County Council - Regular Meeting

YOU ALIVE, MR. CHAIRMAN?

WELCOME, EVERYBODY. I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS GREENVILLE COUNTY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER. WE WILL GET STARTED WITH THE INVOCATION. I WILL CALL ON COUNCILOR MITCHELL.

having us here tonight to do the work of Greenville County. We use a lot of deliberation in what we do, and it shows. Sometimes it doesn't show for everyone, but we do what we need to do for the county. Help us to make good decisions tonight. Help us to make good decisions in the future. In Christ's name we pray, amen. Amen.

Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. Next on the agenda, we have the approval of minutes.

Make a motion that we approve our minutes from the June 16th meeting.

Thank you. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Next on the agenda, we are at proclamations and recognitions. We'll start with A, a legacy of flourishing 10th anniversary. I'll call on Councilor Mitchell.

Stand right here. Okay, I have a proclamation to present to Elias. And it's the title of Legacy of Flourishing. They're celebrating their 10-year anniversary. Whereas 10 years ago, Elias Ministry established a profound and radical commitment to the Nicholtown neighborhood, choosing a path of permanence, persistent love, and long-term mentorship in a world often dominated by temporary connections and constant turnover. And whereas LAOS ministry operated on the deeply held belief that providing a stable foundation of support, resource, and relationship would allow neighborhoods to truly flourish and realize their full potential, and whereas a decade of unwavering dedication has proven that consistency transforms communities with the evidence beautifully written in the lives and stories of the residents of Nicoltown, and whereas throughout this enduring presence, local students have been empowered to grow from elementary schoolers into competent, capable neighborhood leaders, and whereas an entire generation has been inspired to reach for their God-given potential, moving forward with the absolute certainty that their Elios family is forever in their corner. Now, therefore, be it resolved that on July 12th, 2026, Greenville County Council does hereby celebrate and honor Elios' ministry for 10 years of faithful service, enduring impact, and visionary leadership in the Nicoltown community. and we look forward to the continued flourishing born of this extraordinary legacy. And I would like to present this proclamation to you. These are the leaders of the organization, Joy Hill and Cam Hill. Congratulations.

Congratulations and thank you, Councilor Mitchell.

Next on the agenda is B, under proclamations and recognitions, Americans with Disabilities Act 36th Anniversary. And I'm a note that says that we have staff from All Able SC who's here with us. If you would join me at the front of the podium. All right, Americans with Disabilities Act 36th Anniversary Day. Whereas signed into law on July 26, 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act, also known as ADA, ensures that rights of citizens with disabilities by prohibiting discrimination in the areas of education, employment, government services, places of public accommodation, commercial facilities, and other vital areas of society and is recognized as the landmark legislation providing equal treatment to Americans with disabilities. And whereas the ADA has expanded opportunities for Americans with disabilities by reducing barriers, changing perceptions about citizens with disabilities, and increasing opportunities for full community inclusion, and whereas numerous organizations, including ABLE South Carolina, advocates, and community partners within Greenville County and across the Palmetto State worked tirelessly with constituents to bring forth the promise of hope and freedom envisioned by the passage of the ADA. And whereas the 36th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act provides a vital opportunity to renew our local commitment to the ADA's principles, ensuring the rights, independence, and dignity of citizens with disabilities, and empowering our county, state, and nation to benefit from the talents and contributions of all Americans. Now therefore, Greenville County does hereby proclaim July 26, 2026 as Americans with Disabilities Act 36th Anniversary Day throughout Greenville County and encourage all residents to recognize the vital importance of the ADA to celebrate the individuals it has empowered over the past 36 years and to honor their extraordinary achievements. Congratulations. All right, next on the agenda, we are at appearances on current agenda items. Ms. Stone?

Mr. Chairman, our first speaker is Diane Vreeland, and her topic is 10B, the tax referendum.

Welcome, Ms. Vreeland.

Okay, Diane Vreeland on behalf of Greenville County Republican Women 413, Heather Falls Lane, Simpsonville. In looking over the proposed transportation penny sales and use tax referendum, I have some thoughts and questions for council. What is the reasoning behind raising the percentage from 3% to 5% for dollars expended for mass transit operated by Greenville County or jointly operated by Greenville County and other governmental entities? Are you proposing taking away 2% in funds from our roads? In dollars, how much does that 2% equate to? How many dollars per year does the city of Greenville pay for mass transit? What is their percentage? Why is Greenville County continuing to fund a system that year over year has lost a considerable amount of money? Why aren't we revamping that system and soliciting new ideas to reform it and make it profitable, as there is definitely a need for mass transit, but not in this current form? What has the county administrator, Joe Cornell, or County Attorney Chris Antley done, if anything, to find ways to claw back dollars from the City of Greenville to fund fixing our roads and infrastructure. With the extreme amount of tourism that the City of Greenville keeps promoting, there is a detrimental impact to those entities and those tourists as those tourists use our roads, our infrastructure, our transit, our airport, etc. Can we tap into the hospitality accommodation tax or the tourism tax funds? Do the laws need to be changed? Do we need to play hardball? Should we spend more time thinking outside of the box to create and implement ideas that generate much needed revenue? To those councilpersons that support this referendum, how many of you polled your districts to see how your constituents want you to vote? My councilperson, he's going to get mad at me, but Gary Collins, did just that. And to date, he has received 238 no votes and four yes votes. Gary is voting the will of the people he represents. Are you? I've been coming here for over two and a half years, and I must admit that I'm becoming somewhat apathetic regarding council and its decisions. You're good people, and I believe you want to do what's right, but in my humble opinion, we need to be more creative in our thinking and diligently looking for ideas to save taxpayers money instead of doing the same thing over and over and getting the same result, which happens to be the definition of insanity. It is time to change our way of doing business and to start to shake some things up as many of your constituents are not happy. I would like to hand a copy of my statement to the clerk so it's part of the public record, and I do thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Freeland.

The next speaker is Frank Tamburello, and his topic is 12B, the wireless communication.

Welcome, sir.

Good evening. My name is Frank Tamburello, and I'm here tonight to talk about surprises. There's the good kind, like when a friend may say something to you and it brings a smile to your face. But then there's the other kind, like when you come home from work one evening and find a new cell tower in your backyard. Now, I'm not talking about some antenna that you can see from your backyard, but rather a 199.8 foot tall metal monster that has suddenly appeared mere feet from your rear property line. So how did this happen? Some enterprising person has made a deal with a cell phone carrier, come to the county office here, and filled out some paperwork. A review shows that all the blanks have been filled in, and presto, your surprise appears. What does this mean? For one, a lucrative lease deal. but for you and your neighbors, reduced property values. Now, we may disagree on the specific loss, but think about it. How many new home buyers tell their realtors they want a new home with a nice cell phone tower view? There are other potential health issues. You all know what your microwave does. It cooks the food you put in it. The same type of radiation comes from your new cell tower. Obviously not the same strength, but then it's not operating operating for just a few minutes Your family is showered for every second every day every month and so on I don't believe you'll find any health professional that will say that this is a health benefit qualifying for reduced health insurance So what can you do about it? I'm here tonight to request your support for new cell tower regulations as proposed by one of your members Kelly long I We're certainly not proposing a ban, but rather adding some simple steps to the approval and review process, like requiring notifications to local homeowners and providing the opportunity for public hearings so that more than one voice can be heard. Like setting some realistic setback requirements so a 200 foot tower is at least 200 feet from property lines. You have the power to prevent this type of surprise. I'm asking for your support and approval of Kelly's proposal. Represent your friends, neighbors, and constituents rather than some individuals looking for easy money and new surprises. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is John Silke, and his topic is 10B, the tax referendum.

Welcome, sir.

Good evening. My name is John Slipke. I'm a resident of Greenville County. I'm also a resident of the city of Greenville. I come here this evening as a Greenville County citizen to speak in favor of the county penny tax ordinance. On July 13th, I attended the formal meeting of the Greenville City Council and spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance to enact a city penny tax pursuant to to the recently approved Municipal Tax Relief Act. This legislation, which I supported, provides the City of Greenville an opportunity to enact a generational investment in the city's infrastructure at a scale not possible with our current tax revenue sources. However, Greenville County's infrastructure and quality of life issues are not confined to municipal borders. Each day, thousands of Greenville County residents travel across an interconnected system of roads, intersections, and bridges that are a mix of municipal, county, and state jurisdictions. Our public transit system serves both county and municipalities. Similarly, land conservation and green space benefits the quality of life for all Greenville County residents. For these reasons, I support a county penny tax referendum. The county penny tax, like the city penny tax, provides an historic opportunity to address the county's longstanding infrastructure needs, as well as to make additional investments in public transit and land conservation. I contend that the two penny tax initiatives can and should be complementary. Our infrastructure challenges do not stop at the city limits, and our solutions shouldn't either. As a citizen of Greenville County, I want to see both of these penny tax initiatives on November referendums. I urge council to seriously consider the amendments being proposed this evening by council members McGahee and Bradley. I've expressed my concerns to some of you about the ordinance as approved at second reading. I also acknowledge the legal restrictions that may limit specific elements of the McGahee amendments. However, In my opinion, these amendments provide the basis for a referendum that has the best chance for voter support in November. Should county council and city council approve the respective penny tax ordinances, I will actively advocate for the passage of both referendums. Let's give the voters at Greenville County the opportunity to make their decision. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

The next speaker is Douglas Allen. His topic is 12B, wireless communications.

Welcome, sir. Good evening. I'm Douglas Allen. I apologize for not having a pre-written script, but my guy gave me a mind, and I'm not afraid to use it. Some people call me an expert in electromagnetic radiation. I don't really call myself an expert, but I'm a holistic health care practitioner with a master's in holistic health sciences. I've been in the field for 40 years. I'm a doctoral candidate for the Quantum University of Natural Integrative Medicine. And I just want to mention something that probably nobody else will mention. So we talk about wireless communication facilities, including cell towers. This is not just cell towers that are a problem. It's also relay stations. It's also sub towers that are installed on telephone poles, installed on buildings, installed on water towers. We have what we call non-conclusive evidence, because we use mass spectrography, a system of measuring atomic composition. We measure the water. before, during, and after exposure to electromagnetic pollution, such as 5G, and lower forms of radiation as well. And these are considered non-threatening. However, we do not use what's called Raman spectrography, which actually measures the changes in the protons, neutrons, and electrons in the atoms. So I mention that because in linear physics, there's nothing smaller than a proton, a neutron, or an electron. But we've learned in the late 1800s, we were illuminated on this idea. And more than 60 years ago, quantum physics showed us that, yes, there are three particles that we've discovered in each proton, neutron, and electron. And they are all one third of a charge. So when we have the effect of non-ionizing radiation, The red herring is, well, it's not thermal. There's no thermal damage. It's not strong enough to cause heat. But I'm here to tell you that there is non-thermal biological effects to non-ionizing radiation. It changes the charges in the sub-particles. And when this happens, the first most common thing is dipolar alignment. So all oxygen molecules are just like a battery. They have a positive and a negative, and they line up and they make a beautiful pattern. That's why we get snowflakes. the presence of non ionizing radiation such as cell phone radiation they all line up towards the field so everything in the body changes we're 80% water the 20% that's not water is about 80% water and this radiation even at the lowest levels you see I don't have a cell phone on my body it's back at my chair but even at the lowest levels that affects us whether it's next to us some of the more effective laws in this world are in Germany, which I did a lot of my study, there's no possible way in Germany to erect a wireless communications facility within 100 meters or 300 feet from any structure. Thank you. Thank you very much.

The next speaker is Paul Gorski, and his topic is 10b, the tax referendum.

Welcome, Mr. Gorski.

Thank you. I'll be short. I'm concerned about the tax. I don't disagree with it at all. I think it's a good tax to the extent that it's going to cover everybody, not just the property owners. But when I think about any tax... I think it's about time. I was on a school board before I came here, and every year we have an audit of our books presented to the public. I've never seen that in this government. I think it would justify some of the things that you're asking for if you showed us an audit of how you're using it. Too many people think that you're not using it properly. So why not present an audit and show them that you are doing it? That's my point. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Angie Fisher, and her topic is 12B, wireless communication.

Welcome, Ms. Fisher.

Good evening, y'all. My name is Angie Fisher and I represent Greenville County Freedom Coalition. Nine years ago, my health took an unexpected turn. It forced me to begin asking questions I never imagined I'd be asking. That journey has led me through thousands of hours of research into environmental health, toxic exposures, radio frequency radiation, frequencies, and biological effects of our changing environment. My research has taken me to physicians, scientists, engineers, researchers, and organizations from many different perspectives, including Environmental Health Trust, EMFscientist.org, the California Brain Tumor Association, Kevin Motus, Dr. Paul Haru, Dr. Rashid Batar, Dr. Brian Artis, and Dr. Edward Group, in addition to Doug Allen, who spoke tonight. I've also reviewed government legislation and military documents discussing directed energy technologies, including SDOT 2778, the Directed Energy Weapons Systems Acquisition Act. Based on those documents and the research I have reviewed, I've come to believe that frequencies in our communications infrastructure deserve far greater public scrutiny. One of the things I've learned is that this discussion isn't simply about technology. It's about frequency and the infrastructure that delivers it. What makes today's wireless infrastructure different isn't simply that it's newer. It's the frequencies that are involved, the increasing density of that infrastructure, and the continuous environmental exposure it creates every day where our families live, our children attend school, and our communities gather. Whether you ultimately agree with my conclusions isn't the point. The point is that we should be asking more questions, not fewer. History has shown us that waiting for absolute certainty has not always served the public well. Leadership sometimes means asking difficult questions before irreversible decisions are made. You were elected to be stewards of Greenville County. not simply to process applications, but to protect the people you represent. I'm simply asking each of you to review the research, examine the evidence from multiple perspectives, and exercise the thoughtful local oversight you've been elected to provide. I've learned over the last nine years that asking better questions is often more important than accepting easy answers. Tonight, I'm respectfully asking you to do just that. Please support Councilwoman Kelly Long's ordinance and demonstrate that Greenville County is willing to exercise thoughtful local oversight before decisions like these are made. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is... Ms. R, I think she's going to give you some...

