code-related issues and site-related issues. So if it is rezoned, they would be required to submit building plans, site plans to bring everything into today's regulations. This did go before the Planning Commission last week. They did recommend approval of it. So it comes to you tonight for first reading. And the applicant is also in attendance if you have any specific questions.

Thank you. And you might have mentioned this too. It's in Historic District.

Yeah, I did not. Thank you. But it is located in Historic District. So any exterior alterations to the site would be reviewed and approved by the BAR.

Thank you. Let's do this. Let's open up for questions. Questions, comments?

Mr. Stewart? I know we talked about, you know, and I think it's a great idea, but I'm just concerned about egress and egress coming in and out because I know if you're trying to leave, I don't think you can hardly turn too much right on South Fant Street to go towards market. I think there's an island or something to go. You have to go down a little bit way. So with all the traffic be edging on to East River Street, would that be The traffic flow, do we even know that yet?

We don't know that yet. Both River Street and Fant are state roads. So as we go through that process, the DOT could have some involvement in that as well. As you know, the property's been built a long time ago. So you have curb cuts that may not meet today's standards. But again, all those things will be reviewed as far as the plan review process.

Yeah, I know when that building brought over there years ago, they wasn't even a... Guess to continue an island it goes around just a four-way stop. So, you know four-way intersection there now You got traffic coming from each River, you know continuing on fan and again Everybody don't stay on the inside lane when they come around they come over here But you're gonna have to go down to the end of the property here just to miss that In between those two mediums right there if you wanted to go that way So I I would see that traffic's gonna have to actually probably come out on the East River Street. I Don't know

just thank you good point but you will look at that during the site plan review process it'll come back before us no sir oh you said we will but we we as staff will review that during the site plan process

uh... mister mckenzie others someone has hit the existing sign is a mess right now it is uh... and i know we'll have to go through the applicant will have to go through the whole new sign application and landscape review that's right right now so it's just a

it's all concrete apparently that's right it mostly is again this does include an adjacent lot behind it which is mostly grass but again you're right we have new landscaping requirements sign regulations so all of that would be subject to this site and in our comprehensive plan this was identified as a catalyst site and trending to commercial yes sir so i'm completely in favor of it mr pickens uh... first off was there any phone calls or questions with the signs being out we received a couple phone calls just inquiring hey what's the request about but no one spoke in favor or denial of it and uh... councilman roberts uh... question about the the signs on in right there there's also uh... poll like that's broken on their is that the city's problems department that will closer but again all of that will be looked at because it's like the process mister steward mentioned with the rest of the rest of the flow through the parking lot we'll just have to look at all those items you don't want the powerful yet yet

uh... they're working on their upgrade like single it was it's not a big metal one and i think dupont anything else this motion we approve first i was still second uh... mister horgan for discussion this was originally a gas station i was going to say his story in the forest

Yes, sir. That's what we know of it as.

Yeah, that was before my time was your heart, man. You were looking at me. No.

Remember it as a gas station. I do believe the tanks have been removed.

Good. Any further questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes unanimously. Our next item is Request Consideration of an Ordinance for a Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan for the Rocky River and Generosity Creek Water Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project. Mr. McEwen.

Okay, this rides off our capital planning. our model and our project budget. So we talked about this project and the next two items that are underneath it, B3 and B4. This sets up the financing for those two projects. It's really two different projects, but we're going to do it at the same time. And so this is the financing portion of that. Pursuing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan, and CFO Margo Martin has worked with our bond counsel on this to put this together, along with the state administration to put this together for financing. Ms. Margo.

Thank you. Yes, so this request seeks Council's approval for the debt ordinance necessary to secure the funding through the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, which we call the SRF. On March 9th, City Council did approve submission of an application to them for the potential low-interest financing for two projects. One is the replacement of the floating I can't say that word, digester lid at the Rocky River wastewater treatment plant. Scott can explain it to you better. And then the second one is to upgrade the supervisory control and data acquisition systems at both treatment plants. The current interest rate is 2.6. The estimated annual debt service payments will be $215,361 for a 20-year term, with payments beginning in July of 2027. The debt service payments will be funded by the sewer fund, so staff requests approval on first reading of an ordinance authorizing this financing through the South Carolina Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Loan not to exceed $3,350,341 on first reading.

Thank you, Ms. Martin. Questions, comments? Mr. Roberts.

Ms. Martin, when you do the math, we've agreed not to exceed the loan amount of $3,350,000 roughly. But when you combine the cost of the two projects, it's a little over $3 million.

Oh, we are getting reimbursed for engineering costs that we are currently incurring. It's going to be part of the loan.

So the engineering is in addition to the construction?

Right. So it's not to exceed that amount. It includes engineering of about $216,000. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions, comments? Ms. Horgan.

Ms. Martin. So the 2.6 interest rate, how long is that? So when we pass this on first and second reading, that's a locked-in rate?

It's a locked-in rate because it goes to 2.9 July 1.

Okay. So I would assume it was going north instead of south.

So that's what Scott and I have been working on, getting this passed in time.

So with that, Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to approve this.

Time is of the essence. First by Ms. Hardman, second by Ms. Steele. Any further questions?

I think I just saw a general comment and I think it says that this is a 20-year loan but the usefulness of this system is projected to last for 30 years. We've got to replace it again so we have a 10-year window in there.

Yes, the SRF administrator, it's easier and quicker to get a loan for 20 years than 30 years. You have other studies, other requirements, other engineering, so it's more cost effective in the long run to do 20 years. But yes, the estimated life is about 30. Scott can go over the details with B3 and B4, how he's going to spend this money.

All right, thank you.

