County Council - Regular Meeting

You're live, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, everybody. I'd like to call this Greenville County Council regular meeting to order, and we will get started with the invocation. I'll call on Dr. Fant, please.

Let us pray. Eternal God, our Father, we glory and delight in your presence. We thank you for your goodness and your grace. We acknowledge that you've been better to us than we deserve and better to us than we have been to ourselves. As we seek your face today, we ask for the presence of your spirit. Dwell among us, guide our thinking, guide our minds, most importantly, guide our hearts. Help us make decisions that are pleasing in your sight. These petitions we ask in Jesus' name. Amen.

Amen. Thank you. Please join us for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Be seated.

Next on the agenda we have the approval of minutes.

Move approval of the minutes from our August 18th meeting.

Thank you. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Next on the agenda we are at appearances on current agenda items.

Mr. Chairman, we have six speakers tonight. First is Diane Vreeland, in regarding 8C, the audit resolution.

Welcome.

Hi, all. Hope you had a good summer. Diane Vreeland on behalf of Greenville County Republican Women, 413 Heather Falls Lane, Simpsonville. I'm here to speak to the resolution authorizing and directing an independent forensic audit of the financial operations and budgetary functions of Greenville County, including the general fund for the six consecutive fiscal years commencing July 1st, 2019 and ending June 30th, 2025, establishing the scope procurement method and oversight structure and providing for other matters related thereto. It is no surprise that I am in favor of Council passing this resolution as I've asked for over two years that we conduct an independent forensic audit. There have been some serious questions asked and some serious allegations made over the years as to our budgetary practices and expenditure of funds. This not only is the way to answer and or put to rest those questions and allegations, but more importantly, to wipe the slate clean for the new county administrator whenever he or she takes the position with no ghost of county budgets passed to impede his or her work. Additionally, This will enable current council members to look the public in the eye and state that you have left no stone unturned to get to the bottom of all those questions and allegations. To not pass this resolution would just scream that you do not care what your constituents think, that you are hiding or covering something up, and that the promises you made when you ran for office meant nothing. The optics if you choose not to pass this will not be good. The people who elected you to serve your district need to be able to trust in your words and to also trust in your actions. I feel it is important that you keep in mind in November that you are asking the public to support a tax increase for our roads, et cetera. And it may help this effort if the public gains some faith in knowing that our budgetary funds are being handled properly. I'm asking you to vote to pass the resolution for all the above mentioned reasons. and to do something proactively positive for the people of Greenville County. I'd like to hand a copy of my statement to the clerk so it's part of the public record, and I thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Michael Fox, and he is speaking on 9D, Texas Amendment Open Space, and 9E, LDR Open Space.

Welcome, sir.

Let's see if you can hear me. Am I close enough that you can hear me? I'm Michael Fox, 211E Shallowstone, Greer, South Carolina. I want to speak to the topic of the 9D Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Open Space Residential Development and the 9E Land Development Regulation Amendment Open Space Residential Development. I've been in contact by email with several of the county council members on this topic, and here are my thoughts. First, I would like to request that there be a motion for more time to review the revisions to this amendment before consideration of the approval tonight. I also feel that there needs to be an open public hearing, considering that the proposal changes the open space rules will be profoundly impacted on the residents of Greenville County. I think there should be more than three minutes per person to discuss this particular topic. Last year, I and homeowners who were adjacent to the proposed Belwyn development saw how the map doesn't math at that time. The total track was roughly 19 acres. On that track, the size, a typical R-12 development would yield 40 to 45 homes after taking into account minimum lot size, internal roads, buffers, setbacks, amenities, interests and exits, et cetera. This was indicated by the Greenville County Planning Commission meeting by Commissioner Bailey and confirmed by then Chairman Bickel. In contrast, the open space option submitted was allowed the developer to have 69 units. VARYING SIZE. IT WAS DETERMINED AT THAT TIME BY TABLE ONE, WHICH REPRESENTED AT LEAST A 50% BONUS. CHAIRMAN BLUNT RESPONDED TO ME IN AN EMAIL LAST WEEK THAT THE NEW ORDINANCE REQUIRED A STRICT COMPARATIVE YIELD PLAN TO PROVIDE THE OPEN SPACE OPTION DOES NOT PROVIDE MORE HOMES AND COULD ACTUALLY BE BUILT UNDER THE PROPERTY STANDARD ZONING OUTLAYOUT. I have read the amendments and I see nothing that confirms that no more homes would be built under the new open space option than under the standard zoning layout. I would request an amendment that would require developers provide a plat drawing using the standard zone layout and one of the open space options to provide a comparative check toward meeting Chairman Blunt's stated objective of not adding houses beyond the number of homes allowed under the standard zoning layout. So based on my experience with Bellman, the revised table 7-1 from 3.6 to 3.2 is a 12% reduction. But that will not offset the 50% bonus that was allowed in the previous year. So again, to assure the meeting expectations of the new ordinance, I would propose the developers provide a plat drawing using the standard zoning layout and one of their open space options. That would provide a check that the state objective of not adding homes beyond the number of homes allowed under the stated zoning layout is being met. Then based on the experience of the new seven COULD BE USED AS A GUIDELINE UNTIL ADEQUATE EXPERIENCE FROM THE DEVELOPMENTS COULD BE REVIEWED AND THE TABLE UPDATED ACCORDINGLY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST TO ADD TO THAT, I WILL SPEAK TO THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE AGENDA ITEM AND CLARIFY. MS. WALLACE?

MR. CHAIRMAN, NEXT SPEAKER IS WILLIAM JOHNSON ON THE SAME TOPIC, 9D AND 9E, THE OPEN SPACE.

Welcome, sir.

William Johnson, 220 East Shallowstone Road, Greer. Like my neighbor, Mike Fox, I'd like to talk to 9D and E, Open Space Residential Development. He mentioned the 50% bonus and Table 7.1 or 11.1. the fact that you don't get the same number of units in a standard uh... development that you would open space development uh... in fact under the current proposed revision uh... you would have to be developer would give up thirty percent for open space but in fact they get a fifty percent bonus in terms of number of units versus what they would have gotten if it was a traditional uh... subdivision i can go through the numbers with uh... anyone afterwards i don't think we need to do that right now It's a factor of minimum space, minimum lot size, 12,000 square feet for standard development versus no minimum lot size for open development. In addition, there's no minimum tract size for open space. The previous option one had a minimum tract size requirement of two acres, and option two was five acres. The revised version doesn't indicate any minimum tract size for an open space development. The minimum lot size for open space lots, as I was saying before, is a big driver of open space density, and it should be regulated. Even regulations for tiny houses have minimum lot size requirements, but not so open space. That's getting special treatment. Minimum length and width for open space itself. There's nothing in the regs to indicate how big open space has to be. It could be a foot wide. And townhouses need a separate zoning classification. They shouldn't be allowed in single-family zoning such as R-12. We saw this with the proposed Bellwind subdivision because there were going to be 25 or more townhomes in that subdivision, and those townhomes would border on the external part of the property. What we're really asking for is for the council to put a hold on the approval of these resolutions so that the public can participate in terms of providing input, feedback, and participate in the development of this as opposed to relying purely on staff. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, Jeffrey Randolph is our next speaker in the same topics, 9D and 9E, the open space.

Welcome, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jeff Randolph, 607 Pendleton Street, Greenville, South Carolina. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak in favor of docket number CZ2026040 in the LDR amendment regarding open space residential development. These documents are the work of a select committee to address needed changes to the zoning code and the LDR. The committee included a wide group of stakeholders, including county planning, zoning and legal staff, a civil engineer, representative from Upstate Forever, several existing members of the County Planning Commission, two land developers, not builders, including myself, with significant residential development portfolios in the county. The committee members were tasked and challenged by Councilman Bradley, Councilman McGahee, and Hesha Gamble, Assistant County Administrator, to not stake a claim to a single mindset, position, or point of view. Compromise and a willingness to understand others' viewpoints were stressed. The committee met for seven months, grappling with words, phrases, and sentences in the existing zoning ordinance and LDR. I found the whole process to be satisfying. I was thankful to participate. The amendments before you tonight are necessary to allow for the thoughtful development of residential communities in Greenville County utilizing open space techniques. The resulting draft language simplifies, provides clarity, and removes ambiguity in the zoning ordinance. The draft language removes many of the lightning rods and flashpoints of the previous ordinance. The draft language removes open space developments in unzoned portions of the county. Draft language removes open space developments from rural districts. There are restrictions and limitations on townhomes. There's an increase in the required open space to 30%. There's now a clear definition of open space. No more debates about what is open space. There's a 10% reduction in the density calculation of open space developments. The calculation is clear. Acreage times allowed density per the zoning ordinance, minus 10%. Minus means less. Math is math. Did we get it right? Probably not on everything. But these amendments are a great start with a required review by staff and council in a 12-month and ongoing basis. Thank you again.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, our next speaker is Brenda Buczek on 9B Mountain Creek Overlay. All right.