I would like to give you this, too. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Susana Saravia, and her topic is 12B, wireless communications. Welcome.

Thank you. Okay, I'm just going to read, because of my accent, okay? Cell towers emit a type of radiation. Cell towers have wireless antennas that emit radio frequency, RF, known as ionizing radiation. When these antennas are close to our homes and schools, our daily exposure of RF radiation is increased. RF radiation is considered a new form of environmental pollution. Effects from RF documented in scientific research include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, headaches, sleep issues, genetic damage, changing to the reproductive system, memory deficits, and impacts in our nervous system. Research has found that a cumulative dose from cell tower RF can result in significant exposure over time. Young children do not use cell phones, yet they are involuntarily exposed Cell towers radiation exposure are nonstop day and night. We can turn our cell phones off, but we cannot turn cell Towers off. Children are the more vulnerable. Children are the more vulnerable in RAF radiation as they absorb in deeper into their brains and bodies. Even if the radiation absorption were the same as in adults, the effect in children can be far more serious. A child's developing brain and organ system are more sensitive to the environmental stressors. Scientists recommend children's exposure to this type of radiation be reduced. Hundreds of scientists are urging that our exposure to cell towers, cell phones, and other wireless radiation emissions be reduced to the scientific evidence showing effects as legally allowable levels. These scientists have written letters to schools and lawmakers urging that children and the public be protected. They have joined numerous scientific appeals to governments and institutions calling for action to strengthen safety limits. Publisher peer review science has linked cell tower radiation to harmful effects, Researchers have studied cell towers and cell tower radiation for decades. Many biological effects have been documented at very low intensities, comparable to what people might experience within 500 feet of a cell tower. The majority of research studies have found effects. However, industry and industry-founded scientific group dismissed these studies. The American Academy for Pediatrics Web page states electronic. Sorry. I'm going to give you this. And behind, I have, you can check. It's environmentaltrust.org. And here you will find everything, videos, everything that is happening. And you need to be educated. We all need to be educated. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Judy Langley, and her topic is 10B, the tax referendum.

Welcome, Ms. Langley.

Thank you all for allowing me to speak tonight. I'm Judy Langley. I live in District 26, and I represent Greenville County Freedom Coalition tonight. I want to thank you for my chance to speak. We have to do something to restore trust in our government and slow spending. I think everyone in this room is tired of bad and rough roads. Besides that, who gets the gas tax that's collected from every gallon sold? I think everyone in this room is tired of paying high taxes and being asked to vote for tax hikes. I think everyone in this room is probably tired of seeing millage increases for the school district without better educated children. I think everyone in this room wants to see healthy school environments so that children are not exposed to cell tower and toxic emissions. I think everyone in this room is disillusioned that county council members changed their platform from what they campaigned on. As you can guess, I'm opposed to the 1% tax increase that is floating around. I think like all of us, or most of us, you want the ballot on November. If you want the ballot on November, you must want to raise taxes. I'm also not happy that South Granville Fire District is asking for a millage rate increase in lieu of the fact that they have a balance of $12 million plus, almost $13 million in their year-end fund. We love our fire departments, and we love the way they protect us, but nice new trucks, excellent equipment. The department is going to say it's a scare tactic if they don't get the rate hike. That communities may be in danger of losing services. Not true. Why ask for more for such surplus? Once a millage increase happens, it is rarely drawn back and it becomes a forever tax. I'd like to read an excerpt from one of our District 26 leaders. Here we go. Based on what many of us witnessed during the recent District 26 Republican County primary election, I am concerned that both Greenville County Council and District 26 voters may be vulnerable to influence from anonymous dark money, political, action committees, and 501c3 organizations. Whether one supports or opposes the proposed penny tax and use tax for the South Greenville area fire district millage increase, voters deserve transparency, full disclosure, and factual information so that they can evaluate each proposal on its own merits rather than having a persuasive advertising financed by disclosed interest. Transparency strengthens public confidence in our elections and in our government. Before asking voters to approve new taxes, higher millage rates, County Council should ensure that the public receives complete and balanced and factual information from all sides of the issues. This will encourage and allow residents to make better decisions at the ballot box. My ask today is that you vote no for the South Greenville Fire Department millage increase, vote no to put the pity tax on the ballot, especially take into consideration information about cell towers and the effects it has on its residents and children. And lastly, complete a true annual audit and find monies that can be clawed back and put towards road improvements. Thank you all for allowing me to speak, and thank all of you all for serving the county as well as you do. And I've got some scratch on here, but I don't mind if the clerk will take it for reference.

Our next speaker is Audrey Pazin, and her topic is 12A10, Zoning Text Amendment.

Missed you all. Hi. Audrey Pazin. I've represented plaintiffs on issues very similar to the issues I'm going to talk about on this particular zoning amendment, which is CZ20-040. I'm not going to talk about my cases, though. There are legal requirements that must be fulfilled to legally have a first reading of this particular text amendment because it's a zoning text amendment, and those requirements have not been satisfied. First, this type of ordinance must be published in a countywide newspaper of circulation across the county. As far as I can tell, I've looked for this. It's not been published on either the Greenville Journal or the Greenville News, nor was it linked to this agenda, which normally we have as a courtesy. And so therefore, there's no legally adequate notice of this ordinance. Secondly, a text amendment according to the zoning ordinance article 2.2 must arise from the planning commission. You sit on a deciding. Your jurisdiction is to decide. Their jurisdiction is to review and recommend. This did not come out of the Planning Commission. They have never considered this amendment. And so you don't have jurisdiction to consider this tonight, in my opinion. And so I say that these are legal errors and a competent attorney, if engaged, would help their government organization to avoid these legal errors. And that brings me to the subject of our county attorney and the question of his competence. I want to know how many times these kinds of errors have occurred. You see, the repetition of litigation because of legal errors that the Planning Commission makes, which are avoidable if they were counseled adequately, that's a terrible taxpayer expense. People don't like to waste their taxpayer dollars. And so I think we need to have a very good understanding of what our legal team does to help our planning commission stay out of trouble. In my opinion, they don't get any kind of counsel. As a matter of fact, I happen to know that they don't get advised about the status of the litigation in which they're the named defendants. They don't know what issues are being litigated. They make the same mistake over and over again, and we as taxpayers end up defending the mistakes that should never have been made. Tonight, you should not make the mistake of having a first reading on this ordinance. And I would ask you certainly to decline to hear it, because it does not have adequate publication, no public notice, and you don't have jurisdiction, I think. But you can ask your county attorney. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Patterson.

The next speaker is Michael Voden.

Point of information, Ms. Clerk. Which zoning text amendment number is that? There's two there, though. There's an I and an X.

There's 31 and a 40. Which one?

Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Ms. Stone?

The next speaker is Michael Voden, and his topic is 9A, South Greenville Geobond.

Welcome, Mr. Voden. Thank you. Good evening, Council. Thank you for your time here today. I'm here to talk about, I'm a member, I'm a citizen of the county. Gary is my representative in my district. But I live outside the city limits of all six municipalities. I'm talking about this because I have concerns on how much and how often the city and county government is coming to the table to ask for money. And what it does to not residents necessarily like me, but a lot of residents in a county where this really does hit them and affect them. And it's not in a vacuum. There are a lot of needs. I get it. But I don't know that there's enough scrutiny, and I talked to Gary about this last night, and really digging into the financials and saying, do we really need to raise taxes, or is there another way? In the case of the fire, I understand the truck, the ladder truck, is a necessary expenditure, and I know it's an expensive one. I also see that they've done a great job of generating $12.9 million in reserves, which I think generally reserves are used for special acquisitions like this. I also see that they like to keep that there because it's generating a lot of income, somewhere in the $800,000 to $900,000 range off of the investment income from that $12.9 million. But you're asking people, to step up and pay more again. And the money is there. And yes, I understand you want to protect it, but it's meant to go up and down based on need. And I worry about other people in this county who can't afford these increases. Simpsonville's looking for a tax increase. The county's looking for road tax increase. One fire commission asked for it. Who says the next one won't? I'm really worried that we're just taking it for granted that people can just keep digging into their pockets and paying out to pay for all these things. And I want to tell you one more thing, because what is the heart of this is our uncontrolled expansion of both commercial and residential growth here. Everyone likes to think it brings in a lot of revenue, but you guys realize we're always having to raise taxes because of infrastructure costs. Yes. And these developers are getting away scot-free. I'm not telling you how to get the money out of them, impact fees or whatever, but there's got to be a way for new development and for new developers to have to have skin in the game. And they don't. They come in, they do the thing, they make their money, and then they blow town. And they leave that burden on your constituents. And I know you don't want that. So that's my appeal. I've still got three seconds. I hope you'll take that with good heart. Have a great night.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, we have three minutes left in our 30 minutes, and the last speaker will be Kyle Long, and his topic is 9A, South Greenville Geobond.

Hi, Councilman. I'm Kyle Long, running for District 28 County Council, but I'm here speaking tonight specifically about this issue because I want to know, I want to learn from you. Most of you guys have said, a lot of you have said you do your homework and you really dig into the numbers. And it seems like to me, I've lived in this area since 1981, and there's a lot of kingdom building happening with the fire districts I'm seeing. A monster building is being made. I mean, what's the seven wonders of the world? Are we trying for the eighth wonder of the world? I mean, these things are beautiful, right? They're incredible. There's a lot of spending going on in these fire districts, and I don't know that it makes sense. So for those of you who said you do your homework and dig into the numbers, I'd ask you to help me understand why an 8% increase over the last three to four years in pay makes sense for these firemen. That's far and above what the average household makes in a pay increase. I'd ask you also to let me know why the surplus of $12 million makes sense. I believe in integrity, and I feel like in this situation, this is a moral issue. I think we're spending or asking for more money uh... in a situation that we don't need more money we need them to be able to work within a budget like my household has to work within a budget we just can't come to dad and ask for more money when we need a a nice vehicle to drive around in this million dollars, it can't afford a fire truck with that. That's a nice Range Rover that they're going to drive around in with some new radios. And these fire chiefs are competing against each other for nice vehicles, mid-level managers. I mean, how many mid-level managers do we need at each fire station, right? So each fire district doesn't need five to six mid-level managers that are fat and happy on our money. So I would ask you guys to please consider not allowing this kind of expenditure. Please go back and vote no against this, and please do a roll call to see who's actually going to vote yes to allow this thing to go through. Have them turn it back into you. At least say no to it and maybe improve upon it or tell them how they're going to improve. I see in here that they're going to manage an ISO rating of a two. Well, that's not improving. They're just going to maintain. They're going to maintain the status quo, but they're going to ask for more money. I don't see much improvement here. And so I'm asking you to really send it back to them and make them show what they're going to do better. Prove to you how they're going to spend the money. Please make them do their homework instead of just approving this, because Boiling Springs is going to take this and they're going to send it to you. The next fire district's going to take this and bring it back to you, and it's just going to keep going. So please, hear me on this, and I look forward to learning from each one of you how to do better for our county. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So before we go on, I was looking at the rest of the, we have run out of time, but the next two speakers would be speaking on an item at third reading, which would be immediate. The last group, it's just at first reading, so there's still more opportunity to discuss. So if council will allow, I'm going to allow for next two speakers who are speaking on the tax referendum to still speak now since we'll be voting on that before we would get to the end for public comment and then we'll move the others to the end if that's okay. Is council good with that? We'll proceed Ms. Stone.

The next speaker is William Forsyth and his topic is 10b tax referendum.

Welcome sir.

Thank you, Chairman and members of the Council. My name is Bill Forsyth. I live in Greenville County, and last April, you appointed me to the Greenlink Board of Directors. I was asked by our Board Chair to speak to you in favor of this agenda, Item 10B and the amendment. I'm here to support the penny and the amendment to implement plan services of improvement by 2029. Greenlink needs 10% of the penny revenues, but that's not on the table. At 5%, as in the amendment, Greenlink can begin expanding in 2029 and phase in additional improvements through 2031. At only 3%, Greenlink service would essentially maintain status quo, and status quo funding to Greenlink would result in more traffic congestion in our county. At 5%, our Greenlink system could begin to make planned improvements, including service expansion in the Woodruff Road and Malden area, the Anderson Road and Greenville Memorial area, and the Old Buncombe and Cedar Lane corridors. This plan would also create more cross-town connections, reduce dependence on transfers downtown, and improve access to employers, grocery stores, health care, and pharmacies. A fully implemented Greenlink plan would connect residents to approximately 200,000 additional jobs. The difference in 3 and 5 percent of the penny to Greenlink means $2.75 million annually. With that money, we strongly believe that we could attract drivers out of their cars and reduce the congestion faster than building four additional miles of road, which is the same amount of money. We support conservation of the environment. We are committed to clean and efficient fuels. Citizens who ride the bus instead of driving also help conserve our beautiful natural resources and contributes to the improvement of our quality of life. Public transit is a boon at the ballot box. Well-designed transit funding measures consistently win voter support. In 2025, voters approved 16 of 19 transit increases nationwide, an 84% success rate, and transit measures achieved an 86.7% win rate in 2024. You appointed me to the Greenlink Board in large part because I bring experience increasing bus ridership among those who can afford to drive cars and have a choice. But they choose to ride bus service because it is pleasant, convenient, and saves money. I agreed to serve on the board because of Greenlink's recent real progress. We support the penny tax, we look forward to the benefits it will bring, and we support the amendment to increase the portion of the tax revenue to dedicated mass transit systems operated by Greenville County or jointly operated by the county and other government entities from 3% to 5%. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir.