Good. Any other questions on that one? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes unanimously. Third item is request consideration of a contract to replace a digestive weed at the Rocky River Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mr. McEwen?

Okay, I feel like we've talked about this item quite a lot over the years. As we've planned for it on the engineering, we actually had structural engineers take a look at it. remove the top, set it to the side, take a look at the best way to correct the issue, which was that it was twisting and going up. It was the only one that we had that was doing that instead of floating just straight up and down. So the original engineer got a little fancy with this one, and we're trying to keep it simple and just let it float straight up and down. With that, Mr. Scott Banks, our utility director and engineer, will go over this item for you.

Good evening. Yes, as a reminder, and we kind of talked about the secondary digester, number two lid is no longer operable. And as was mentioned, for whatever reason, the other three go straight up and down. This one goes up and down with the twist. And Generosity Creek's is similar configuration. After multiple repair attempts, though, that were not successful, the best determination was to a new one. This one wasn't able to be repaired. It will be a new one that will go straight up and down just like the others. And to kind of go back to your earlier question as far as life span, the other three have been at both plants, and even the one that twists at Generosity, it's been at least since 2008. And we don't see anything happening to those, so we should get even more than 30 years as long as we maintain them properly. But unfortunately, this one's been an issue for quite a while. But moving along, we advertised the project And we had a non-mandatory pre-bid meeting on April 29th, and we had a bid, we had seven representatives from different companies there. On the 27th, we took bids. The parent low bid was Cove Utility of Easley, South Carolina at $2,061,000. As mentioned, this would be funded through the State Revolving Loan Fund, and the staff is recommending approval of contract and code utility in the amount of $2,061,000 plus a 10% contingency of $206,100 for a total of $2,267,100. Thank you, sir. Questions? Comments?

We never know what we're talking about. So we trust you.

So the useful life of these was about 30 years, and you stated we have three at this location?

We have four total digesters at both locations. And like I said, these have been, all of them but this one, have been doing well, and we think will continue to do well. So I think we'll get more than 30. if we maintain them and everything. They're basically just a steel structure that floats up and down on the gas.

My question or suggestion is to make sure that we have them in a kind of a rotation to make sure that we're not having to fix all of them at the same time.

No, we inspect them regularly and do maintenance repairs. Like I said, the problem with the cost is just they're such large structures. They're not complicated.

There's not a lot of... No, and I'm jokingly, I think we had a somewhat of a workshop a couple of years ago out at one of the plants. It would probably be good for you to go out there to see exactly. And I think the water, once it's treated, is good enough to drink, right? Is that correct? Greg, did you drink some? Anybody test it? No, I didn't go out.

Yeah, we're going to be doing onboarding with Mr. Pickens, and I'll get you a ride along as well on that one. But, yeah, by law, you can drink it when it's asking the plan.

Good questions. Any other questions, comments?

With that, I'll just make a motion we approve.

First, by Mr. Pickens. Second, by Dr. Thompson. Further discussion?

Just real quick, just a point of comment, or actually just clarity. Cove can cove utility? Yes, sir.

They've done several projects of this size and technique. They are actually a spinoff of Harper Construction. I'm sure you've heard of Harper. They're doing some work for us now, aren't they? Sir? Harper, are they doing some work for us now, or maybe the county? They're doing some work for us. They're doing some work for county, and they have done work previously for us. Right. Okay.

Any other questions, comments? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Our last item, a new business, is request consideration of a contract for the replacement of supervisor controlled and data acquisition SCADA system at the Rocky River and Generosity Creek wastewater treatment plant. Mr. McEwen.

All right. SCADA is a fancy word for a computer that controls the plants. And so it also provides a monitoring system for our operators. Mr. Banks.

Yes, thank you. As we said, it's just a fancy name for the control system. And both plants are nearly 20 years old. And as you might expect, computer stuff that's 20 years old, it's already on its last leg. And so as part of the SRF loan, we're planning to replace both systems at the plants. And as part of the evaluation process, process, excuse me, let me back up here. A portion of the funds from the SRF lawn associated with digestion replacement project was allocated to the SCADA upgrades in each plant. In 2025, after experiencing some performance issues and support issues from the SCADA contractor that we had at the time, or utilizing the time, we decided to issue a request for qualifications to identify a qualified SCADA vendor to assist with future projects. Similar to an engineering on-call, you don't want to be, every time you have to do something with SCADA, you don't want to have to be going out for, you want somebody that's been working on your system that you can go to and utilize them. So as part of that evaluation process, the proposed upgrades for the planned SCADA system were used as a benchmark project to compare vendor qualifications and proposals. Following the review, Southern Flow Incorporated was selected as the city's SCADA integrator. And so as part of that, like I said, it would be funded through the state revolving fund loan, and staff is recommending approval of the contract with Southern Flow Incorporated in the amount of $751,841.

Thank you.

Questions? Where is Southern Flo up from? They are in Georgia, right outside of Atlanta.

Any other questions, comments?

I'll make the motion to approve. Second.

First by Mr. Newton, second by Mr. John Roberts.

I have a question before we vote. You know, you're here to read about... bad actors hacking into water and sewer systems and just causing all sorts of havoc. Is there any sort of built-in Cyber security for this system?

We have everything secured, but we also have an air gap, meaning for somebody to log on outside of our system, we have to plug in. So if we needed, like say we needed Southern Flow to come check something remotely, they would plug in, or our IT folks would go and do the physical connection so they could log in, and then it would be removed. So we can't hit it from the outside, I guess you could say.

Good question. Any other questions, comments? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The passage is now. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. First by Dr. Thompson, second by Mr. Steele. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? We stand adjourned.