Welcome. Welcome.

Surprise. So I don't have much to say. I have no paper. I left just a reminder of why we're here. These pictures were taken during a normal rainfall. You'll see notes in there describing what you're looking at. It was not the hurricane. It was before that. So the other thing is just a little rundown of what has been happening during the last 15 months and how our group and have participated with staff in writing what I think was a very good document. I have gone over the legal concerns with the document, and I feel confident that we can work with legal, but we want to be included to work with legal to resolve these issues. And the only other thing I would say is that I don't know why it took all these months to get the legal issues defined, because it's been out there for nine months. So other than that, thank you very much for listening, and I appreciate your counsel.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, our last speaker is Paul Harrison, again on 9D and 9E, the open space.

All right. Welcome, sir.

Thank you. Sorry. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of council. I just kind of want to get up and echo a lot of what Jeff said earlier. I want to thank Councilman Bradley and McGahee for attending the workshop meetings that we had. I was appreciative to be a part of that select group. As Jeff said, it was a diverse group. We didn't agree on everything, but we reached a compromise on a vast majority of items in the two ordinances. A lot of the language was cleaning up some gray areas, And then, like Jeff said, the increase in open space, the decrease in density, some major changes that have a major effect on developers and builders in the area. One thing I do want to touch on that was not mentioned is the affordability component. When you develop conventional subdivisions and you use 100% of the property, you're putting in more infrastructure. You're putting in more utilities. You're putting in more everything. That cost, realistically, gets passed down to the end user, to the buyer. It's very tough to get in an affordable product when you're doing conventional development. You're using up 100% of the property. You're putting in sometimes twice as many roads. And we should encourage open space developments. It's a good thing. It's a good thing to preserve property. these developers and builders are getting a discount on that property. They're still paying the same amount for that property as they are the property that has lots on it. We should encourage open space preservation, minimum 30% what this ordinance is proposing. But in some cases, I think you're going to have more than that. That's double what it was. The densities went down. roadside buffers that was a huge addition to this ordinance as well as minimum building setbacks to get those to get houses off of the view corridor as you're driving down the road, so I Don't want to repeat everything that Jeff said. I'm appreciative to be a part of the The group that proposed this and I thank you for your time Thank you very much

Next on the agenda, we are up to public hearings. I'll call Ms. Wallace. Oh, it's not Ms. Wallace. Mr. McGahee? Oh, Councilor McGahee. Sorry. I put Ms. Wallace. This is her first time, actually. I almost called her Ms. Stone when we started, so I was already about to mess up. So that was just a tester. She worked out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Item 6A, Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance. This public hearing is being held for the purpose of receiving comments from the public regarding an ordinance to provide regulations of wireless communications facilities, including cell towers, in the unincorporated areas of Greenville County. Madam Clerk, are there any speakers?

Mr. Chairman, we have seven speakers, all in favor. The first, Frank Tamarello.

Welcome, sir.

Good evening. I'm Frank Tamburello from the Saddle Creek Homeowners Association in Greer. You've seen me before. We've previously established that the majority of you don't want a 200-foot cell tower in your backyard, and neither do we. So thank you in advance for your favorable vote tonight. However, if any of you would like a cell tower in your backyard, please let me know, and I'll do all I can to see it happens. Lastly, if any of you have a conflict, whether involving yourself, friends, family, or special interests, then we would expect you to recluse yourself rather than vote negatively. And if any of you are hung up over the radiation hazard, please remember the big picture. It's about the 200-foot cell tower looming over your backyard. This is a good piece of legislation that deserves your favorable vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Angela Fisher.

Welcome.

Hey, good evening. Thank you for having me tonight. My name is Angie Fisher and I'm here to represent Greenville County Freedom Coalition and the Vermont precinct. I've stood before you at both previous readings asking for reasonable guardrails around wireless infrastructure. Tonight, on the evening of the final vote, I want to go in a little bit different direction. At our last meeting, citizens' health concerns were dismissed as conspiracy theories, based in part on information from AI and organizations like the World Health Organization. But haven't the last several years taught us something about unquestioning truth in institutions? During COVID, Americans were told repeatedly to trust the authorities and the information we were given. Since then, recommendations have changed, additional information has emerged, and matters once treated as settled continue to be investigated and debated. I'm not here to debate COVID, though. I'm making a larger point. Government institutions can be wrong. Experts can be wrong. And today's certainty can become tomorrow's correction. And now, on the evening of the final vote, Councilman Farmer is proposing an amendment that would allow government property to escape these guardrails. Councilman Farmer, I have to ask you directly, what changed? You've supported this ordinance throughout the process. So what changed since last week? What new information did you receive? Who requested this exemption? Why does government suddenly need to be carved out at the 11th hour? Those aren't accusations. Those are questions citizens have every right to ask. And this exemption doesn't affect government alone. A tower on government property can still sit beside someone's home and private property. Who protects that homeowner? Their property value, their right to have a voice about something that could directly affect the property they worked their entire lives to own. And government property includes parks and recreation facilities, places where children play. Let me be clear, government property belongs to the people. It should require greater accountability, not less. There's a quote I've always found powerful, an evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes. The lesson isn't that government is inherently evil. The lesson is that unchecked power should concern every free people. Government doesn't need protection from the people. The people need protection from unchecked government. So don't spend months creating protections for Greenville County citizens only to create an 11th hour loophole for the government itself. If there is compelling reason for this, tell us what it is. Do not weaken this ordinance at the finish line. Pass it with meaningful guardrails intact. Thank you so much.

Mr. Chairman, our next speaker is Chaney Vasquez.

Good evening. Chairman and counselors, my name is Elisa Chaney and I am a member also of the Greenville County Freedom Coalition. I come before you in favor of the ordinance, but I also am opposed to the proposed amendments presented by Mr. Farmer to the Greenville County Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance. It appears that these amendments literally defeat the purpose of the ordinance altogether. They appear to me that every publicly owned property covers pretty much all the properties in Greenville County that need to be under the restrictions of the ordinance in the first place. Common sense would dictate that private property owners wouldn't want those harmful towers on their property So what property remains? the very property Mr. Farmer wants to exempt, thus literally making the ordinance obsolete. So what it comes down to is either you stand for us, the taxpayers of this county, or you succumb to the wishes of the mega wireless communication entities. Simple as that. I believe Greenville County needs to make a bold statement in voting down these harmful amendments and telling the mega wireless communications entities no to towers next to schools and government buildings. I am asking you to please vote no to Mr. Farmer's amendment and yes to the ordinance.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, our next speaker is Irene Hellinger.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Okay, good evening. My name is Irene Heiliger and I am a resident of Greenville County. I'm here tonight in support of Councilwoman Kelly Long's ordinance and my reasons are actually pretty simple. I believe people deserve to know what is happening in their own neighborhoods. Most of us understand that cell towers are part of modern life This isn't about pretending technology is going away, but accepting technology doesn't mean residents should have no voice in where this infrastructure is placed or how close it is to their homes and schools. Imagine finding out that a tower is going up near your property only after the process is already well underway. or being a parent and discovering that one is planned close to the school where your child spends six or seven hours every day. Even if you know absolutely nothing about the debate surrounding radio frequency exposure, wouldn't you least want to know where these towers are placed? Wouldn't you want the opportunity to ask questions? Wouldn't you want your local government considering how close that tower will be to homes and schools, what surrounding property owners have been told, and how that decision could affect the people who will live beside it for years to come? To me, that's not unreasonable. That's what local government is supposed to do. We heard at the last meeting that even a member of this council said he wouldn't want one in his own backyard. I think most people can understand that feeling. But if we wouldn't necessarily want this infrastructure next to our own homes, then we should be thoughtful about placing it next to someone else's home. This ordinance doesn't stop technology. It doesn't say Greenville County can't have cell towers. It simply says that how and where we place them matters, and the people affected by those decisions matter too. Tonight is the final reading. I'm asking you to give Greenville County residents the notification, consideration, and local voice they deserve. Please vote yes to the ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, our next speaker is David Kopp.

Welcome, sir. Thank you.