The next speaker is Margaret McGinty, and her topic is 10B, the tax referendum.

Welcome.

Hello. My name is Margaret McGinty. I live at 104 Mason Street in Mr. Mitchell's district. I'm very pleased that county council is advancing the transportation penny tax toward a public referendum. And I was delighted to learn that according to the South Carolina Department of Revenue's calculations, about 35% of the revenue of this penny tax would be generated by visitors. That's outside money for us. However, I'm disappointed that you are allocating only 3% of the total penny tax revenue to public transportation. while simultaneously allocating a whopping 90% to road repairs. I submit to you that poor roads did not constitute 90% of the transportation problem in Greenville County, and therefore should not receive 90% of the transportation penny tax. The biggest transportation problem in Greenville County is that there are too many cars. We live in a car-centric culture. There are many reasons for this, And our preference for personal cars is deeply ingrained. But we must begin to embrace public transportation in a meaningful way and start freeing ourselves from our car addiction before Greenville County is completely gridlocked. I've been concerned by an attitude blatantly expressed in flippant comments from Councilman Shaw, for example, and more subtly and perhaps even reluctantly expressed in the voting decisions of the Council as a whole. that suggests public transit is some kind of a sideshow, and that Greenlink is a frivolous, dilettante-ish operation that provides a boutique transportation service to an underclass that doesn't deserve it. The truth is, Greenlink offers the most forward-looking, readily available, scalable, and sustainable long-term solution to our traffic congestion problems that we have, and we should make the most of it instead of sidelining it. There's no question that our roads need to be repaired and improved, and I commend county council for advancing the transportation penny tax to help fund that work. So by all means, spend the lion's share on road repairs, but please shift a little bit more of the penny tax revenue to Greenlink, at least 5%. Here's some math to entice you. If you allocate a 5% share of the penny tax to Greenlink, you could take transit off the county's property tax rolls, making more room in your annual budget. This would allow you to give some property tax relief to homeowners while still funding Greenlink. As county council, you have a duty to represent your constituents. who I am fully aware are probably more pro-car than pro-bus, but you also have a duty to lead us. I implore you to lead the citizens of Greenville County toward a future that includes robust public transportation instead of a future covered in asphalt. Please allocate at least 5% of the penny tax revenue to Greenlink. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. And for the remaining four, just know that you will get time to speak at the very end during the public comment section. So we'll now move on to the next agenda item, which is public hearings. We'll start with A, Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation 641 Altamont Road. Councillor McGehee.

Thank you. These are from the Public Works Committee. So, Greater Greenville Sanitation District, Annex 641, Altamont Road. This public hearing is being held for the purpose of receiving comments from the public regarding a resolution to enlarge the boundaries of the Greater Greenville Sanitation District to include a parcel located at 641, Altamont Road. Madam, do we have any speakers?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. McGehee, we have no speakers for this public hearing.

There being no further speakers, I declare this public hearing closed.

Thank you. Next is B, Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation 1080 Altamont Road.

Okay, Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation 1080 Altamont Road. This public hearing is being held for the purpose of receiving comments from the public regarding a resolution to enlarge the boundaries of the Greater Greenville Sanitation District to include a parcel located at 1080 Altamont Road. Madam Clerk, are there any speakers?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. McGehee, we have no speakers for this public hearing.

There being no further speakers, I declare this public hearing closed.

Thank you. Item C, Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation 1000 North Parker Road. Councillor McGahee.

Yes, thank you, Chairman. Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation 1000 North Parker Road. This public hearing is being held for the purpose of receiving comments from the public regarding a resolution to enlarge the boundaries of the Greater Greenville Sanitation District to include a parcel located at 1000 North Parker Road parcel. Madam Speaker, are there any speakers?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. McGahee, we have no speakers at this public hearing.

There being no further speakers, I declare this public hearing closed.

Thank you. One more for Councilor McGahee. D, Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation, Willamette Estates Subdivision.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation, Willamette Estates Subdivision. This public hearing is being held for the purpose of receiving comments from the public regarding a resolution to enlarge the boundaries of the Greater Greenville Sanitation District to include the Willamette Estates Subdivision. Madam Speaker, do we have any speakers?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. McGahee, we have no speakers for this public hearing.

There being no further speakers, I declare this public hearing closed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Councilor. Next is E, Land Development Regulations Amendment, Open Space Residential Development. Councilor Bradley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This public hearing is being held for the purpose of receiving comments from the public regarding an ordinance to amend Greenville County Land Development Regulations to add new provisions for open space residential development in Greenville County. And due to the amount of public interest in this ordinance, county council will be holding a second courtesy public hearing for the LER amendments at the regular county-county meeting on Tuesday, August 18, 2026, at which time the ordinance is to be considered for second reading. Individuals will have the opportunity to speak prior to council vote on this matter, at which all council public hearing anyone wishing to speak must sign in at the kiosk outside Council Chambers between 5.15 and 5.45 p.m. on the evening of the meeting. Madam Clerk, do I have any speakers?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bradley, we have no speakers for this public hearing.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. I declare this public hearing closed.

Thank you. Next is F. Simpsonville Fire Service Area Millage Request. Counselor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Simpsonville Fire Service Area Millage Request. This public hearing is being held for the purpose of receiving comments from the public regarding an ordinance to provide for an increase in the operating millage rate levied by Simpsonville Fire Service Area. Madam Clerk, are there any speakers?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Collins, we have no speakers for this public hearing.

Other speakers? I declare this public hearing closed.

Thank you. And last of this public hearing, G, Simpsonville Fire Service Area General Obligation Bond Issuance. Councillor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Simpsonville Fire Service Area General Obligation Bond Issuance. This public hearing is being held for the purpose of receiving comments from the public regarding an ordinance to provide for the issuance of the sale of not to exceed $1.2 million Greenville County, South Carolina General Obligation Bonds Simpsonville Fire Service Area Project and one more series to prescribe for the purposes for which the proceeds shall be expended to provide for the payment thereof and other matters relating thereto. Madam Clerk, are there any speakers?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Collins, we have no speakers for this public hearing.

This public hearing closed. Thank you, Counselor. Next on the agenda is the consent agenda.

I move approval of the consent agenda.

Thank you. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Next up is resolutions. We will begin with A, South Greenville Area Fire District general obligation bond request for public hearing. Councillor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. South Greenville Area Fire District general obligation bond request for public hearing. Mr. Chairman, the motion I move for an adoption as a resolution calling for a public hearing to be held upon the question of the issuance of not exceeding $1 million of the general obligation bonds from South Carolina Fire District or South Greenville, South Carolina... excuse me, South Greenville Area Fire District in South Carolina, and to provide for the publication of the notice of such hearing.

Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. We'll move to B, Urban County Status Municipality Cooperative Agreements. Councilor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Urban County Status Municipality Cooperative Agreements. Mr. Chairman, the motion that I move for an adoption, a resolution to approve the cooperative agreements between Greenville County and the municipalities of Fountain End, Greer, Malden, Simpsonville, and Travelers Rest to obtain urban county status with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and to appoint the Greenville County Redevelopment Authority, the GCRA, as its agent for the purpose of administering any grants funds that are received as a result of this agreement.

Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Move to C, abandon building tax credit, certain properties on South Washington Avenue. Counselor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Abandon building tax credit, certain properties on South Washington Avenue. Mr. Chairman, the motion I move for an adoption as the resolution to provide certification as provided by the South Carolina Abandoned Buildings Revitalization Act for the building site on 753, 755, 757, and 759 South Washington Avenue, Greenville, South Carolina.

Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? You guys have it. D, Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation, 641 Altamont Road. Councilor McGehee.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation, 641 Altamont Road. I move for adoption of resolution to enlarge the boundary of the Greater Greenville Sanitation District to include a parcel located at 641 Altamont Road.

Thank you. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. E, Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation, 1080 Altamont Road. Councilor McGehee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation, 1080 Altamont Road. I move for adoption a resolution to enlarge the boundaries of the Greater Greenville Sanitation District to include a parcel located at 1080 Altamont Road.

Thank you. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. Next is F, Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation, 1000 North Parker Road. Counselor Gay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation, 1000 North Parker Road. I move for adoption a resolution to enlarge the boundaries of the Greater Greenville Sanitation District to include a parcel located at 1000 North Parker Road. Thank you.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. And finally, we have G, Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation, Willamette Estates Subdivision. Councilor McGehee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Greater Greenville Sanitation District's Annexation, Willamette Estates Subdivision. I move for adoption of resolution to enlarge the boundaries of the Greater Greenville Sanitation District to include the Willamette Estates Subdivision.

Thank you. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. We now move to ordinances at third reading. We'll start with CZ 2026-027, Council Bradley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Properly located at 107 Proserate Street, requiring requesting rezoning from R75 to S1. I'll move adoption as well when it's at third reading.

Thank you. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. We'll now move to B, transportation, penny sales and use tax and referendum. Councillor McGee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Transportation, sales and use tax and referendum. I move for adoption at third reading, an ordinance to levy and impose a 1% sales and use tax subject to a referendum with Greenville County pursuant to section 43730 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976 as amended. to define the specific purpose and designate the projects for which the proceeds of the tax may be used, to provide the maximum time for which such tax may be imposed, to provide the estimated cost of the projects funded from the proceeds of the tax, to provide for a countywide referendum on the imposition of the sales and use tax and the issuance of general obligation bonds, and to describe the contents of the ballot questions in the referendum, to provide for the conduct of the referendum by the Board of Elections and voter registration of Greenville County, to provide for the administration of the tax, if approved, to provide for the payment of the tax I've approved, and to provide for other matters relating thereunto. Thank you. And I believe we have some amendments. Yes. Okay, so the amendments in the packet, I'd like to go through them one at a time just so we don't get too confused, and then we'll argue about different things. So we'll just state each amendment on its own, and we'll get through it quicker, and I think it'll be easier.

Okay, so the first...

I'm sorry. Usually we don't have amendments at third reading. Did we vote to?

We voted to allow for a third at the last council meeting.

Thank you. And does that include all of us? Speaking amendments or it just had to be turned in?

We have to submit them by noon of that prior week on that Thursday, but if there are any amendments to an amendment, then you would be allowed to do so. Amendment to an amendment.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Thank you, Mr. Shaw.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, page one, section one, two, insert a comma after bridges in the first sentence and replace the semicolon before, provided that nothing herein shall preclude with a comma. These, again, are things to clean the ordinance up in the end. Again, things that were kind of just make it better and more readable.

Basically, scriveners, errors, even, or whatever we look at. Correct. All right, so that's the first one in itself? Yes. All right.

If we could vote on that, please.

Any discussion on that amendment? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed?

The ayes have it. State the next amendment. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Redline page two, section 1.3. Correct purpose to purposes in the introductory clause and delete the stray A label preceding the mass transit definition.

All right. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Red line for page 2, section 133. Insert to the extent permitted by the act. End of quotations at the head of the Greenbelt definition. So the definition reads, for the purpose of this ordinance, to the extent permitted by the act, Greenbelts are to include but not be limited to acquiring land and conservation easements for the following.

Any discussion on the amendments? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed?

The ayes have it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Redline on page three, section 1.4, insert the before present and future needs of Greenville County.

I'm not going to ask anybody any questions on that one. All in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it.

All right, great. In this one, there might be some discussion. Sorry.

Absolutely. Councilor Tripp. I think the reason we decided to go that route, I think we're finished now, but we did that just because... That's the end of it.

I wanted to clean it up after speaking with the county attorney and just make it a lot clearer, so just run a little nicer.

I think that's probably the last one.

That's the last one. Thank you.

All right. You can continue with the amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On pages 4 and 5, section 2.4i, restate the municipal allocation paragraph in full. Amend it to 1... Remove the limitation to municipalities that have not imposed a tax under S-866. Two, change shall receive to shall be allocated a prorated share. Three, condition every municipal allocation on submission of projects to the county and county approval of qualifying projects under Section 3.2. Four, restate the two reductions as new subparagraphs. A, the municipality's prorated contributory share of the Section 2.42 and 2.3 allocations because green belts and managed traffic serve all county residents. And B, a 20% reduction placing municipality in a similar position to a municipal tax under South Carolina Code 866 citing South Carolina Code annexation section 541-120B and C3, which requires no less than 20% of municipal collections to provide a credit against ad valorem tax liability. And five, DELETE THE SUPERCEDED RUN-ON TEXT, INCLUDING THE PRIOR 20% EXPLANATION AND THE PRIOR MUNICIPAL USE RESTRICTION BLOCK, WHICH IS REPLACED BY THE COUNTY-APPROVED STRUCTURE IN ITEM THREE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON ANY OF THE POINTS IN THAT AMENDMENT? COUNSELOR TRIPP. A GREAT WAY OF TELLING US WHAT YOUR AMENDMENT IS. MICROPHONE. SORRY, SIR.

YOU DIDN'T REMIND ME. I'M SORRY. That was a great presentation of what you're amending, but what does that mean?

Sure, and Mr. Attorney, help me out here if I get this incorrect. This is a lot of legal jargon in here, and that's why we're trying to get this right. After the SC-866 was passed, that kind of messed up everything. Is that a fair statement? I don't say mess it up, but it kind of changed how, as a county, we're going to allocate the tax. because now they're implicating their own tax. So we wanted to make sure that we got this in there, that what we were doing was legally correct and was right to the way we were going to give money to the municipalities. So we want to make sure now that they're imposing their own tax, we get that correct.

Okay. What's the net effect of that, though? If the city of Greenville passes their penny, what does this language do?

Right. So under theirs, they're given a tax credit, so we're actually going to keep more of the tax because they're getting their own. Okay.

So basically, they're not going to get their share less 20%? Well, I'll let the attorney speak to the legal jargon.

Actually, no. The intent that we were told to draft around was that what would happen now is that instead of changing it to their pro rata share being paid directly to the municipalities, what happens is the DOR collects the tax and then gives it to us quarterly, and then there's different ways you could handle it. And the way this regulation is written now would be once it's collected, it comes into the county. The county then, it's allocated while it's in the county's holdings. And it's allocated pro rata, so there will be a number for each of the municipalities. And then they're going to, and there's another amendment later on that helps to do this, they're going to submit, instead of getting paid the money, because again, if it gets spent for a reason that's outside of the reasons the statute allows it to be spent, by, let's say, I don't think a municipality would try to do it, I'm just saying it could happen, the county is left holding that bag, not the municipality. So this way it comes in, and the county allocates it. They submit road projects, and it basically follows how you already do the road list, the paving list, so that it will be submitted. They'll submit things. It will all come in front of y'all, and then you'll vote on those things. So they'll have like a pot of money that's allocated, but it will be – and then the projects themselves will still be administered and overseen by the county.

But in this language, we're talking about property tax, I believe, reductions.

That's just stating the part about the cities already. In their ordinances, they have to, actually. And that's just reiterating what that is. The county actually can't do that because we have to use it for transportation purposes. And tax relief is not a transportation purpose. But the cities, when they did theirs, the General Assembly actually put in direct language on that, saying they have to give back 20 percent of their tax. So if a city agreement passes one, whatever 20 percent is of that, they have to give back to their taxpayers. I have the lore.

Okay. We've got numerous cities that are looking to put this penny on the ballot. Let's just say, let's assume. What if county penny passes and all these city penny passes? How do you treat a city of Greenville that passed a penny versus a Fountain Inn that's not going on the ballot? How does that differential work?

They're all treated equally as per The previous version that passed its second reading, which was the money goes to them on a pro-rata share, just like they appear on your tax bill. And this current iteration, it just changes it so that it's allocated to them, but the county administers it internally, and we go through the paving project so the council will have an opportunity to vote on the projects, no different than when you get the paving list on our, generally, outside of that. That's how it was modeled. As to the policy question you're asking, that's really outside my office. That's more of a y'all question as to what to do in that situation. When we were told what was to be pursued, we set it up so that it follows those instructions.

And does this language comply with state law? I mean, are we doing anything that's extra...

We do not believe we did.

Outside of our statutory authority?

No, we've been, I mean, and we've been kicking this one around pretty tightly for a while now. And yeah, so no, we, I mean, obviously we're addressing some moving things, but no, we do not.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just comment, I feel like this is a good safeguard. I think that was the intent that We weren't just going to send the money directly to the municipalities. There would be more of an engagement around making sure that the money was being used for our intent.

One follow-up question to that. Does that mean we have veto power over the city's projects? Technically.

That's how I would interpret it to be.

But I think to... Constitutional issue, though? Again, you would be voting on it just like you do vote on roads every year. Ultimately, it's a county tax.

Because if we were to, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Attorney, but if we were to just send them the money and they were to misuse it, then it would be on the county.

I agree 100%. But if Knox White, mayor of Greenville, says I want to pave Pleasantburg Drive, I don't even know if that's just in the city, but are we going to say no to that or are we going to, give them, you know, as long as they follow their internal procedures at the municipal level and they submit the request or whatever, however we're setting this up, I mean, we're not going to sit there and scrutinize their road selections, are we?

No, the intent is never that. The intent is to make sure that the projects they do are transparent and we know as a county, since it's our tax money that we're collecting as a county, is properly spent because we'll be the ones who are responsible for the misuse of funds in the long run. So the funds we're giving them are just going to be monitored. It's basically a monitor, a check and balance to say, yeah, okay, you're not spending it on a new building for their city council, something like that.

Okay, thank you.

I didn't explain that very well, but thank you.

Any other, I think, Councilor Shaw?

Thank you. Okay, because green belts and mass transit serve all county residents, okay, What are we saying there? I'm sorry, I don't follow that. That seems to be clarifying B somehow. Do you see? I'm sorry, it's in... Can you explain it?

I'm not sure what your question is.

Well, it says... Okay, first of all, where does that language come from? Because green belts and mass transit serve all county residents. Is that something we're making up here, inventing, or you pulled that off a statute or what?

Well, no, I mean, that was pulled off a thing, but that's an explanatory phrase. That's it.

We created. We invented that language. That's not off a statute, or is it off a statute?

I'd have to go back and look at all the statutes that were looked at to pull on it. In a state statute, I don't think a state statute says that.

Okay, so it's not off the tax statute. It's something more. Okay, thank you. That's all.

Other discussion on this amendment? Hearing none. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

We need a roll call on this one.

That's chicken shit. All you do is throw grenades and walk away. Like you're throwing grenades.

You're throwing grenades.

Mr. Chairman, you have nine voting in favor, two in opposition.

Thank you. Amendment passes. We'll continue on with amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Red line, page 6, section 2-9, insert two sentences. An exemption for unprepared food lawfully purchased with USDA food coupons pursuant to South Carolina Code Annotation 12-1. 36, 21, 20, 75, as authorized by the 2024 amendment to Section 43730A9, and a sentence confirming that fuels, prescription medications, medicine, and prosthetic devices under Code 12, 36, 21, 20, 15, A through F, and 28, A through F, are exempt from the tax.

Pretty simple explanation of any discussion on this. It's just to make clear that those items are exempt from the tax. Right.

There's no conflict between this language and state law, is there?

No, this was legislation actually passed back when we approached the capital penny the last time. Legislation changed to allow for this to also be exempt, just like the capital projects did.

Okay. Any other discussion?

All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed?

No.

Roll call, please. Just since we do have a, while we're queuing that up, since we do have a larger audience, just to explain the roll call, our rules state that anytime there's a no vote or a vote other than unanimous, we go to a roll call just to have it for the record.

I'll also, wearing my parliamentary procedure hat, we can already ask for that vote just so everybody knows.

As legislative history, I thought originally going into it with the new group of council members that every vote was going to be a roll call vote. So it looks like we landed somewhere in the middle.

Mr. Chairman, you have 10 in favor, one in opposition.

Thank you. The amendment passes. And I will just finish out that informational conversation. We did discuss that, but that was also once we were able to track every vote digitally that we were going to agree to do that. So it would just be simple and go into the public record at the end of the meeting. We'll move forward with more amendments.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Page 7, Section 3.1, insert the parathenical statuary cross-reference. Section 43730A15 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976 is amended, end of quote, after the 1% administrative cost cap confirming the ordinance tracks this authorizing statute. Basically, the 1% is what we have to give the state. They wrote that in there, so they get management fee of the money after they collect the funds and then allocate them to us.

Any discussion on the amendment? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Continue with our amendments.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Page 7, Section 3.2 Alpha. Replace the prior budget preparation paragraph with language. stating that outside agencies, political subdivisions, or organizations designated to be allocated funding administered by the county must submit annual funding requests under procedures set by the county administrator and Section 2.4. The county administrator compiles all funding requests, anticipated revenues, project information, and financial data into a project list for incorporation into the county budget, submitted for council's consideration no later than the first regular scheduled meeting in May of the preceding fiscal year. The procedure should not be construed to interfere with the respective budget rights and duties of the county council and the county administrator under state law.

Any discussion on the amendment?

Can anybody explain that one? Sure. So what we're saying in this one is, hey, it's not just going to be staff that collects this stuff and puts it out there. As a council, we're going to get a list of projects, funding, costs. All those things we talk about, the financial data we make to make sure that the list that we approve and go forward with is approved by the county council and not just staff and bureaucrats.

And that process is going to happen before the referendum? That will be cleared up before the referendum? Because last time the staff, there was a board or a group, we created this board, they made the list. No, that's not true, Steve. That's not true. Not at all. That's not true. The board we've created is going to be an oversight board. I'm not saying the one created. I'm saying the one under Dan Tripps. There was a board created. There was a list created for the voters to vote on.

Correct. He's referring to the capital projects. There was a commission that basically took that over. That's not what this is referring to. This is basically saying that in the years ahead, if it were to be adopted, we would go through the process of collecting the road lists amongst ourselves versus it being an outside commission, and then we would give that to the administrator.

Yeah, and I think that that was the point that differs, I think, from Mr. Tripp's two years ago was that the voters had an exact list And they voted on that exact list. It was thousands of roads, but it was a list. This one you're saying going forward, we would create the list as we go.

Yes, we can change it as needs change. And also here's the other thing.

So the voters don't know what they're getting.

Steve, it's so misleading. Let me take the floor back just to ask a question. This would be a yearly thing, but before the voters vote. year compiled and ready to present, correct?

But you would just, you're saying you're, we would not, the voters this fall in November voting on this referendum will not have a list of the roads going forward, right? Because you're saying that could change every year, it's going to change every year, it's going to evolve every year. Okay, so I just want, that's all, I'm not arguing with anybody, I'm just making it clear to the voter that They are voting for a tax that they don't know which roads are going to get fixed.

Can I address it? I'll take it. So two thoughts, one on that. And Mr. Shaw, actually, I don't disagree with you. I think one of the things I liked about the last one is that while it was a long list, it was out there. But I would hope that we would take a page from our municipal partners. If you've noticed, they have already started putting out publicly the list of roads that they hope to fund with a penny. And my hope is that we would follow suit We have done a lot of work in the past, and I think with our collective wisdom of this body that perhaps that we can get that rolling pretty quickly should things move forward. But that is what I hope the intent is, to be as transparent as we can to say, here's the list we hope to fund by that. But also, it does give us some leeway that if something happens and other monies become available or the state starts working on something, then we can allocate our resources elsewhere. While I have the floor, I do have one question around just the line that says preparation of the project list for incorporation into the county budget. Is that how that's going to work? Are we keeping this money separate? So do we really want this list in the budget? Or maybe just some clarification on what that looks like practically.

Thank you. All funds coming into the county need to be included. So, yes, it'll be part of the budget process. Now, how we set that up, just like... We do every year with the whole budget. Staff does prepare it and presents it to council. And so that's what this says is what we'll do. Now, timing could be off a little bit, whereas we try to get these in front of council at a different time because it'll be a dedicated funding source. And we want to get started before summer. because construction time starts early in the spring. And so we'll have to work through that, but I think we can accomplish that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Quick question. Council Chair. So is the intent of this underlying language, is this directed presumably at cities, municipalities, correct?

No, it's directed at us, that we have the, RESPONSIBILITY.

THAT'S UNCLEAR. I THOUGHT THIS WAS DESIGNATED TO, I MEAN, BECAUSE IT SAYS ANY OUTSIDE AGENCIES, POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OR ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNATED TO BE ALLOCATED FUNDING TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY.

IT IS, CORRECT. But what I'm saying is it's the paragraph that says the buck stops with us, not with staff or bureaucrats.

No, I'm not. What I'm trying to figure out is does this include us? Yes.

Okay. And it includes municipalities. We just talked about that. They would have to submit their funding request to us so we can. It's not so much we're going to say, no, you shouldn't pave that road. It's your money. But they all are roads. And, yes, it is all road-related projects. It's not a county building or county vehicles or something like that. So it is absolutely related to roads. That's our backstop.

Okay. So in the genesis of this question was one from earlier that I asked, if the cities present their funding request for Pleasantburg Drive, whatever, you know, city roads around the county, what happens if we deny that?

Why would we deny it, Dan? I don't know. I don't know either.

I don't know, but this specific language, the way you have called this out, this is part of the budget process, and we have to take a vote, which means we could technically vote no. What happens then? And I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but little things like asking for a roll call when someone votes no, which is absolutely absurd, this is the same caliber of language in the law that I don't think we're thinking through the good things and the bad things that could happen. There are unintended consequences when we draft language. And so I'm asking what happens if we vote no on, you know, I'm assuming that this is gonna be presented to us in such a way that it's not gonna be one vote on everything. I'm sure we're gonna vote on the city stuff, we're gonna vote on Whatever other agencies, the state, roads, whatever, what if we vote no? That's my simple question.

I would suggest, is there a backstop language suggestion for a sentence that we could put in that would assure that, that would be legal?

I mean, we have to pass a budget eventually. We can't we can't just say no forever in perpetuity. The county will stop.

Well, I think I'm referring this this this this body is rife with political divisions. OK, I'm just calling it like I see it. OK, now, if GP is the mayor of Fountain Inn, is it everybody's good idea? you know, has a good day with everybody, then he gets what he wants. But if, you know, if Knox White pisses a bunch of county council members off, we could theoretically vote against their budget. So what happens then? What happens to the pot of money that we are allocating towards Greenville County roads, or Greenville, City of Greenville roads? I guess what I'm saying is, should we be, should we have oversight and have the ability to push back to them and say, no, this doesn't comply with state statutes, or should we be voting on city priorities? I mean, I think that we need to think through that because if we vote no, if this body gets caught up in some feud with the city, there's gotta be some safeguard to make sure that Everybody does what's right.

Let me ask this to legal, too, I guess. But as far as the pro rata share, the allocations that will go to the cities, we're going to know that amount, correct? I guess my question is, why couldn't we just change the language to say that as long as they're getting their share, and I don't know that we could really keep them from doing what their plans would call for.

I was just curious about adding a line, I think, Dan, that you sort of said it, that we look at it, but it's perfunctory in the sense that so long as it meets the language of the law. Must be approved by counsel if it meets the structure of the law. Something like that.

You might consider something to the effect the project shall be approved if they comply with state law.

The easy sentence I was thinking about, something like that.

Now, how would this apply to, I mean, I'm assuming the, could the state, for state secondary roads, could they offer a funding request to the county? Like through C funds or, I mean, so, you know.

It would be up to county council whether to allocate some county funds for that.

Okay. I don't want to get tied up in knots, but I think my point is clear, and I think that language would be helpful.