I hope I can do as well as she did. Okay. Good evening. My name is David, and I'm a Greenville County resident. I want to begin by saying that I support this ordinance. I understand how important reliable cell service is to our community. I am not here to oppose better coverage, new technology, or responsible growth. What I'm asking for is something simple, clear rules, reasonable protections, and an ordinance that ordinary citizens can understand. I have read through the proposed wireless communication facilities ordinance, and I believe there are several things Council has gotten right. First, Article 4 establishes a 1,500-foot separation between new wireless facilities and residential structures and a 3,000-foot separation from property and line of school. I support those decisions. and I ask council to keep them. I also think the ordinances should make these requirements as clear and straightforward as possible. Residents, property owners, wireless companies, and county staff should all be able to read the ordinances and understand exactly what the rules are. I also ask the county I counsel not to create a blanket exception for government-owned property. A tower on a county park, county building, or county lot can affect nearby families just as much as a tower on a private property. If there is a legitimate public need for an exception in a particular situation, I believe that should be considered on a case-by-case basis rather than creating a broad exemption. I also have a question about Article 6A, which exempts non-commercial amateur radio towers from the ordinance when they are less than 100 feet tall. I understand the need to distinguish amateur radio from commercial wireless facilities. Amateur radio operators provide an important service, including emergency communications. My concern is simply whether 100 foot is the right cutoff. I would ask Council to take another look at that provision and make sure legitimate amateur radio operations are not unnecessarily restricted. And finally, I want to emphasize that I'm not asking Council to reject this ordinance. Quite opposite, I want to see it passed. I support the 1,500-foot residential separation and the 3,000-foot school separation. I support reasonable rules for wireless facilities, and I support giving residents clear information and a meaningful opportunity to understand what is being proposed in their communities. Thank you for your time and for your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, our next speaker is Susana Saravia. Welcome.

Welcome.

Hi, everyone. Dear county council members, last two meetings, we came and we spoke how the cell towers emit daily radiation when these antennas are too close to homes and school. Now, county council member, Frank Farmer, is placing an amendment to remove all restrictions of cell tower against remove the cell towers against all government property, regardless how close they are to parks, homes, playgrounds, schools, etc. You know, I just ask, I just ask that the rest of the county council will do what is right and protect the people that have elected you. And I'm gonna say personally, I helped Mr. Frank Farmer get elected because I will send cards to people because I thought the best of you. And I wanna continue that because everyone here deserves to have a life. Everyone deserves to have good health. Everyone should prosper and not use somebody's money for their own gain. Because at the end of their life, we all have to be accountable to God, and we're going to suffer too, not just the people of Greenville County. You're going to suffer too, because that radiation is not just going to affect the people of Greenville County is gonna affect you and and if you ever have a child or your family to just think how our actions will come back to against us or for us it depends what you choose because you have a choice to make today and the joy is to do good for every one of us I plead that everybody thinks that before they vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, our last speaker is Douglas Allen.

Welcome, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Douglas Allen. I have a master's in holistic health sciences and spent the last 30 years studying the effects of electromagnetic radiation on human tissue. To be honest, I'm a little upset that I have to be here because I feel like I'm validating common sense. And common sense should not have to be dictated, so to speak. First of all, it's come to my attention that there's a proposed addendum suggesting publicly owned property be excluded from the ordinance. I want to mention that it's essential for this ordinance to establish guidelines affecting both private as well as public land. On the private side, we have 70 to 80 percent of our towers on rooftops, agricultural land, even churches. And a property owner can receive between $500 to $3,000 a month for allowing a tower on their property. This affects value of property in over two miles in every direction. It's done with no legislation and no public awareness. So it's a great potential for poor decision making on behalf of a landowner due to a perceived financial advantage. Flip side of that is 20% to 30% of facilities are on publicly owned property. So these include schools and parks. So the towers are not only an eyesore, they're a health risk. Schools create a particular public concern because children spend six or more hours in the same location every day. According to current research, children absorb greater amounts of cellular radiation than adults. Employees working near a cellular tower, residents living where antennas are installed close to their homes, they're especially at risk. This being said, cell towers are an essential part of life. They provide communication, internet access, emergency services, but they're increasingly being installed near homes, schools, businesses, and other places where people spend significant amounts of time, and this proposes a serious health threat. So they use electromagnetic radiation, which is on a scale. Basically, the poison is in the dosage, if you will. So it's considered not harmful because it's not strong enough to cause damage to DNA. Nevertheless, the radiation around a cell tower is so great that workers are required to wear advanced levels of protection while working around the site for just a few minutes to less than an hour, otherwise resulting in severe tissue damage. Government standards limit the levels of this RF that the public can be exposed to, and a cellular tower generally produces levels below regulatory limits in publicly accessible areas. This might seem reassuring. However, it does not negate the fact that long-term exposure to relatively low levels of this RF can have severe health effects. Studies provide numerous findings, and research is continuing to investigate, but funding is slim. So our goal should be to make an informed decision based on the best evidence available. The proposed ordinance balances the benefits of wireless communication with responsible guidelines regarding where antennas should be placed. And in my professional opinion, it's absolutely essential that the ordinance is passed and that it establishes guidelines that affect both public as well as private land. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Madam Clerk, are there any other speakers? Thank you. I was testing you past. There being no further speakers, I declare this public hearing closed.

Thank you very much, 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 on the agenda is resolutions. We'll start with A, Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation, 106 Phillips Avenue, request for public hearing. Councilor McGehee.

Okay, item 8A, Greater Greenville Sanitation District Annexation, 106 Phillips Avenue, request for public hearing. I move for adoption of resolution to hold a public hearing to consider enlarging the Greater Greenville Sanitation District to include the 106 Phillips Avenue parcel. Discussion?

Discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. We'll now move to B, the equipment master lease vehicle replacement. Councilor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Equipment master lease vehicle replacement. Mr. Chairman, the motion I have is for a move to adopt, for an adoption of a resolution authorizing a master lease agreement in the principal amount of not exceeding $7 million relating to the financing of equipment for public purposes authorizing the execution of DELIVERY OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERE, TOO.

THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION?

ONE QUESTION, MAYBE FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR. I LOOKED THROUGH THE LIST AND THERE WERE TWO VEHICLES ON THERE THAT WERE TAHOS VERSUS EVERYBODY ELSE GETTING AN EXPLORER. WHAT MAKES THAT DIFFERENCE THAT SOMEONE GETS A TAHO VERSUS AN EXPLORER? ARE THEY CARRYING MORE EQUIPMENT? Is it a stature or what delineates that?

No, it could be a variety of different reasons. The service center fleet management director meets with all the different departments, goes over the different requests that they have. He obviously has a list of mileage on the vehicles, the condition of vehicles. So it's basically a rolling stock of our fleet.

Yeah, it was for EMS. That's why I'm wondering what that's for. If you could get back to me on that, I'd appreciate that. I mean, I'll pass it. I'll be voting for it, but I would, you know, eventually, but I would like to know why those, why we're replacing these large, you know, to try and save money, why we're replacing with Tahoe's. They're significantly more expensive than vehicles like a Ford Explorer.

Well, as a matter of fact, quite frankly, sometimes the Tahoe's are less expensive potentially on state contract. I know that's been the case. But in this case, they're not.

I'm looking, I mean, they're, $10,000 more each. So I just would like to know why.

I'm sure I can get back to you.

Awesome.

Thank you.

I just lost you. I was getting ready to say a trip. Counselor Collins. It's been a long day.

It has been. It's been a long week today. YOU KNOW, THE VEHICLE LEASE PRICES BUMPED UP ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT COSTS OF RAISING OF THE VEHICLES AND MOST OF THOSE MAJORITY BUT THIS VEHICLE LEASE REPLACEMENT IS FOR THE COUNTY WIDE FACILITIES. SO AND THE MAJORITY IS LAW ENFORCEMENT WHICH YOU DON'T WANT A DEPUTY RUNNING 90 MILES OR 100 MILES AN HOUR IN A VEHICLE 200,000 miles on so but I researched this back to when it was changed and it was You know at that point about four years ago, so and again, we're almost breaking even because it's a Constant lease for different vehicles, but yeah, I agree with your question. No. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you any other discussion All in favor, please say aye aye opposed The ayes have it. Now move to item C, which is the audit resolution. I'll call on Councilor Long.

Thank you. I move for adoption of a resolution authorizing and directing an independent forensic audit of the financial operations and budgetary functions of Granville County, including the general fund for the six consecutive fiscal years commencing July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2025, establishing in the scope procurement method, and oversight structure, and providing for other matters related thereto.