Would somebody like to make that motion to the amendment that the administrator just mentioned?

I'd be happy to make that motion to amend this section, or if this is the correct section, to include language that says projects shall be approved by county council so as long as they comply with state law.

Any discussion on the amendment to the amendment? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Now we will vote on the amendment as amended. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. We will continue.

Okay, section 3.2, we made a mistake there. It was already approved. It was adopted as second reading, so disregard that one. Page 8, section 3.2. We'll move on to page 8, section 4.2, the Transparency Committee membership. Amend to add the county auditor as an ex-officio member of the Transparency Committee so that the county auditor's ex-officio seat appears first and the residency and non-official qualifications apply to the remaining members. The county auditor shall receive as an ex-officio member of the Transportation Transparency Committee. The remaining members shall be county residents who are neither elected nor appointed officials or employees of any government. Also change elected or to elected or to elected nor, this resolves a conflict between the auditor's seat and the exclusion of elected officials. Basically, we're just trying to sure up that we're not getting any illegal jargon troubles with having the county auditor and how he is presented and how we say that those seats are allocated.

I know I joked about this before, before I even asked about discussion. Does the county auditor know that he's been included in this yet? Surprise, Mr. Case. Any discussion on the amendment?

Just a question to the drafting attorney. Transparency committee. Is that statutory name for that or was that made up by counsel? I saw assistant attorney shake his head one way.

He's done the most research on it. But no, it's not a statutory thing. I think it is something that was introduced by

A COUNCILMEMBER WANTED TO USE THE TERM TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE, RIGHT?

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT PREVIOUS ITERATIONS OF THIS CONVERSATION.

I'M JUST ASKING HOW THE EVOLUTION OF THIS TERM TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE. YOU'RE SAYING A COUNCILMEMBER CAME. asked for that term to be used in this.

This was all discussed during the last council.

I'm not asking that, sir. I'm just asking. The answer was yes. So this is not statutory language. This is a councilman has come up with a transparency committee. That's all I was asking. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shaw. That was useful. And I did, Mr. Thank you. I did have a question for Mr. Tripp. Did your... I believe two years ago there was a committee that would review all the projects and allow citizen input. So this is similar to the last one two years ago that you proposed.

Generally speaking, but we required an audit, I think, of the funds.

An audit, yeah. So this has a transparency committee. Thank you.

That's awesome. Thank you. Appreciate you.

I appreciate your sarcasm, sir.

Section 8, page 8, section 42. We've got to vote on it first.

Oh, sorry.

Oh, yeah, we've got to vote on it. Thank you.

Where are we at now? We're on the 4.2 and 4.3. Well, 4.2. Sorry, 4.2, edit.

All right, any discussion on this current amendment? Yeah, I'd like to talk about this committee real quick. The committee from the previous one actually decided the list.

THIS IS NOT, I'M SORRY, THE LIST WAS DECIDED BY THE VOTERS UNDER OUR PLAN. AND THEY JUST ADMINISTERED THAT.

WE'RE TALKING JOGGING THERE. LET'S MOVE ON WITH THIS THEN. WHAT THIS COMMITTEE, EVERYBODY I HEAR TRANSPARENCY AND AUDIENCE AND THIS AND EVERYBODY WANTS THIS AND THAT. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GETTING WITH THE TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE HERE IS THAT IT'S CITIZENS And we have someone who's in very know of the county auditor who's in knows of where all the money goes and how it's spent. And that we apply with the state laws for all how that goes. And collection of taxes is correct. What we're doing here in this transparency committee is pretty much saying, hey, with your taxes, this is how that tax is going to be spent. And this is the oversight of the people that go, yes, this is we are following what's being done here. They are the canary in the coal mine. All right. So to suggest otherwise that this is. not legally according to state statute or however a lawyer who likes to mumble things up goes, is this is actually going to watch out for your money.

I did want to reiterate, somebody had mentioned it. Has even the auditor been asked about this? Because I know in going through the budget, the auditor has expressed difficulty in the workload that the auditor has now, that's official workload, and also keeping staff and competing with the private market for the employees that he has. I mean, are you just going to put this added burden on? And are you going to, I mean, without even asking the guy, really?

Perhaps we could take him off of GADC and he'd have more time to work on this.

I think we need to get back to the business of the agenda. Everybody has their opinion, but I'm pretty sure that I can speak on behalf of Mr. Case that he would be willing. You can speak on behalf of Mr. Case. I'm saying I'm pretty sure that I would be able to. That's okay.

I'm going to call the question on the amendment at hand, please.

All in favor of the amendment, please say aye. Aye. Roll call, please. Roll call has been requested.

Thank you.

You have nine in favor, two in opposition.

The amendment passes. We'll move forward to the next amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Insert on page 8, section 4-3. Insert. With the exception of the county auditor who serves as an ex-officier member of the Transportation and Transparency Committee, end of quote, so the four-year member terms do not apply to the ex-officio. See, basically saying... We can't hold him to a four-year term. Obviously, he's an elected official. So as that position is someone different is elected, they will also serve when that seat comes up.

All right. Thank you. Any discussion on this amendment? Please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

Move to the next amendment. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Page 10, Section 5.2, Ballot Question 1. Insert the ordinance's mass transit definition to Project 2 and the ordinance's Greenbelt definition, including the 2, the extent permitted by the Act, qualifier into Project, and 3, so the ballot discloses the voter's same definition to the ordinance uses.

Discussion?

Yeah, Mr. Chairman.

Councilor Collins, and we'll go to Councilor Schell.

I know when we were going through this, there was a definition read off about a half a page long. The statute doesn't give you the discretion to make that type of definition of transit. It gives you a specific identity, transportation, roads, green space. To define this is a misogynistic way of seducing the question, misleading. So if you're going to do the ballot question, put the question out there with the minimal stuff that's required by the statute and not try to sway a particular block of voters and put the dollar amount out there in addition to.

Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, we can't put a number on there because it's going to change every year based on the taxes collected. So, I mean, that number would be meaningless.

Well, the percentage is what I'm saying. So, but what I'm saying here, the question is, as one of our colleagues read a definition for like four minutes long the other day, and it explains in detail what green space is. Well, I'm sorry, if you have to have that much a definition, you probably shouldn't make the vote on this ballot initiative.

Well, I would simply just, oh, Mr. Attorney.

Well, I do need to address one thing because there is a reason under existing case law that this was needed to be added to protect it against voters if they happen to approve it. If it passes out of here and they voted on it, it could still be invalidated by somebody challenging it. And one of the biggest issues out there is making sure the ballot question transparently reflects what the ordinance says. Because they're not going to have the ordinance. They're going to have the ballot question. And the only way to do that, and the other counties who've had these, after all that effort and all that vote, had it invalidated was because they did not include enough information on the ballot. And that is why that's in there is to provide the exact, all of this does is provide the exact definition y'all have approved at second reading, and it is currently still there for these terms so that they understand that whenever they're voting on green belts, this is what they're voting on. And whenever they're voting on transit, This is what they're voting on. And this is to square it with the existing South Carolina Supreme Court case law and Court of Appeals case law.

I understand that. And I appreciate your explanation. But my question is, you're going to, I mean, how long are you looking for the question to be? Is it looking, I mean, a definition of mass transit, I could go on impromptu for almost an hour.

You could, and then you could add that into the ordinance as the definition. I'm just saying that my job isn't to figure out what definition you all want to use as long as it stays within the confines of law. My role here is just to make sure, as best as possible, whatever product you produce would withstand an attack if it were attacked after all this effort was put out. That's it. It's up to you all to decide what to do with it.

I'm going to propose an amendment, please. Amendment to the current amendment? Yes. I would add that the definition of mass transit includes a robust and bona fide rideshare program on an equal par with buses or Greenlink or whatever you want to call it. I know we don't put Greenlink in there, but I would say I THINK IF YOU WANT TO REALLY CALL THIS SOMETHING TRANSFORMATIVE AND HELPING, I THINK YOU NEED TO GIVE RIDESHARE A MUCH BIGGER SUPPORT FROM US AT COUNCIL.

CALL THE QUESTION.

HE STATED HIS AMENDMENT.

Basically, Madam Clerk, that council, it's the intention of council that rideshare, a robust and bona fide rideshare program, shall be equally... supported by council and the voters, basically, this amendment. I mean, yeah, this tax, this referendum. There you go.

I'll just state that I'm not. Let me state this real fast, and I'll come straight to you.

I think the question was called. So is that on mine, Madam? No, I have a point of order. Okay, well, that's fine. I just thought my point was good.

I'm going to reclaim my time and make my statement either way because everybody else has been happy, so I'll be a little off. is that there's no there to the rod share. I'm not really even sure what we would be adding to it. If we just say rod share, then who is that going to? There's no clear path to what this would be for.

Does anybody here not know what ride share is? Would you raise your hand if you don't know what ride share is?

Well, I'm happy to give a definition because that is part of my point of order. Okay. I consulted Gemini. I think this is the first time anybody on the dais has consulted AI in the deliberations, but... I ask, is ride share mass transit? No, traditional ride sharing services like Uber or Lyft are generally classified as private on demand transportation rather than public mass transit. So I would argue that this is not germane to the definition of mass transit.

I would add two points to that. First of all, anybody who relies on AI, OK. Number two, we are a legislative body. We are supposed to be transformative, and we make the law. Anything we do is considered valid until said not by the courts. So we can do this if the will is there. It's just a question of the will. If you don't have it, that's fine. But I just wanted to throw it out there as an option to make this something really transformative. One other question.

Councilor Farmer. So, Councilor Shaw, are we, with your definition, are we looking to subsidize Uber and Lyft? Well, it would be... I'm not... I just don't understand what the ride-share deal is.

Well, I mean, the council unofficially, through members, we've talked about this a lot, of trying to... LOOK TO THE FUTURE BY MAKING RIDESHARE A VIABLE OPTION. DOOR TO DOOR, PICK UP PEOPLE FROM THEIR DOOR, TAKE THEM TO THE HOSPITAL, TAKE THEM TO THE DOCTOR, IT'S WORKING, IT RUNS, WE CAN COLLECT TAXES FROM IT, WE CAN BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BUT I'M JUST SAYING SUPPORT. It's not perfect on all the other things. Okay, so why not just throw that in there and give us a chance to make it work?

Mr. Chairman, I'd renew my point of order that this is not germane to the definition of mass transit, especially under state law. All right.

Let's vote on the amendment to the amendment, and then we'll move forward from there. Roll call, please. Roll call has been requested.

Okay, Madam, point of order, sir. Can Madam Clerk read the amendment that we are voting on? What exactly that language is going to say? Yeah, currently we're actually voting on the... On what the amendment to the amendment is. I want to know exactly what the language is stating.

Get back, Madam Clerk. Thank you.

Mr. McGahee, I have down that Mr. Shaw is amending the definition of mass transit to include language for a robust and bona fide rideshare program that shall be equally supported by county council and the referendum.

All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Roll call has been requested. Councilor Trill.

I'm sorry to hang on to this point, but I raise the point of order, and you can't just gloss that over by having a vote on it. So I have a legal question for council. Does the state law definition that we have to follow under this, does the state definition of mass transit include programs like ride share, which are private ride sharing programs?

The state law actually doesn't define mass transit in any way like that. Mass transit is left open like it is. And so the question of that is I have no guidance whatsoever because, of course, this is something that hasn't been around very long for us to do. So the fact of the matter is that I don't know the answer to your question on whether or not that state definition would have, you know, and I would hate to hazard a guess in this situation. I understand your position and argument, and I think there's a lot of wisdom to it. But as far as the thing is here I just want to remind because it seems to be lost in the debate is this says mass transit is to include but not be limited to The whole point of this is just whatever the courts determine mass transit might Be in terms of definitions when people try different things when it comes up this doesn't limit This goes to the outer limit of what state law would allow whatever that is because we don't know because there's no robust case law on that INTERPRETING IT. SO IF A CASE CAME UP AND SOME COUNTY TRIED TO INDEPENDENTLY SAY A PROJECT CAME IN AND THEY SAID, OKAY, THIS IS A RIOT CHAIR IDEA AND THEY DECIDED TO USE THE MONEY FOR THAT, THEY COULD TRY IT AND THEN THEY'D FIND OUT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IF THEY MISUSED THE FUNDS OR NOT BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE GUIDANCE IN FRONT OF YOU. THAT WOULD BE THE RISK THAT YOU'RE REALLY RUNNING THERE.

I'LL READ THIS NOT FROM AI. Not that I'm saying I just didn't want to be accused, but SouthCarolinaStateHouse.gov, South Carolina Code of Laws defines mass transit as any ground surface vehicle such as a bus, rail, high-speed rail, or van used to convey human passengers. This service must be provided on a regular and continual basis to either the general public or selected groups. I think that would...

Certainly somebody, I mean, many rideshare folks have vans. And we, the council, could create its own, our own agency. I mean, how did the bus thing start? I mean, whenever it was big in the 60s or 70s or whenever it was big in big cities, I'm sure it started off as private people taking people from place to place. And then the city said, hey, let's create an authority to start this. So you can vote on it. I'm just saying... A lot of council members had talked about it. Why don't we give it a try? Here's a bunch of money to start it off with.

I would stress that my concern is that, just like in some of the other amendments, that if we were to approve something as an amendment and add it to this language and we find out that it does violate state law, then it would then once again ruin the actual agenda itself.

I don't see how it would affect the ballot. It's not a matter of the ballot. He's saying the issue would be at the trial and the appellate court level, not at the ballot level, not saying that the ballot is incorrect.

Right, and this is a council that tries our best as much as we can to not find ourselves in court. No, no, no, you're not getting the point.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to reiterate the fact that I called the question about 10 minutes ago.

And I want to reiterate my question. Are you overruling my point of order? If so, let's move.

I would ask just so I'm not accused of using AI to overrule. I'm going to overrule your point of order just so I'm not accused, and we'll vote on it and move on.

I'm good with that.

State the question, please.

It's your amendment. Well, we know it is. Yes, I know it is. I know it is. I'm just asking. Do you all know what we're voting? Yes. Okay. Then don't worry about it, Madam Clerk. Thank you.

Pizza in the back. If anybody's hungry.

We did more scrutiny. We should do the government. We should just leave.

Mr. Chairman, you have three in favor, seven in opposition, and one abstaining.

All right. So the amendment fails. All in favor of the amendment as stated originally, please say aye.

Aye.

Roll call, please. Roll call has been requested.

And can I just confirm that we're not changing percentages. That's another amendment coming down the line, supposedly? Yeah.

Okay. Correct.

Any other questions?

Mr. Chairman, you have nine in favor, two in opposition.

All right. Thank you. The amendment passes. We'll move forward to the next amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment was to amend the transportation sales and use tax and referendum ordinance to provide that no less than 20% of the revenues collected pursuant to the ordinance must be used to provide a credit against the taxpayers' county ad valorem tax liability. I'm going to withdraw that one, but if I could just speak on it real quick, if you wouldn't mind. Absolutely. The intent here was to provide some tax relief to the ad valorem taxpayers in the county. Obviously, you know, the county has expenses. This year we brought in $13 million new dollars in ad valorem taxes, but we added $21 million to the budget. So for all of you out there at home, like I do have an income that is, you know, what I make, I can't long spend over that. I can with a credit card, not for long. It will eventually come to pay. We're not the federal government. We can't continue to increase spending and not be backed up by revenues. Greenville County is very tax adverse. Additionally, who would go 30 years without a pay increase? Nobody. You would quit your job and get another one. The county has to get paid somehow. I challenge my colleagues and anybody in here to sit down with me with the budget and show me where $50, $60 million is in the budget that we're wasting and that we could put towards roads. I challenge leadership from the GOP. I challenge leadership from all the small groups. Sit down with me. Let's sit down with the budget and let's have an open and honest discussion about what's in it. And if you find $60 million, I'll be the first person to come back and amend the budget. I challenge the new councilors, let's sit down together. Let's sit down and find the $60 million that the county's wasting. I challenge you, please. And I put this out there in public, and I've had zero people take me up on it so far. So if you're serious and sell the county building, the adults are in the room. That's not a viable solution. All right? That's ridiculous. So if you're going to come to me, come with viable solutions that will make a difference, things that can actually be implemented and passed. Leadership's tough. I do not want to sit up here and tell you I want to put a penny tax on, but when I look at the budget and I look at where we're going, for the past two years we've dumped into the reserve fund, or excuse me, the general fund. That is not a long-term solution to keep your taxes low. That's a fiscally irresponsible policy that's going to put the county in jeopardy 10, 15 years from now. Just think about that when you vote on these things. And I'm not advocating to raise your millage. What I'm advocating for is a chance for you to fix the roads. If this doesn't pass, the county has no path forward to get ahead on the road situation. I challenge anybody in this room, my colleagues, to sit down and show me where the money is in the budget. I'll do it tonight. I'll stay here until 3 in the morning. Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor. And just so it would be clear, he was withdrawing that 20% amendment that was in our packet.

If I can, Mr. Chair, we can't legally do it. According to the referendum language by state law, we can't do it. So I withdrew that. But I wanted to let you know I am attempting to somehow give you tax relief, you homeowners. That is the intent here. Okay? So we're going to try a different way. That's to come.

May I ask you a question on that, Mr. McGahee? You're asking us to just trust you?

No, I'm asking you to sit down with the budget and show me where $60 million for Rose is coming from that we're wasting currently. To the last point.

He withdrew, so let's move forward so some people don't go to sleep here.

It's withdrawn. Okay.

We'll move to the next amendment.

Sir, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the ordinance as amended at third reading.

We still have another amendment.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mr. Bradley. I apologize. Mr. Chairman, piggybacking on what Councilman McKay mentioned earlier, This is the reason I have this amendment. Let me read it. For notice provided in the council agenda package, I move to amend the transportation sales and use tax and reference ordinance to increase the percentage of the sales and use tax collected and extended for mass transit system operated by Granville County or jointly operated by county and other government entities from 3% to 5%. This amendment shall be applied to the ordinance as a whole to update the allocation numbers proportionally for internal consistency as needed. The thought process here, Mr. Chairman, is they get their funding from sales tax and not from the budget in the future. Well, they won't need it from the budget if they have it from the sales tax. Therefore, reducing property tax.

Thank you. Any discussion on this? Councilor Tripp.

So the effect of your amendment is to raise transit to 5%? Yes. Okay. And so now it would be 88, 7 and 5? That's the plan? 88 for roads? Yes. So you're taking additional 2% out of roads? Yes. Okay. I'd urge my colleagues to vote no.

Any other discussion? Councilor McGee? I would argue my colleagues to vote no as well. With the 3% under the current projections, Greenlink would get a significant influx of money compared to what they get now. So that logic to me doesn't make sense.

Councilor Mitchell?

I will move to amend Mr. Bradley's amendment. TO GO FROM 5% TO 7%. THERE'S A LOT OF MISINFORMATION GOING AROUND ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT GREEN LINK. AND JUST BECAUSE YOU GET ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS TO GO INTO THE GREEN LINK BUDGET DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY MAKE REAL IMPROVEMENTS. And so I'd like to see something where we can make some real advances, like some of our citizens have said, think outside the box and be able to do some creative things. So I'd like to go from 5% to 7%. Okay, so I'll keep this.

FOR THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT APPLIES TO THE OTHER AS WELL. COUNCILOR TRIP.

SO KIND OF ASSUMED IN THIS CONVERSATION AS I'VE TALKED TO FOLKS AROUND THE COUNTY THAT ARE PART OF THE MASS TRANSIT AND OTHER INTEREST GROUPS, KIND OF THERE'S THIS ASSUMPTION THAT IF WE RAISE THIS TO 5% OR 7% OR WHATEVER, that we can take this off the tax rolls. But what happens if we don't? Somebody talked about creating kingdoms earlier. That would be creating a kingdom. And so I'm a little bit nervous about creating more kingdoms in Greenville County.

Thank you. Councillor Collins, I forgot you earlier. Sorry about that.

No, you're good, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. I know there's an amendment on an amendment on the amendment. So I think we're at three now, the two additional, then the one amendment. I make my amendment that we either line item the 1% tax, you line item transportation, then you can define it, and you line item the green space. each in a separate lineup, if that's even possible. And if not, then I make a motion we reduce everything and just keep it all transportation. If that's what it's for, that's what it should be used for. All right.

We're going to get really confused because that's technically probably two amendments. So let me go to attorney.

point we are outside of your own rules you've adopted Mason's and under basins you can make a motion to amend and you can make a motion to amend the amendment but you cannot make a tertiary amendment and thus far we have mr. Bradley's motion to amend which was separate from mr. McGee's in a separate portion of the ordinance And then we have Mr. Mitchell's motion to amend that. But Mason's doesn't allow a tertiary or therefore after those type of amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw my amendment until the other amendments are satisfied.

Thank you. All right, so back to Dr. Phan.

I have sit here and listened attentively the entire night. I understand what the intent is, and I agree. You have certain segments of the community that is extremely hostile toward public transportation and very vocal against it. My thinking is if we could come up with a way Mr. McGehee, to fund it, to fund public transportation and not let it come off the good old taxpayers of Greenville County, that might would ease some of the hostility. That's kind of my thinking. If we could provide funding for public transportation and not let it come out of property taxes, not be a part of the general fund, and let it be funded by people who don't even live here, it might reduce some of the hostility. That's kind of why I would like to see it if we could do it.

Thank you, Dr. Fant. Anybody else? So what we are voting on right now is the amendment to the amendment, which is Councillor Mitchell's request to increase it to 7%. And I'm guessing without – I'm just going to go ahead and request a roll call myself.

And just to make sure we're clear, this vote is to 88% roads, 7% – trans uh green space and five percent actually it's more because he increased it to 86 7 7 oh okay you're okay okay okay so it's 86 7 and 7 correct okay one second let's not forget the one percent Columbia takes off the top

Mr. Chairman, you have four in favor, seven in opposition.

All right, so that amendment fails. We'll now move to the amendment to the amendment, which is the 88-7-5. Roll call has been requested.

Mr. Chairman, point of information. So we're making the vote on Mr. Bradley's amendment, which is stated here? Yes, sir. So when will I be able to make my amendment?

We won't be able to because we've had the two amendments to the amendment, which under Mason's at third reading.

And you didn't submit it ahead of time. But we can make amendments to the amendments is what he stated.

He's just saying that we can only do that twice in one.

Point of information, Mr. Attorney, isn't it, since we've settled that one, there's no longer a tertiary, but Mr. Collins could bring up a secondary at that point, correct? As I understand, I may be wrong, but that's how I read it.

No, no matter what, the thing that's on the floor is that, and the time to make motions to amend had already passed, because that's when you all did it, when Mr. Mitchell did, so no, that's not. Okay. The only way, well...

Yeah, we've already asked for a roll call, so we should be voting right now.

See, a roll call has been requested.

Mr. Chairman, you have six in favor, five in opposition.

So the motion fails because we must have seven.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the ordinance as amended.

All right. All in favor?

Roll call.

Roll call has been requested.

This is the whole thing, right?

Yes, sir. eight excuse me you have eight in favor three in opposition all right thank you so the motion passes now just to be clear that was the motion on the final referendum or we still have to vote on the ordinance as amended that was the motion correct my motion was the ordinance as amended okay just making sure we're clear so the motion for the referendum passes We will now move forward, thankfully, to ordinances at second reading. We will start with A, Simpsonville Fire Service Area Millage Request. Councillor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Simpsonville Fire Service Area Millage Request. Mr. Chairman, the motion I move for approval at second reading. An ordinance providing for an increase to the operating millage rate levied by Simpsonville Fire Service Area.

Thank you. Any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Chairman, may I speak?

Council Long?

Yeah, I just want to mention I was in Finance Committee and was able to review this and reviewed it again and would talk with people in these districts and just based surely on the financial status of the fire department, the fact that they have had great success financially and the fact that they budgeted revenues of a little over a million dollars and they brought in two and a half more million dollars than what they even budgeted income. And the fact that the purpose of a millage of five mills wants to be raised to secure their ISO rating, which they have a fireman's fund of 1% that can be used for that. And then they also are gonna use it to be more competitive hiring and those type things. I feel like at this point this is a want and not a need. I can't see voting to raise millage 5 mils and if you do the millage work on this, this is 220,000 mils so it's over a million dollars and Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is over four tax districts.

Councilor Long, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I think you may be referring to southern Greenville County. This is Simpsonville.

Okay, I'm sorry.

At second reading. Okay. I just wanted to make sure this is, is that right? That's right. Okay. That's correct. Okay. Sorry. That's fine.

I saw the S and I just started.

Oh, absolutely. I just want to make sure we're clear. So this is a different request at second reading currently. Simpsonville Fire Service Area Millage Request. And Councillor Collins has already read it, so I'll open it up for any discussion additional. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. We'll now move to item B, which is also Simpsonville Fire Service Area General Obligation Bond Issuance. Councillor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Simpsonville Fire Service Area General Obligation Bond Issuance. Mr. Chairman, the motion I move for approval of the second reading of the ordinance to provide for the issuance and sale of not exceeding $1.2 million of Greenwood County, South Carolina General Obligation Bonds, Simpsonville Fire Service Area Project, and one or more series to prescribe the purposes for which the proceeds shall be expended to provide for the payment thereof and other matters relating thereto.

I think you need discussion on the motion. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. We'll now move to ordinances at first reading. Councillor Bradley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I present for first reading zoning docket CZ 2026-31 through CZ 026-40.

Thank you. And we will refer that to the Planning and Development Committee. We'll now move to item B, wireless communication facilities ordinance. Councillor McGehee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wireless communication facilities ordinance. I present for first reading an ordinance to provide regulations of wireless communication facilities, including cell towers, in the unincorporated areas of Greenville County.

Thank you, and we will leave this on the council floor. Next is South Greenville Area Fire District General Obligation Bond. Counselor Collins.

Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman. South Greenville Area Fire District General Obligation Bond. I present for the first reading and ordinance finding that South Greenville Area Fire District, South Carolina, may issue not exceeding $1 million of general obligation bonds in one or more series to authorize the Board of Fire Control of South Greenville Area Fire District South Carolina to issue such bonds and to provide for the publication of notice of the said finding and authorization.

Thank you. This will as well stay on the council floor. We'll move now to D. Anderson Greenville County Multi-County Industrial Business Park Agreement Amendment Project Signature Foods. Councillor Collins.

Mr. Chairman, Anderson Greenville County Multi-County Industrial Business Park Agreement Amendment Project Signature Foods. I present for the first reading an ordinance to amend an agreement for the development of a joint county industrial and business park 2010 park of Anderson and Greenville counties so as to enlarge the park.

We'll also remain on the council floor. We'll now move to committee reports. We did not have committee of the whole this week, so I'll give Councillor Bradley a pass this time. And as well for committee on finance, we basically covered everything that we had in finance during this meeting. So we'll move to C, committee on communications and governmental affairs. Councillor Farmer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a representative of the Appalachian County Council Council of Governments come. They represent a lot of the upstate counties, how they can work together and try to build some synergy that way to use a little corporate jargon. The meeting's up on YouTube. I encourage everybody to go watch it.

We'll now move to Committee on Planning and Development. Councillor Bradley.

I have nothing at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. We'll now move to roads, infrastructure, and public works. Councillor McGade. Nothing to report, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you.