Thank you very much. Any discussion on the motion? Councillor Tripp.

I was just confused. I was talking to my colleague, Councillor Collins here. So this is, in addition, this is his forensic audit suggestion. Yes. And that's in addition to the forensic audit that you got passed a year or so ago?

No, the previous audit was not a forensic audit. It was an operational audit. This audit, because it is a quote-unquote financial audit, and we're going to want to dig a little deeper, actually the one that I'm looking at suggesting is going to be the budget compliance audit, but it is a type of audit. forensic audits done by a forensic auditor, and basically it details how an entity is using their firm's money, and the forensic auditor would typically perform the following. It would establish a baseline. It's important for our new county administrator to be able to review budgets and know from whence he or she started. look at grants and things like that, and be able to match out what line item is authorized to be funded, and if there's any there that aren't. It will also include data extraction, which pulls the full ledger of transactions, purchase orders, receipts, invoices, bank statements, et cetera in. It looks at line item testing. It reconciles expenditures against the assigned GL codes and makes sure they're coming out of the right GL codes. And it also ensures funds are utilized as authorized and follow stated policies set forth by ourselves as our own policies. So it is a test to make sure that when we are handling money that we're doing it to our own policies while also being transparent.

So two questions follow up to that. One, the General Assembly requires us to have an independent audit every year. Does that independent audit not answer these questions?

Absolutely not. It's just a financial snapshot of where the county started, what money and assets they had, and it tells you how they ended and did the audit meet federal guidelines. It is a true snapshot. It doesn't tell you the how. It doesn't tell you any details. It's like a financial statement.

How much is this going to cost?

We will have to get RFPs and get bids out. I will tell you that currently the audit that we're doing as an operational audit is going to be around $320,000. So we would have $180,000 left over in our current budget. So we will have to look at the cost and see the feasibility and look at that. Thank you. You're welcome.

Sorry, Councilor Seaman. No, you're good.

It's me. Do we have a sense of how long it might take us to pick somebody and how long, and especially considering the length of time of the look back, is there any consideration, one, to maybe shortening that time frame? Because to your point about getting ready for the next person, if we can't get this going and it takes some time, is that going to put us in a position where we don't have the answers we might need And then my other question is, would you be amenable to this coming through Committee of the Whole? Because I appreciate the opportunity and what we're trying to figure out, but I also think it would be important for all 12 of us to hear the results. So just a consideration of how we incorporate Committee of the Whole into all of this.

I'm going to refer to Gary because Gary brought this audit, and Gary has done a lot of study and in-depth study, so I'm going to refer that to Gary.

Councilman Long, thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The whole idea is there's no punitive implication here, but to get the in-depth requirement other than from the comprehensive audit that the county performs annually and is certified, this basically you're looking at with the comprehensive audit, just government audit standards, standards known by AN ENTITY WITH A YELLOW BUG. BASICALLY A BLUEPRINT TO SAY YOU GOT ALLOCATIONS, EXPENDITURES, BALANCES IN A NUTSHELL. THIS IS LAMENT'S TERM. THEY MATCH. THE ONLY REASON I HAD TO PUT FORENSIC ON THERE, NOTHING PUNITIVE, WAS BECAUSE OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH UNDER THAT GETS INTO POLICY PROCEDURE REGULATIONS AND BASICALLY Like, for instance, if I got a $100,000 grant and I used $87,000 because it changed, okay, now I need to see that $1,300 left.

Yeah, no, I appreciate it. My question was more like how long do we think it might take to have this done?

And I was leading to that, but thank you. So what that does, so I left it open because as we came through oversight committee, we were going to try to make changes and amendments, but we were advised to get it to full council. And if they want to amend it, they could amend it there and then send it back to oversight. And I didn't even put a price on it. Working in military contract, anytime you put a standard price up there, whoever gets the bid, they try to meet that. So once we hone this down, shape it to what this body selects, and at a minimum, I'm looking at two separate years in the budget cycle on the general fund. Because if you go to the county website and you look at expenditures, allocations, there's nothing there for the last 10 years. I found a way to get into the website to go back beyond two years. I won't tell you how. But it does show zero expenditures. But every other department has expenditures listed. And it just seems prudent that the general fund is the county's checkbook. And again, this is nothing personal. It's not a witch hunt as it's been referred to. Okay? I'm against witches. No, I'm just kidding. But my point is, It just gives us a good transition from one administration from 22 years and just a snapshot of where we're at to a new administrator.

So do we think, like, it'll take six months? I mean, do you have any sense of once we hire the firm, how long it might take?

Depending on what the body recommends amended and if they even recommend amendments. But I would say that's why I didn't put a dollar sign on it, because once we structure that, send it back to committee, then we can establish an RFP. And then we can see what they come in as, and then we can adjust that cost accordingly.

Can I ask one follow-up? I mean, do you have a sense, have you talked to anybody that does these financial audits? And, you know, how long does a year take? And is doing six years of it 6X that time? I mean, you kind of keep hinting around the fact that you're okay with us narrowing the scope of it. Do you have any concept of what time it would take for one year versus six years?

I've talked to three different companies outside of the state because I just wanted to be neutral. And most of them said, once you define it, and I explained to him the perfect scenario, and he says, then we can, once we get the particulars, then we can narrow it down. But he says, from what I explained to him, which was the two just the general fund of two years, because we were a biennium budget in those prior years. And he says most of it's AI. And he says it could be as little as $50,000 to $60,000, depending on what you're looking for, or it could be probably around $150,000, $200,000.

Or how long, though?

He said it might take him four months.

And that was average of the three. And what are the two fiscal years that you're concerned about? Anything within the past six years. Okay.

And again, that's just to say I'm taking a sample, which will establish a baseline that says, okay, and I'm not saying anything's going to be found, but the information needs to be provided because it just seems to me that 10 years of the general fund with no expenditures on it, but every other department has one. And I understand COVID, lack of personnel. I get it. but it still needs to be presented on the public website.

Thank you. I am going to actually pass the gavel to the vice chairman for a second because I do have a suggested amendment. I get the intent, and I watched the meeting, and I thought it was very thorough, and it made sense that this isn't to have a gotcha moment or to go after somebody, but if you look up the definition of a forensic audit... If you were outside of this room and somebody said forensic audit, the thought is going to be that there's something nefarious that they're looking into. That's what the definition is. So I would make the suggestion that we change nothing in the scope, but that we change the name of it. And for this reason, for everybody that was saying no, just let me finish. We're trying all over this country to find a new administrator to replace the one that we have. That means that In Greenville County, we might know what's going on and people might attend meetings. But if we find somebody from Montana and they're going to come interview and they look online and they see that we're in the middle of a forensic audit, by definition, they're going to say, what am I walking into? And it's more of I just want to make sure that we're doing this in the correct way and not sending a signal to the public that there's something there when we don't know if there's something there. So I would just make the suggestion, I'll be open to even whatever you want to call it, that for the public, so this can't be used in the media to say that there's something bad going on and that council's being looked into for improper activity, that we change the name of the title of the audit simply for the perspective of what it is. I'll entertain discussion, obviously, on that.

Mr. Chairman, I would just make a... that we call it a budget compliance audit because that's what it is. It's very simple. And basically what it does is it shows what we're budgeting and doing with our budget money. Does it adhere? Does it line up? And that takes personality out of it. But we still are doing an audit that is a forensic type audit. But we're changing the name to tell exactly what the purpose is and not calling it a forensic audit.

What did you say the name? What did you?

A budget compliance audit.

Oh, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Mr. Collins and maybe Ms. Long, so you mentioned something about maybe making modifications and sending it back to committee to put, to do kind of the final touches. Would it be appropriate to just to send it back to the oversight committee, taking our feedback here? I mean, would that be an appropriate motion? And would that help the committee then kind of move forward? And then I think it will allow you to make changes to the title, but that also give you more time to figure out the parameters and what years you want and then maybe come back.

Yeah, this is a resolution. So when we bring it back, it would be an ordinance. It would be because this is a resolution. So, yeah. What do you think, Gary?

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, whoever it is. Thank you. And that's why we set it up this way, to get the most out of the resolution. So I think it's appropriate to do that. And the only reason I had, again, to put forensic audit, because the second part of that definition is the scope of what we're trying to accomplish. And so I'm all for that. And again, I think if it goes back to oversight, we turn it into an ordinance, make action on it, then we put it back into Cal or send it back to the full council.