Committee on Public Safety and Human Services. Counselor Collins. I'll report. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Got a lot of email requests. Right now I'm about 40 concerning the flock cameras. I've forwarded some of those to the sheriff. He's agreed to inform to the actual operations and the procedures that goes along with that. A lot of that's been in the news lately. And I do have a scheduled route with the coroner next week, so. Looking forward to it.

Thank you very much. We will now move to Oversight Ad Hoc Committee. Counselor Long.

Yes, I do have an update. We have hired PFM from Charlotte, North Carolina to do our audit. And they will be beginning either by the last week in July or August. So just to give you an update on that. But that's all I have.

Thank you very much. And then we have short-term rentals ad hoc committee. Councillor Seaman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next meeting will be in August, but I want to thank all the committee members who have taken time to meet with citizens, both in person and in a couple of citizens' groups, to get some more input and look forward to having something for council in August.

Thank you very much. And we will now move to public comments. Ms. Stone.

Mr. Chairman, our first speaker is Harrison Musselwhite. His topic is 9A, South Greenville Geobond.

Welcome, sir.

Good evening, members of council, and thank you to all that came and stayed. I am here on behalf of the elderly, the widows, and the orphans of Greenville County. They can't afford any more taxes. Many of them are put to the choice, especially the elderly and the widows. Do I pay for my medications that will keep me alive? Or do I pay the extra five mils in taxes that the fire district wants? Well, concerning the fire district, number one, thank you gentlemen for your service. My great-grandfather was a police officer killed in the line of duty. So I truly do thank you. But as Ms. Long has said, currently there is a surplus of over $8 billion in the South Fire Greenville District. That is not designated. That is not earmarked. So instead of making our elderly and the widows choose life-giving medicine or staying in their home and paying that extra five mils, I say to the fire district, use some of that money you have in the bank, or I have worked that district, Donaldson Center, and I'm very familiar with Michelin, with... Lockheed, and with Ethox and Periton, many of the chemical companies there. Do you realize they bring in close to a billion dollars a year in revenue? So, and I'll go with you guys. Let's go to Michelin. Let's go to Ethox. Let's go to Lockheed and say, hey, guys, we need you to help fund for our new ladder. We need you to help fund for our capital improvements and not take it out of the elderly, not take it out of the widows. No more new taxes in Greenville. Thank you very much.

I will make the information known that is appropriate for the public to address the council whenever they're at the podium, if possible. And I know what Mr. Musselwhite was saying, but if South Greenville does have $8 billion, I'm going to move down there next week. I knew what you meant, sir. I just tried to lighten the mood a little bit. Thank you very much. Ms. Stone.

The next speaker is Kyle Rowan. His topic is 12A5, Rays Creek.

Good evening, one and all. Thank you for taking this time to listen to us. We were down here last night all in red. He almost made it back tonight to not let the fire die about what's going on in our community with the development or attempted development over there. I will summarize the points that we went over last night, and we've got maybe one or two new ones we want to add. You know, the egress, we do not want into our neighborhood. And it looks like when you look at this development, that is the only way it's going to work. The Donkle Road option is going across a radio tower property and a cemetery. radio tower, you know, it needs so many feet to fall type thing. So as we understand it, there's a driveway proposed to go in that area. The Miller Road exit is very narrow. It also comes out on a dangerous place, so Rutherford Road, and as it was apparently established last night, coming out Rays Creek puts you going to Stallings and then to Rutherford Road, which it apparently has a failure F rating for the intersection. There's water issues, erosion issues that we're already dealing with, school crowding potentially. And, you know, there's apparently chemicals in the ground there that haven't been addressed. And a lot of the residents last night, including myself, we were kind of conflicted and confused in that it was okay to build multi – multi-unit housing, but it wasn't okay to build single-unit housing on contaminated ground. I don't know how that changes the poison. One last thing was brought to me tonight is that, and this may be reiterated later, the same family apparently has owned that property for three generations. It's not changed. Revenue's been garnered there for maybe close to 100 years. I don't know how much that adds up to. and that there was an environmental contamination, Rich Loon 2023, they entered into that agreement. It was a cleanup agreement, 23-7439-RP, which noted two VOCs, trichlorofluoromethane and dialdrin. I don't really know the dangers of it other than apparent carcinogenic. At this time, we can't locate a completion notice for those cleanups that was entered into in 23. With that being said, thank you for again letting us come here and voice our concerns about this potential development. Hope you all have a good evening. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

The next speaker is Brenda Vucic, and her topic is 12A5.

Brenda Bucik, 200 Barrow Way, Taylors. You'll be happy to know that as he spoke, I marked things off of my list. So I think you've all had enough of everything. But my problem with these two, 034 and 035, the biggest problem is, as last night was demonstrated, there is flooding in that area, which is, of course, why we have submitted the Mountain Creek overlay, zoning overlay. Also, those... They're very, this whole project is very loosely defined. So if the zoning was changed, future, if some decision was to sell the property, there's no commitment to even do what has been submitted. So I'll leave it there. Let's see. We talked about that. The only other thing I would add is that this is, I don't even remember, I think the numbers changed from what I saw as submitted, but it's, about 150 residences. And typically, when that's submitted as a subdivision, a traffic study would be required. But what we've seen many times is that developers decide to break it into pieces to the point that they don't have to get a traffic study. It's not required. In this particular case, I don't know what the legal recourse is, but it seems to me a traffic study should be required for this area, which hasn't had one since the very first development came in. And at that time, it was really before COVID was over. People were still not going back to work. So it would be good if that could be required before any further approval was given. That's all. Thank you. Good night and good luck. Thank you very much.

The next speaker is Robert Steeves, and his topic is 12A5.

Welcome, sir. Thank you. My name is Robert Steeves. I'm going to get a little bit more on the chemicals, but the transportation traffic that you've already heard and the water runoff, there are huge problems in that area already. So good evening. Thank you for the opportunity for me to speak. My comments regarding the property for rezoning under 34 and 35 has been owned for the same family from one three generations you heard. My concern is that the property supported industrial commercial activity. It appears it has been associated with the environmental contamination. In 2023, Rich Loom and the property owners entered into an involuntary cleanup. I commend them for that. Although, and that was identified as 237439 RP, and it had the presence of VOCs of trichloro-4-methane and which are two pretty big chemicals. Since that time, I have not observed any visible remediation action, and I've lived in that property for 21 years adjacent to them. So very good view of that area. I have not seen a completion notice for the voluntary cleanup. Before the future development is considered, particularly in residential developments, I believe the community deserves a clear confirmation that the property has been fully remediated and any remaining restrictions, risks, or requirement covenants are clearly disclosed. In my view, the company has benefited from the prior industry use of the site and also should be responsible for completing the cleanup to ensure that the future of the property is safe, transparent, CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT CONSISTENCY WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITY AROUND IT. IF THE SITE CANNOT BE FULLY REMINDIATED WITHOUT RESTRICTION AND THOSE LIMITATIONS SHOULD BE CLEARLY STATED AS ANY HOMES RESIDENTS ARE APPROVED. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL IS GRANTED UNTIL THE CLEANUP STATUS IS VERIFIED The public has access to the relevant environmental information and appropriate safeguards that are in place to protect the future residents of the existing neighborhood. On a personal note, it is concerning that Richland has benefited from this property for many years and is now proposing residential development on a land that has been impacted by industrial activity in the introduction of the townhomes and apartments has a potential to affect the character and the surrounding communities AND MAY NEGATIVELY INFLUENCE NEARBY PROPERTY VALUES. WHILE RICH VALUME HAS OFTEN EXPRESSED A COMMITMENT TO BEING POSITIVE COMMUNITY PARTNERS, MANY RESIDENTS IN THE AREA WOULD VIEW THIS PROPOSAL AS INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE STATED COMMENTS. I BELIEVE THE COMPANY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE ITS DEDICATION TO THE COMMUNITY BY PURSUING A DEVELOPMENTAL PLAN BETTER ALIGNED WITH THE INTEREST AND CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.

Thank you very much. Ms. Stone?

The next speaker is James Barnes, and his topic is green spaces.

I think we may have lost Mr. Barnes to the agenda.

Our last speaker is Michael Roth, and his topic is Tigner Woods.

Welcome, sir. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of council. Michael Roth, 1415 Lawrence Road. I spoke to some of you who were here last night. As the chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals, that is not why I'm here tonight. I'm here as an applicant, resident, and a taxpayer of this great county. Candidly, I should not have to be here at all. I am here because there's a motion being made that requests to request Planning Commission to reconsider the proposed subdivision Tigner Woods. Tigner Woods is a 56-lot single-family subdivision on 58 acres zoned to RS. Every lot is 25,000 square feet or larger, exactly what RS calls for. Every lot is septic. We requested zero variances, zero waivers, Zero exceptions. Our preliminary plat meets the zoning ordinance and the land development regs, and your own professional staff confirmed that on record at the June Planning Commission meeting, the meeting where this project was approved. My company sent every member of this council a letter immediately following that meeting. I encourage you to read it again if you did not. I'll provide the highlights. The meeting was not run according to the Commission's own bylaws. The Commission was very unprofessional to us as applicants. They then directed that same disrespect to your own staff for presenting basic facts. Members attempted motions to deny on three unsubstantiated grounds until your staff members, Mr. Henderson and Ms. Staden, had to publicly state that the project meets the ordinance and the LDRs and that any denial must be grounded in those ordinances. Let me be direct. Your staff saved this county from real legal exposure that night. So I'm baffled by tonight's motion. Councillor Phan sat in the front row of that meeting. He watched every minute of the hearing as it relates to our proposed subdivision. And to this moment, staff, nor the commission, nor anyone else has identified a single provision of the ordinance or the LDRs that this project fails to meet. I do look forward to hearing the basis for that motion tonight. Now let's deal in facts because there were accusations that were thrown at that meeting. We were accused for fire. We were accused for failing to communicate with South Greenville Fire Department. We went through the subdivision advisory committee process, twice actually, after the hearing at the commission's request. I spoke with the fire marshal directly who reviewed the plot again and provided a letter which we submitted to the county. So that question is answered in writing. Regarding sewer, again, this is a septic subdivision. Rewind Metro claimed that sewer is feasible and available. It is neither. The nearest line is more than half a mile away, and we do not control any of that land. State law is pretty clear that sewer is not considered accessible where easements and adjacent property are required. I'm not asking for special treatment tonight. I'm just asking that you follow your own law. Thank you.

Can I ask one quick question? Thank you very much. Just a technical question.

Whose district is this in? Well, the majority of it is in your district, and there's a sliver that is in Mr. Fant's district. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. I believe that concludes public comments, so we'll now move on to an administrator's report.

Mr. Chairman, members of council, I'll keep it short this evening, but I did want to remind you we just had the end of our fiscal year, June 30th, and I heard a couple comments tonight from speakers about an annual audit. The county has to do an annual audit every year, financial audit. It's required by state law. And so we would not get funds from the state if we did not comply with state law. It's actually required by all our federal grants that we haven't audited. financial statements every year and so our bond ordinances also require it so you know we have to do it we do it every year it's just part of our business that we do just like a school district or a city that will be under underway here shortly by our independent auditors and then we'll have the financial report that is presented to us publicly at the Finance Committee and then those all those statements are published on our website so you can actually go back I think a total of 10-15 years right now on our website and see every audited financial statement that we have so I just wanted to bring you all up to speed where we are with that we'll probably get it sometime in October November just depending when they finish up.

Thank you And we will now move to request and motions by council members We have a motion to request the Planning Commission to reconsider Tignor Woods councillor fan.

Dr. Fant Thank You mr. Chairman per notice provided in the council agenda packet a move request the Planning Commission reconsider their decision regarding the Tignor Woods development let me go ahead and explain why we're here and what we're needing to do. There's a old saying, one of my managers used to say years ago, it is impossible to know what you don't know. There's nobody on this council that was here in 2019 and 20 when the EPA threatened to sue Greenwood County because of nitrate levels in lower Greenwood County and discharges in the creeks, rivers, and streams. That's what led to the consolidation of the sewer into Metro. And we were looking at a $500 million fine. We also looked at rising water tables that were in southern Greenwood County. They brought, people brought samples in where there was human DNA in their well water. So then that's what led to the whole idea of restricting subdivisions, septic tank subdivisions in Southern Greenwood County. Most of y'all, well, I guess when people would remember that would be Dan and Liz and me. And so that's, I wanted three acres, Mr. Barnes and I, but Dan followed us and we got it down to one and a half acres instead of the three. But that's why we have the one and a half acre if you're in an unzoned area. Then we led to the repairing buffers to move them to 100 feet. Right now, we have, as a consensus, we've tried to move away from subdivisions. Now, I'm not asking the reconsideration because I just felt like doing it, I'm a little hot with Mr. Antley, but it's okay. He says that the bylaws of the Planning Commission don't allow them to reconsider goof-ups and that we have to ask them to do it. I hope those bylaws get changed so when they make a mistake or realize they made one, they can do it without us having to come back and ask. One of the things that was just, everybody knows my displeasure with the planning commission. And this is not what that's about tonight. This is about correcting a mistake. I'm here asking because several of the planning commissioners contacted me afterwards and said, we can't move to reconsider. You need to do it at council. One of the things that was disturbing, I will give staff credit. Staff said, you have to have a reason if you're going to deny it. Staff gave them a reason. Basically, all you had to do was listen. Basically, when they applied, they applied saying they were going to do sewer. Mr. Bradley's been involved with it as well. When they applied, they said they were going to do sewer. Then all of a sudden, there's no sewer. When it gets to the Planning Commission, they've done a little end around and switched it to septic tanks in an area in Greenville County where there are high water level, high water table levels, high levels of nitrates that we're trying to reduce. And that's what led to the consolidation and led to subdivisions only being one and a half acres. They said, the REWA said that sewer was not accessible, that it was not approved for sewer, but even though they said they were going to do sewer. So when you switched it to septic tank, that was a non-starter. Now, how did I get involved, Mr. Tripp? I do not like meddling in your business, so I don't even want you to think that for one second. The problem we're running into now, Mr. Tripp's not running again. Mr. Bradley's not coming back. And so I'm the only thing left in that little area down there. And they are wearing me out. Now, when I sat at the planning commission, you know what I'm talking about? When I sat there in the meeting last month. I watched them. The staff said, all you got to say is that sewer was not approved and there's your reason to turn it down. They sat there and looked at each other for three minutes straight and just sat there and approved it anyway. So I'm mad, upset, and I leave. I left mad in May, left mad in June. I don't know how Mr. Bradley got away. I don't know. You still haven't told me what you did to leave. I didn't think to go out the back door. So I go out the regular door or try to, but when I get up to leave, guess what? The people, not the LDR, not the cop plan, not the future land use map, none of those little pieces of paper vote. People do. And guess what they did? They followed me to the lobby and wore me out. upset. I tried to explain to them it's subdivisions. It doesn't come in front of county council, but I get well y'all appoint them and we're going to start holding you guys accountable for appointing these people who do this kind of crap. And just, I just, I'm looking around for any of y'all, just anybody. I'm counting any help anywhere. Nobody, just me. I mean, this one should would have been a slam dunk. They held it in May where they should have turned it down. And then I thought they were just going to turn it down in June after staff gave them the reason to turn it down because it was approved for septic. It wasn't approved for septic, but you're going to try to do a septic tank anyway, which that's the last place you need to do septic tanks, which is in lower Greenwood County. So anyway, A COUPLE OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER MEMBERS CALLED AND SAID, LOOK, WE SCREWED UP, BUT WE CAN'T RECONSIDER IT. YOU NEED TO ASK COUNCIL TO SEND IT BACK SO WE CAN FIX IT. SO I'M ASKING COUNCIL TO SEND IT BACK SO THEY CAN FIX IT. BUT I WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW IN THAT AREA, I AM DOING MY ABSOLUTE BEST TRYING WITH THIS. THAT'S IT.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. COUNCILOR SEAMAN.