And just to be clear, Councillor Seaman, you're suggesting instead of making that amendment here to just request that it go back to oversight and then we can send that in an email communication that they would consider that as an amendment?

Well, because I also think, to your point too, Ms. Long, like the teeth will be in the ordinance. So, I mean, I think you get a sense from the body that we're certainly in favor of this. And so I worry about passing the resolution as is. I like the idea of the change of the titles. BUT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE LONG TIME FRAME AND MOSTLY BECAUSE I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE. SO I APPRECIATE THE THOUGHT OF MAYBE IT'S JUST A TWO-YEAR LOOK BACK BUT WHAT ARE THE RIGHT TWO YEARS. SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF SENDING THE RESOLUTION BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AND ASKING THEM TO COME BACK WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT WE CAN START MOVING THROUGH THE PROCESS. THAT'S MY MOTION.

Mr. Chairman, just a question. I have no idea what this would cost, but in what I'm hearing, it probably would exceed the $180,000 that's left, which we don't have funds budgeted for. So are you saying you would be willing or prepared to do a supplemental appropriation to come up with additional funds to cover the cost of this if it's not currently budgeted? Which, remember, we don't have any extra money, which means we would have to go into the reserve fund to cover this. Not a gotcha, just a question.

If I may, I would have had an exit 200 for that fire study. But no, I agree with you. But yeah, if we had to, that would work. But I think as we talk to the attorney, can we amend this here, Mr. Attorney? Or do we have to send it back to the committee?

You can certainly, right now on the floor is Chairman Blunt's motion to amend language. I assume that the language was whatever Ms. Long had said, but I didn't know if you were going to send it back. We also have Ms. Seaman has also expressed a desire to make a motion to refer it back to committee to have it worked on in light of the comments that came here. So for the chairman right now, Chairman Bradley, we would need to first address if Mr. Blunt's doing the motion here or going to wait for the name change there and withdraw it. And if not, go ahead and handle that motion as a vote. And then we could take up Ms. Seaman's motion.

Mr. Chairman? Yes. Thank you. Just for the purposes of the meeting and part of the reason that, and no offense to the media who is ever here, but a lot of times once the meeting's concluded, however, we act on something as the way that they run with it. So I would at least like to propose my amendment prior, if possible, just so that's not something that's in the headlines tomorrow.

Ms. Seaman? Okay, I'll submit. Again, this could be another way to get around the date. What if we amended the resolution and took out, to have it read, resolution authorizing and directing a budget compliance audit of the financial operations and budgetary functions of Greenville County, including the general fund, period. Establishing a scope procurement method and oversight structure and providing other matters related thereto, which then would allow the committee to come back with an ordinance that had the dates on it. That might be the cleanest way that would allow us to pass the resolution, but gives the committee an opportunity to come back for the ordinance with the dates established.

May I ask a question? I'm trying to follow. Would that be offered as a friendly amendment? Friendly to the naming?

Correct. Thank you. I'm fine with that, as long as council votes appropriately. Yeah, I'm fine with that. I don't think it hurts anything we're doing.

Any other discussion?

So are we calling a vote? Are we making an amendment to Ms. Seaman's amendment?

My suggestion was a friendly amendment to Mr. Blunt's amendment regarding the nomenclature. And again, the resolution is just, to me, is starting the process. And then once we pass it, the committee then can get to work and come back with the actual ordinance.

Let me see if I can do this the right way. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to take the friendly amendment from Councilor Seaman and add it to my amendment to request that we change the name of the forensic audit to the budget compliance audit.

All right.

Any discussion of this motion? Mr. Chairman, I do. Again, just to state, I had to put that definition there because of the intent and the scope that I was looking for. Yes. You're fighting a change. No. I just explained that publicly.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues real quickly that what Mr. Blunt said at the very beginning is of utmost importance. We are in the search for a new administrator. How that person perceives our county they might disqualify themselves simply and say, I don't want to go there because of what these people are doing. I'm not saying we need to be fearful of an audit. I'm going to support the audit. What I'm saying is how words matter and how we present this in the public eye is important. And we're at a very critical apex for Greenville County and searching for a new administrator. This is going to set the future for potentially the next 20 years. So I would encourage all of us to vote for this amendment, changing the name so it's not out AS WE DO A SEARCH FOR PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON GOING TO RUN OUR COUNTY FOR WHO KNOWS THE NEXT 20 YEARS, THAT THEY DON'T COME IN. WE LOSE PEOPLE BECAUSE WE'RE DOING A FORENSIC AUDIT. MR. CHAIRMAN. AGAIN, I'M FOR THE AUDIT. I'M JUST SAYING THE NAME MATTERS.

Yeah, I have absolutely zero problem with having an audit. I don't have a problem having a 20-year audit. But I think perfection can be the enemy of the good here. If one of the stated purposes of this is to give the new administrator a baseline, we can do that in a two-year budget cycle. Now, what we do one time, we can do again. If we study two years and we see there's malfeasance or you know, stupidity in budgeting, we can go back six years. We can go back ten years. I just, I mean, if we're going to give the new administrator a baseline, let's grab something, run with it, do a good job, and then decide whether we need to go deeper. That might be something that the new administrator comes in and suggests that we do in addition to the two-year baseline. We can always do that. I think we're good.

Is that, well, I guess to be clear, just so I know, is that a friendly to the other?

So that was more direction for the committee when you send an ordinance back. Okay, perfect.

So do we have Chairman Bitten's amendment and then Ms. Seaman's friendly amendment? I'm happy to.

So as I understand, our combined amendments are, The resolution will now read, a resolution authorizing and directing a budget compliance audit of the financial operations and budgetary functions of Greenville County, including the general fund, establishing the scope, procurement method, and oversight structure, and providing for other matters related thereto.

So we're ready for a vote, correct? On the amendment. On the amendment to the resolution. All in favor of the amendment, say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed?

motion that we approve the amendment as amendment.

Approve the resolution as amended. You hear the motion on the floor? Roll call.

Three state the resolution.

We're happy to... Mr. Chairman, a resolution authorizing and directing a budget compliance audit of the financial operations and budgetary functions of Greenville County, including the general fund, establishing the scope, procurement method, and oversight structure, and providing for other matters related thereto.

Roll call, if I may ask for it.

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

This resolution passes, and I will give the chair back to Captain.

Thank you very much. All right. Next on the agenda, we're at ordinances at third reading. We'll start with CZ 2026-024, Councillor Bradley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Property located at 3316 and 3314 Whitehampton Boulevard requesting rezoning from C2 to S1. I move for adoption of this ordinance at third reading.

Thank you. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. Next is CZ2026-032, Councilor Bradley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Property located at 15 Renfrew Avenue requesting rezoning from C1 to I1. I move adoption of this ordinance at third reading.

Thank you. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. Move to CZ2026-036, Councilor Bradley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Property located at Grove Reserve Parkway and Interstate I85, 185, sorry. requesting rezoning from C3 to I1. I move adoption of this ordinance at third reading.

Thank you. All in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. CZ2026-037, Council Bradley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Property located at Grove Reserve Parkway in Interstate 185, requesting rezoning from I1 to C2. I move adoption of this ordinance at third reading.

Thank you. All in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. We have CZ 2026-038, Council Bradley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Property located at Grove Reserve Parkway and Interstate 185, requesting rezoning from C3 to C2. I move adoption. This will witness a third reading.

Thank you. All in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. We'll now move to Ordinances of Third Reading B, Greenville County Zoning Ordinance, Text Amendment, Mountain Creek Community District. Council Bradley.

I move for adoption of Third Reading, an ordinance to amend Article 8, Special Purpose and Review District Regulations of the Greenville County Zoning Ordinance to add Section 813, MCC, Mountain Creek Community District. Mr. Chairman, I have another motion for this. State motions. Mr. Chairman, I've been recently made aware of the standard ordinance language that needs to be added to this document. Therefore, I make a motion to hold this item until the next meeting order that I may give proper notice of these amendments.

All right. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Chairman Bradley, what is the language that needs to be added?

There's some Stripner errors and some additional language that what we What we got on our package is not the correct overlay.

Just the scrivener's error and the severability?

And there was some omitted documentation. We have a copy of it if you need it. I didn't see that.

May I suggest a five-minute recess so we can review this packet quickly, please?

But I think the motion was to hold so that we wouldn't take these up tonight.

This may say if you want to hold it or not. This could have it on someone's vote to hold or not hold.

So we have a motion, a request for a five-minute recess. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. We'll have a five-minute recess, and we'll be right back.

Yeah. ... ... ... ... ... ... That's just formatting. Oh, my gosh. Wasn't there the concern with the open space text and stuff and just making sure it jives? But all this is just the font wrong. You're not moving. It's formatting.

I guess so, but because it changed. As I said, I just don't understand.

That's on the last minute. It's just spots. All that spot, all that spot. That's what I'm like. So far, there's not going to be any screenings. It's a great word.

Okay.

I'll just save you the trouble. I used to do this years ago. It's crazy. Okay, I'll look it up.

Thank you. All right.

I don't think Chris doesn't have like a single year in executive position. Pretty much he doesn't even know who that is.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR ENTERTAINING OUR RECESS. WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER AND GO ON AGAIN. THE CURRENT AGENDA ITEM THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING IS ORDINANCES AT THIRD READING AND IT IS B, GREENVILLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT MOUNTAIN CREEK COMMUNITY DISTRICT. I'LL OPEN IT BACK UP FOR DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT. Mr. Chairman, can I be recognized?

I wanted to propose to make an amendment at third reading here based upon rule, Council Rule 4.3b, that if we vote a majority to change, to suspend the rules, then we can add. The substances, there was the severability clause and effective date clause, and then the signature lines. Those are ministerial boilerplate things in every statute or ordinance. So I wanted to ask you all to let us amend this tonight to add those things on, or suspend the rules so I can add those on.

To do that, Councilman Shaw, first you'll need to move to suspend the notice rule to the council itself because we have a notice rule 3B1 that says that you have to notify council ahead of time, which of course when you have something, this isn't a bad thing, it's just you're just gonna have to suspend that rule. and then you're going to have to suspend the rule you just mentioned about third reading and stuff like that. And at that point, you could then start, if those two pass, and they'll have to pass by eight votes, both of them, and then you'll move on to the next. I'm just trying to give you the framework of how it works.

Thank you, thank you. Okay, so the first rule was the... 3B1, suspend the rules to avoid the notice requirement to counsel. So I ask that you approve that.

Any discussion? Dr. Fain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am... We've been working with Ms. Brenda and the folks up there for over two years now. What we would like to do, Mr. Sharma, if possible, is yes, we do have the severability clause that's missing. We can fix that tonight with the suspension of the rules. As you got in here from the county attorney, there's some legal issues that are in this that need to be addressed as well that we cannot fix tonight on the floor. I would respectfully, and that's why I strolled out there and talked to him, I would respectfully ask that we send this back to P&D. We meet next week to fix these issues along with the legal issues that the attorney brought up and notified us on and that the folks from Mountain Creek be included at that meeting next week to participate so they have a seat at the table, so we clear up these errors, fix the legal issues, and then bring it back at our next meeting at third reading. Clean as a whistle.

Councilor Schell.

I heard what you were saying, but I saw Brenda shaking her head, so that's all I care about. She said yes, so let's do what you said.

Did y'all record this? I mean, y'all have really got to record this.

All right, so having said that, would you like to, so do you need to, does he need to resume?

Withdraw your motion. I'll withdraw my motion and motion to hold. Or motion to send back to P&D.

Correct. Yeah, the motion on the floor now is to hold.

No, no, no, the motion is to send back to PD. You make the motion to send it back to P&D.

Okay, okay. Prefer to P&D.

Yeah, all right, all right.

So do I need to?

Everybody's good now. All right, any discussion? Will the motion that the vice chairman made for it to be held need to be altered as well?

Draw his motion. He would have to withdraw his motion or we would need to actually.

I was drawing my motion. Okay. Handled. And then Dr. Fant or Councilor Shaw, whoever wants to make that motion now officially. Go ahead. Councilor Shaw.

Oh, I thought I did. I make a motion to send this, refer this back to P&D.

Okay. Thank you, everybody. Understand the motion. Any discussions? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. We'll now move to item C, which is Greenville County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Home Occupation, CZ 2026-039. Councillor Bradley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move for adoption at third reading the ordinance to amend Article 6, Section 6213, Home Occupant of the Greenville County Zoning Ordinance.

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

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. We will move now to D, Greenville County Zoning Ordinance, Text Amendment, Open Space Residential Development, CZ 2026-040. Council Bradley.

I move for adoption at third reading an ordinance to amend Article 6, Section 6.2.10, Dwelling, Single Family Attachment, Taxed and Dwelling Two Family Duplexes. Article 7, Table 7.1, Minimum Lot Area Permitted, density for single-family residential article 7 section 7.2 open space residential development 7.25 open space residential development option number 2 and article 7 table 7.2 open space residential development options of the Greenville County zoning Ordinance and I have an amendment for that. Mr. Chairman I'd like to leave this on the floor. We have a couple amendments that didn't make it into the package for us, and I'd like to have it ready for the next council meeting.

Okay. Any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Chairman, just a point of order. Are there, other than outside of the ones I proposed, I believe minor for E, are there other amendments for D that I'm missing? Just to make sure we amend the right, that we're making the motion on the right part.

I think maybe what he's saying, too, is even with the amendments on the other, since we caught those two together.

Okay, just making sure. That's all. We'll have to do the other also. Okay, good. Thank you.

All right.

So any other discussion on this one? Are we saving the discussion about issues concerning it until next time?

Yes, yes. We have them, and you'll get them in your package, and then we'll have them for the next meeting.

I mean, I think with it being on the floor, if you would like to.

I'll just introduce the ordinance in the packet along with what's already coming out. And that way we don't talk about it tonight.

All right. Any other discussion?

Real quick, I would like to say what some of these amendments are. And as I sat down and read the final copy and as I had submitted some other LDR amendments that you'll see in two weeks from now, I thought to myself, this is not giving the Planning Commission, the power that we really wanted to have and the discretion we want the Planning Commission to have. Some of the legal troubles we're in now is because of the nebulous about these LDRs read. So what I proposed as I sat down and said, we have to change it, and you'll see that's what these amendments are. But what I want to stress to my colleagues is when you read those, you have a copy of those. I gave them to you redlined. The red line is delete, and the bold blue is to add. What I'm considering here is to save the county from the legal nebulous that we fall into because the Planning Commission has no recourse to say no to anything. So what this is adding is adding language to our LDRs that actually shores up for us to allow the Planning Commission to control our growth and allow us to grow in a way that is functional for our county. Thank you.

Thank you. And if this is the appropriate part, I would like to also add for, I appreciate everybody for being here as long as you have, especially our constituents who came and offered their comments on this. And I just wanted to mention this now so I can get confirmation and hopefully relieve some concerns of one of the questions was about density. So in these ordinances, from my understanding, and people can correct me or confirm, where they were discussing that it started as whether it was 90 units and they were able to do 120, that still did not go above the allowance for that particular zoned parcel. So per this current format of this ordinance, it's not giving them the ability to achieve more density over what the zoning already allows for. That's what I was told and one of the only reasons I supported it myself. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear. And I want to confirm with my colleagues that that's clear.

You hit on something, which means I have got to ask you this back, or Mr. McGee, is there any discussion about the developer or builder submitting a site plan based on the original zoning and send another site plan with the open space in it to ensure that there is not increased density?

They can't do increased density. The zoning dictates it. And then if it's whatever it's zoned, the ordinance for the open space does not change it. It reduces it. So if you got a, now I'm just doing these phone calls.

If the zoning would allow 90, okay, but you guys don't have lot size limits, okay? So when they do the 30% open space with no minimum lot requirement, I almost said something wrong where the complaining is that it could end up, they could build 120 where the original zoning would have allowed only 90.

If the zoning is 90, now it would be nine less. They can build 81 under the open space ordinance. Oh, yes, sir. Well, why do they keep calling me? Don't ask me. I get the same question.

I think, and again, that's why I wanted to make sure we talked about it in here is I think the problem is what they're seeing is traditional zoning versus cluster. And in cluster, you, you, can't get as much as traditional or vice versa. So it's just confusing the zoning ordinance allowance for the units versus what traditional and cluster are.

And people don't like the fact that you don't have minimum lot sizes. I mean, that seems to be, you get this argument of you're going to do 30% open space, then you ought to have a 30% reduction in lot size. They keep trying to find ways to make sure that the number of houses you could build on the original zoning, you don't get more on the open space. You can't. Well, they can leave me alone. I mean, if that, then I won't even introduce any amendments. We're good. Leave me alone.