DOCTOR, DID THE STAFF APPROVE THIS?

When it first got submitted, it was submitted.

The staff approved it and Planning Commission approved it.

As sewer. As sewer. Originally. When we looked at it, Mr. Bradley can help with that. Because we said it's something we can do.

Can I ask when it switched to sewer? If staff approved it under sewer.

And I'm guessing that maybe the staff did not. I don't know. I feel like we have conflicting conversations here about what staff approved and clearly what. We heard just a minute ago that that wasn't even how they presented it, so.

Well, I have a fourth dimension question that rises above all that. Are these lot sizes an acre and a half?

No, they get around it because it's already zoned RS. Remember, we tried to do it for Greenwood County, period, but y'all wouldn't do that. Okay, and listen.

We have common cause on the septic tank. I totally get where you're coming from, but the law is the law. And my concern is, just like we read in Post and Courier last week about getting sued because we're, you know, telling the planning commission to do their job again, I'm just... If the developer followed the law, the law needs to be changed, not... I'm concerned that we're being a little bit rogue with what we're doing here. That's my point.

I don't really know in this scenario how to ask this question, especially with it being a motion to reconsider, but my question is if staff had approved it under the basis of sewer, why would it not revert it back to them when they switch the septic?

Now, that's a good question that I don't know. Because when it first got submitted, Mr. Bradley and I talked about it, and it was sewer. We were like, well, there's nothing we can do. They were fussing then, but it was like nothing we could do. Then when we get here, it's presented completely different than it's down the scepter.

Does this item qualify? I mean, is it possible to hold? I mean, I'm a no vote right now, but I'm also open to hearing some more information.

It just feels like there's some unanswered questions. It'd be kind of hard to send it back to the Planning Commission without those questions answered first.

Yeah, I guess he just raised a question that I was also going to raise. Are there vested rights? Does the developer have vested rights in this property? And if so, what approximately is that number?

I think tomorrow's the 30th day. At this point, I don't have an answer for that. We haven't researched that. I don't know.

We have 30 days. We're on day 29.

Beyond the vested rights, does their application violate state law or county ordinance on what they did?

I have not looked at their application.

May I suggest we have staff here if we could allow to ask if the staff knows if the application was submitted as sewer and when it was changed. That would really clear this whole thing up for me because if it was sewer, sewer, sewer, and then in the middle of the night it was changed to septic without really anybody knowing that, and then not everybody reads everything, I get it, and they approved it, then that's actually a factual change of the facts that were voted upon originally, which would actually allow us to enact this callback because there is a factual change that has occurred that was not known. So I would be interested in getting this information. I'm a no right now as well, but as Ms. Seaman said, I'd like to find out when was it changed and who approved that change? And how do we go from sewer to septic in the approval process? I'd like to know that.

Well, and I guess just to bring all that back to the most simple question that can as the timeline goes to whether it's reconsidered or not.

You would have to tell whoever it was immediately, like first thing in the morning.

Well, considering they're sitting here. He's right there in the back. The 30th day. What's that?

How many of you have context on was the application changed? So you're saying, no, the application was not changed. It was submitted as septic. Okay, well, if that's the case, then...

Okay, so I guess if I back to Dr. Fant, then where did it come from that it was submitted as sewer?

That's when Mr. Bradley and I talked, it was originally submitted to staff as sewer. Then we get here, it's septic.

The applicant actually raised his hand, too, so he might want to come back up and speak to it as well. I'll allow for it. Everybody's either awake or asleep at this point. We'll get it figured out.

Would you like for me to take a shot at this first? So during the subdivision advisory process through the county, we fill out a whole host of information. One of those documents is that we send a flow request to REWA and Metro.

SAC.

Yes, through SAC, Subdivision Advisory Committee. We submit a request, and REWA and Metro, as part of that, when we tell them, hey, we are doing a septic subdivision, they say whether sewer is available. And one other thing, it's like available, I have to look at it. There's two checkboxes. And whether it's approved, whether septic's approved. Feasible and available, and whether septic's approved. REWA and Metro's position is that sewer is available, and that is feasible, and that septic is not approved. OUR POSITION IS THAT IT'S NOT AVAILABLE AND NOT ACCESSIBLE ACCORDING TO STATE LAW, WHICH RULES IN THIS MATTER. SO WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH A SEPTIC SUBDIVISION. AND PLANNING COMMISSIONS AND THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL They put, as part of the general recommendations for any subdivision, is that you provide an approval from REWA, Metro, and or SCDES. Because DES governs septic permits.

You need my name, address, phone number?

Yeah, who are you?

Janelle Phillips. I won't disagree with Dr. Fant on... THE SEWER ISSUE. I HAVE MANY CONCERNS. WE HAVE HAD A FEW SUBDIVISIONS WITH THE SAME SCENARIO WHERE WE'VE HAD REWA AND METRO COME THROUGH AND SAY, YOU'VE GOT TO DO SEWER. AND THE APPLICANT DECIDES THEY CAN'T DO IT OR DON'T WANT TO DO IT. IT'S SEPTIC. IT'S A LITTLE CONCERNING, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE WENT THROUGH In November, a couple years ago, the metro expansion, which to me meant that that gave them the authority. They were the authority, and they're part of our SAC, so they say it's required, it's required anyway. But we knew going in that they wanted to do septic, not sewer. I talked to the county attorney's office, asked them this same question. And evidently, when we expanded metro boundaries, that doesn't necessarily mean metro has like the finger, you know, they can make you do it. And come to find out, even if I don't want to develop using sewer and I want to do septic, if I go to DES, they're not going to talk to rebar metro. They're going to see if I perk, and that's it. GOING FORWARD, WHICH IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN TO ME AS WELL, BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. SO OUR PROCESS DOES NOT REGULATE, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A SUBDIVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE APPLICATION CAME TO US, THEY PLAN TO DO SEPTIC FROM THE BEGINNING. IT WAS A CONCERN, BUT WE HAD NO way to challenge that on the Planning Commission based on our regulations, which is what we have to use. So the rules and laws we have put in place, if we don't have those restrictive like we need them, we have to accept things that come to us like that. I don't think there was any false information that came forward. It's just a lot of population and maybe gaps in our regulations.

And not to not allow the chairman to speak as well, and he can. So what I'm hearing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it was submitted as septic, but because of Rewa and Metro saying that it was accessible to sewer, that's where the conversation about it being on sewer was because they basically said it's available.

Well, and it is next to a watershed, right?

I mean, it's available and it's feasible, but there's no definition for available and feasible. The developer says it's not feasible for us. It's not available for us. Right. So we're stuck because we didn't create the LDRs. You folks did.

Sure.

We have to play by the rules of the game, and we can't change them. Unfortunately, we would love to.

Well, and I'm glad we took the extra time because I think what I just want to make sure that was clear is that the applicant wasn't pulling a bait and switch. It was the process that seems to be... It was our knowledge.

It was presented to us as septic.

Mr. Chairman, I feel like we probably should... This is a very precarious position we're in and I'm concerned about having planning commissioners talking to us and the off chance that it actually goes back to them. So perhaps... We have enough information to make a decision at this point.

Yeah, I believe so. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. All right, so maybe we need to open the discussion back up one more time based on that information because I think that's important to this as well. Is there anybody that wants to speak to that at all?

So, Mr. Attorney, if I may, Mr. Chairman, so the way our regulations are written, if sewer says it's available and an applicant says no, It's not. Why do we have that as a policy? I mean, that's like saying there's speed limits, but that's not a speed limit. I'm going to go as fast as I want.

What do you mean, the policy?

The regulation that states if REWA or MetroConnect says it's available and feasible, then a reasonable person, a lay person like me who's not a lawyer would say, Oh, then it must be reasonable and feasible. That means they can have the sewers available. But a developer can come in and say, oh, that's not feasible to me and just go his own way. How is that? And if so, we need to correct that to make it to put definitions in there. Is that exactly what I'm understanding?

I think that this kind of discussion, given that there's the tenor of why it's on here, would be much more appropriate in an executive session and maybe some time for us to put stuff together to globally talk about that law.

Is there a legal way to preserve our 30-day limit and make that longer? Do you understand what I'm asking? Is there a way to preserve it? Hey, we've put you on notice that we may reconsider that you cannot build on this or move land to get vested interest rights. If I were them, I'd put a steam plow over there tomorrow and blow the land over. I got vested interest. So is there a method we can do this?

Again, that would be another discussion we would need to have. An executive session would be more appropriate.

Okay, thank you.

One of the concerns that I have that no one's talking about is that feasible and available. And really it accrues to the, with all due respect to my friend Mr. Batteny, it accrues to the benefit of Metro and REWA If everything's available. Now, available means half a mile down the road. So, you know, if I'm building a subdivision, I got to pay a half million dollars to get them to my property line. That's where the problem is coming in. To them, it's available. It's a half mile away. It's feasible. It's only half a million dollars or a million dollars. But the economics of it mean a different thing. So it's not a lack of... It's not a willy-nilliness on the developer's part. It's sort of a kingdom-building exercise by the Metro West and REWA. That's the dilemma that we have. And that's what needs to be addressed. And I don't know that you can do that after the fact.

Well, then maybe that's the question that I think maybe Councilor McGee was asking. Is it... What gives them the jurisdiction to make that determination? Is it just baked into how our agreement is?

Because we're talking about a reconsideration. I'm sorry to repeat it. I understand, yeah. We're in active litigation and reconsiderations right now, and so if we're going to talk about legal advice on this thing, I think it would be protective of the county to do so with the attorney-client privilege intact, and the only way to do that would be through an executive session.

Well, then I'll ask the other legal question, then. If we were to hold this motion, would it negatively affect the county or affect whether they're allowed to do this or not, or us to reconsider?

I don't have an answer for that. I haven't reviewed that enough to be able to guide you one way or the other. I can tell you there's no case law that's going to just sit there and say that directly, though.

I have a suggestion. Can we hold this and then talk about it in executive session at our next Cal?

That's what I'm getting at. Well, yeah.

But it can't go to the Planning Commission this March.

No, it can't go to the Planning Commission tomorrow anyway. So it would have been next month anyway if it went back to them. So we would have a chance to discuss it. Yeah, we will. Go ahead.

SO YOU WOULD WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THEN TO REFER THIS TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR EXACT DISCUSSION?

YES.

MR. CHAIRMAN. COUNSELOR MITCHELL.

MR. ATTORNEY, WOULD WE HAVE TIME TO DO THAT WITHIN THE 30-DAY LIMIT WHICH IS NOW 29 DAYS?

AGAIN, I THINK WHERE WE'RE GETTING ACROSS ON THIS IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ASSUMPTION THAT THERE'S A 30-DAY LIMIT THAT'S SOMEHOW SACRESCENT HERE OR NOT, AND SO AGAIN, I reiterate that I think at this point that could be a bone of contention in litigation, and therefore, if we're receiving legal advice on it, we should do so in an executive session. Otherwise, we lose attorney-client privilege.

Basically, it sounded like you either take a shot now or take a shot at holding it and see where we land.

Listen, listen, listen, listen. These people are wearing me out. I want to exhaust every avenue I can to try to help them. And if y'all stick it to me later, you just stick it to me later. But at least I will have died on the soil trying to help the folks who cried out about it. So I'd like to have a motion to refer it back to Committee to Hold, and we can discuss it in executive session. Maybe you'll have a little more information you can give out.

All right. Now, with this being a requested motion, does that have to be an amendment to the original motion?

Somebody else could have brought a motion.

I move to refer this to Committee of the Whole. Okay. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Now we have one final motion. Unless there's any other, unless anybody wants to say anything else. Okay. Hearing none. All in favor, do adjourn.