Mr. Chairman, if I may. So I think I'm looking for it here, but I don't want people to think I'm surfing the web. The ordinance reads that the underlying density table must be adhered to. So basically what that's saying is if you have a 10-acre plot and you can put 90 houses, that even with the open space, now you're down to only being able to use seven acres, you can still put 90 acres on that seven acres. You can't put 120 there. There's nothing like that in this ordinance at all. It's basically saying we had to, so that it's still attractive to be developed and keep the open spaces, that now we're reducing lot lines and setbacks so they can still fit 90 units or so into that same 70%, seven acres versus the 10 acres. So we're preserving three acres of land, but we have to, it's a compromise, it's not an exact thing. So we can't, that's the thing. But you can't, they don't, there's no bonus or anything where you can put, 90 homes or 120 homes. No, absolutely not. The underlying zoning density still remains in effect for open space development.

But you're also having the 10% reduction. Yes, minus the 10%. Minus 10%.

So the county is getting land that will never be developed, and the density is actually lower. I'm good.

All right. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify because I knew this was the right time for it, and there were a lot of people that had. I don't think they'll allow for questions that way. I'd be happy to talk to you after the meeting. All right.

And just to be sure, the amendments that I had that I brought in late because of just reading it and sitting down and thinking over it again are to strengthen the Planning Commission's authority to say yes or no. All right.

Thank you.

So currently we are still on D. As information, Mr. Chairman, the moratorium is over the 16th, and our council meeting is the 15th, so we still... We'll still be in a good time frame.

All right. So currently we're discussing a motion to hold item D. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. We'll now move to E, land development regulations amendment, open space residential development. Councilor Bradley.

I move for adoption of third reading ordinance to amend Article 11 of the Greenville County Land Development Regulation relating to the design, construction, open space, residential development. And Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.

State your amendment.

Same as the other. I want to put this on hold. We have an additional two weeks so we can clarify the amendments, look at what Mr. McKay has brought, and if there's any other.

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

Aye.

Opposed? No. All right. One no. We will need to request a roll call because I follow the rules.

Frank Farmer.

Oh, no, I'm waist deep now.

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

All right, thank you. Motion passes. We will now move to F, Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance. Councillor McGahee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Item 9F, wireless communication facilities ordinance. I move for adoption of third reading and ordinance to provide regulations of wireless communication facilities, including cell towers, in the unincorporated areas of Greenville County.

All right, thank you. Any discussion? I will pass the gavel to Vice Chairman. I do have an amendment. This is pretty exhaustive. It's in our packets. It's online, so you can look at it, but I did want to explain what it is. I TALKED WITH COUNSELOR LONG ABOUT THIS WHO SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS AND I WAS LOOKING THROUGH IT AND REALIZED THAT SOME OF THE SECTIONS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFIC WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ACT FOR SOUTH CAROLINA. SO THERE WERE SEVERAL AREAS WHERE WE POTENTIALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN INSTANTLY IN VIOLATION AND IF WE WANT THIS ORDINANCE TO WORK, IT'S GOT TO BE ABLE TO HOLD UP SCRUTINY. SO MY AMENDMENT IS, LIKE I SAID, QUITE EXHAUSTIVE BUT BASICALLY IT JUST MAKES US COMPLIANT WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMUNICATIONS DEPLOYMENT ACT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE LEGALLY SOUND IN DOING THIS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THIS AMENDMENT. ANY DISCUSSION?

ANY DISCUSSION?

MR. CHAIRMAN? WHERE DID YOU FIND IT DIFFERED? I DON'T KNOW. I'M ASKING AS A QUESTION.

I KNOW, BUT IN GENERAL, WHAT WERE THE BIG THINGS WHERE IT DIFFERED OR WE WERE There's certain places where in rural parts of the county where lines had not been connected yet, the height requirement that we had exceeded what state or federal requirements were. There was certain places where we had taken away certain kinds of administrator review that by state law was required. And there were a lot, that's just a couple, but there were just places where We would not be legally sound. We could be challenged very easily if we had passed it that way.

Yeah, I did get that packet. I just didn't know if there were some biggies more, you know, there's little details or there were some big things that we were getting wrong or that missed.

No, I don't believe so. Honestly, it was just because of Counselor Long's hard work she put into it is just making sure that this document was legally sound that we would be able to use and use it in the proper way.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Question. This is for the attorney. I knew Council Blunt was going to have these amendments because you know how I feel about this, period. If his amendments pass, will that alleviate the concerns that you have about us being out of compliance with state and federal law? Are we still open to... legal litigation.

My overall concern has been that nobody in my office is an FCC expert. This is a very complex area of law. Niche attorneys who spend an entire career doing that alone. And that I know enough to when I'm not smart enough to handle the thing without help. And the biggest danger when you dabble in an area you're not familiar with as a lawyer is I can read this law and I can say, yeah, that seems to apply for that. But the problem is, is that what I don't know or what any lawyer doesn't know in a new area is the laws that aren't obvious that they apply, but they do. And the people who do know that, those are the people that I would be more comfortable looking at this to be able to give us a review of it. But that's my view. Some people may say that that's a little bit of a chicken little view, but the reality is that I know enough to know when I enter a new area that's this complex that there's no way that I'm not missing something. And so I don't feel comfortable being able to say that anybody in my office has the expertise. We're generalists in my office, and there's some areas we have a lot of expertise in, but this just isn't one of them.

You've had no outside counsel to look at this?

I have not had outside counsel because I would need approval for the expense of that.

Mr. Chairman, may I comment on this? So I've been working on it about two years, and I reached out to several municipalities and counties, and the ones that had the best ordinances with no lawsuits, no issues, and they had paid the money to have them drawn up by professional attorneys. The one that I relied on the most, there was actually two, but one was in Incentus, California, an administrator out there named Jay, and he gave me all of his notes, their ordinance, told me everything about it and I took that and I also took one from Shelbourne, Massachusetts and I looked at that one and then I conferred with Environmental Health Trust who is a professional company that deals in litigation against cell towers. So you had three different sets of attorneys working on all of those before it came to me. This isn't something I just drew up, if that makes sense. So I feel like we saved a lot of money doing that. And then I gave it to Mr. Antley and he helped mesh that together, if that makes sense. And then we also did the extra where Benton looked into the law and we added things we needed to add. So hopefully that'll alleviate your concerns.

Any other discussion? I just had a question for Ms. Long. Were there any municipalities or local governments in South Carolina? Just curious.

No, it's really interesting. If you look from Maine to Florida, there's only two states that even have ordinances. It's really new for whatever reason on the East Coast. They're all over the West Coast and all up north, but we just don't have them a lot in the South and on the East Coast. There's two in Tennessee. and one in Florida and that's the only other ordinances that exist. So the East Coast is wide open and fresh pickings to have these things put everywhere. No, absolutely no questions asked, just wake up and they're in your backyard. So that's why I took this to task and I've got two or three municipalities that are on my list to call when this passes to have a copy and they're gonna start. So it's gonna be a win-win for all of us if we can get it passed.

any other discussion I just said for miss long are you comfortable with this amendment yes I'm comfortable yes yeah so what do we own we own chairman blunts amendments currently yes okay motion to approve the amendments proposed by councillor blunt we have a motion

TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE AMENDED BY COUNCILMAN CHAIRMAN BLUNT.

ROLL CALL. YOU JUST VOTED AGAINST ME, THAT'S ALL. She's sitting there going for a while, getting worried about you, Kelly. Getting worried about you.

Mr. Chairman, you have 11 in favor, one absent.

We'll do Councilman, Chairman Blunt.

Don't get too happy yet. That was just the amendment. We have the item as amended, but the floor is still open for amendments.

Mr. Chairman, may I get a show of hands of the councilors who are against my amendment? I know it's against my amendment.

You're allowed to raise your hands.

All right, all right. So before I rescind my amendment, given that I do not have the support to pass it, I'm at least going to make my case. All right. I've seen the claim that my amendment undoes the ordinance, which I think is a bit of a stretch. Less than 2% of the parcels in Greenville County are publicly owned. Private property owners are the ones that have been abusing the system that we are now creating. What I was trying to do was create a way, a mechanism that would get money to the county that did not come from the taxpayer. The point of this was to put these cell towers and landfills, commercial corridors, and areas away from residences, parks, schools, et cetera, in order not to affect the health or the residential property values. Now, in my proposed amendment, I also had a CYA, aka Cover Your Butt, From the state and feds given that they get to tell us what to do and we can't fight it And I don't want to throw any more money at lawsuits. We can't win Then I got some comments from a school board trustee miss Doolin and She made her whole point about protecting the children and I quite frankly called her out I said miss Doolin given your authority on the school board if you're really trying to protect kids and from radio frequencies, you would start making moves to remove Wi-Fi from the classrooms. At which point, she rejected my claim and said, oh, it'd be too hard, wah, wah, wah. I think Ms. Doolin needs to worry about the plank in her eye as opposed to the splinter in mine. And quite frankly, y'all need to start going to the school board since they clearly don't care about the safety of your kids. And with that, I rescind my amendment.

Thank you, Councilor Farmer.

Motion to approve the ordinance as amended.

All right. Thank you. Everybody understand the motion?

This is the original one now. As amended. As amended.

Right. All right. Roll call.

Roll call.

Requested. I was waiting on that.

Oh, yeah. Absolutely.

you a thousand percent can.

Mr. Chairman, you have ten in favor, one in opposition, one absent. All right.

So the motion passes. All right. And then the door is just locked so you can't leave until we get done. Next on the agenda, we are up to South Greenville Area Fire District General Obligation Bond. Counselor Collins. Just kidding about the door being locked. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The South Greenville Area Fire District General Obligation Bond. Mr. Chairman, the motion I move for adoption at third reading and ordinance, finding that South Greenville Area Fire District, South Carolina, may issue not exceeding $1 million of general obligation bonds and one or more series to authorize the Board of Fire Control of South Greenville Area Fire District, South Carolina, to issue bonds and to provide for the publication of notice of the said findings and authorization.

Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye roll calls been requested.

Mr. Chairman, I got a question. We're on South Greenville, right? Yes, sir. Do you recall anybody from the South Greenville Fire District coming up here to speak in opposition?

Point of order. I don't mind you speaking, but we're in the middle of a roll call, so I think if we're going to make comments, we need to hold after the roll call or suspend the roll call and have comments. Just a procedural thing. That's all right.

I want to hear you. I couldn't remember. That's all. But I don't even have to ask it because I'm going to vote the same way anyway. Okay.

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

All right. Thank you. The motion passes. Next on the agenda, we are up to Anderson-Greenville County Multi-County Industrial Business Park Agreement Amendment Signature Foods, formerly Project Bento. Councillor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Anderson-Greenville County Multi-County Industrial Business Park Agreement Amendment Signature Foods, formerly Project Bento. Mr. Chairman, the motion I move for adoption of the third reading and 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. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ANDERSON COUNTY.

THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NOW MOVE TO ORDINANCES AT SECOND READING. WE'LL START WITH A, CLEAR SPRING FIRE AND RESCUE MILLAGE REQUEST. COUNCILOR COLLINS.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. Clear Springs Fire and Rescue Millage Request. Mr. Chairman, the motion I move for approval at second reading and ordinance to provide for an increase to the millage rate levied by Clear Springs Fire Department and Rescue.

Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. And I move to B, Special Lighting Tax Districts Fee and Millage Adjustment. Councillor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Special Lighting Tax Districts Millage Adjustment. Mr. Chairman, the motion I move forward to approve what second reading that ordinance to provide for the millage of fee rate to be levied by certain special tax districts established for street lighting purposes and to adjust the fee or millage rate in 13 such districts.

Thank you very much. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. We'll then move to C, non-consent towing ordinance amendment. Councilor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Non-consent towing ordinance amendment. Mr. Chairman, the motion I move for approval at second reading an ordinance to amend the non-consent towing ordinance, ordinance number 4278, as amended by ordinance number 4692, in order to adjust the maximum towing rates.

And I believe there might be an amendment.

Yes, sir. I have an amendment I move to amend the ordinance to reflect the changes outlined in the red line version provided to council agenda package.

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

All right, Mr. Chairman, again, I move for approval of this ordinance as amended.

Thank you very much. All in favor of the motion?

Roll call.

Roll call has been requested.

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

All right. Thank you. The motion passes. Next, we are up to ordinances at first reading. We'll start with A, Foothills Fire Service Area Millage Request. Councillor Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Foothills Fire Service Millage Request. I present for the first reading an ordinance to provide for the millage rate to be levied by the Foothills Fire Service Area.

Thank you. That will stay on the council floor. We'll move to B, Cane Break Fire Service Area Millage Request. Councillor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cane Break Fire Service Area Millage Request. I present for the first reading an ordinance to provide for the millage rate to be levied by the Cane Break Fire Service Area.

Thank you. That will also stay on the council floor. We'll move to C, Anderson Greenville Multi-County Industrial Business Park 2010 Park Agreement Amendment. Adeptus USA Holdings Incorporated, formerly Project Palmetto. Counselor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Anderson Greenville Multicounty Industrial Business Park 2010 Park. Agreement Amendment. Adeptus USA Holdings Incorporated, formerly Project Palmetto. 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. This property is located in Anderson County.

Thank you very much. That will also stay on the council floor. And then finally for this, we have D, Lawrence Greenville Multi-County Industrial Business Park Agreement Amendment Project Hunter. Councilor Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lawrence Greenville Multi-County Industrial Business Park Agreement Amendment Project Hunter. I present for first reading an ordinance to amend an agreement for the development of a joint county industrial business park of Lawrence and Greenville counties so as to enlarge the park. This property is located in Lawrence County.

Thank you very much. That will also stay on the council floor. We'll now move to committee reports. We'll start with Committee of the Whole. Council Bradley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the committee, I move to authorize the county attorney to file all motions and appeals necessary in the interest of Greenville County as they pertain to C, docket CA2025-CP-23-08251. Thank you very much. Any discussion?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. Anything else from the committee?

On the County Council Employment Evacuation Process, no action was taken on this item.

Thank you very much. I do not have anything tonight for Committee on Finance, so we will move to Committee on Communications and Governmental Affairs with Councilor Farmer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a meeting next week, and I have thoroughly enjoyed my Steve Shaw moments tonight.

Do you know who we have presenting, by the way?

Oh, gosh.

I'm only saying it because I forgot.

Salvation Army. Thank you so much. Oh, and the York County engineer that spoke on the success of their 1% sales tax.

Got you. Thank you very much. All right. Next is Committee on Planning and Development. Councilor Bradley. Thank you.

We have nothing for it today. Nothing.

Thank you. Next, Roads Infrastructure and Public Works Committee. Councilor McGehee.

Just two things today. We had the Greenville Airport Commission from the downtown airport come in and give us a brief on airport operations and how the county and city can... kind of collaborate with the airport a little more in the future. A little disclosure, I work there a lot. I operate a business out of there. But it's very important. And the tax money and the revenues and the business that airport brings are critical to this area. So as we move along here, from my colleagues, you'll be seeing maybe something in the budget to help that out between the county, city, the state. and actually the FAA as well. So as we can grow Greenville County Airport, that'll help us bring jobs and money to the area. Additionally, next week on Wednesday the 8th, and I believe they've changed the time, but if you look on Uganda, the Upstate Trails Alliance, last year I donated all of my allocated funds for community projects to them, and they've actually built a trail in the Five Forks area going from what is now the former Ennery Dump to the Mesa soccer fields. And part of my long-term project is envisioning is sort of like if you know Mount Trashmore in Virginia where it's kind of a park. They already operate an RC airplane park there at the dump. And I'd like to see a park there as well. Five Forks is lacking in any kind of park. We do have one that's coming close to the area there, the old YMCA property. But looking forward out five, six years. Hopefully we'll have the opportunity to develop something like that, and I think this is the start of that. So if you'd like to come to that next week, that's a really neat thing we've got going on, and I'm excited about that. So thank you for listening.

Thank you very much. We'll move now to Committee on Public Safety and Human Services. Counselor Collins.

Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I just want to put it out. Clear Springs Fire Department, September 8th, we have a five-forks overlay meeting, and food will be provided. and September 17th at Clear Springs Fire Department Headquarters, Scuffle Town Rural Conservation District overlay meeting, and expect some changes coming through. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now move to G, Oversight and Ad Hoc Committee. Councilor Long.

Yes, just want to give you an update on our current audit, as I say, performance audit, efficiency performance audit, and audit. The company that we've hired, they are already working on the audit. They're physically going to be on site the week of September the 14th through the 18th. They're still working, getting in information and working with the public safety staff and everything's going as expected. It just takes time to do it. So we're kind of in the middle of the audit. So I'll inform you as we move along the way.

Thank you very much. And then finally for this section, H, short-term rentals ad hoc committee. Councilor Seaman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No report this evening.

Thank you very much. We'll now move to public comments. Ms. Wallace.

Mr. Chairman, we have three speakers tonight. The first is David Lavelle on county issues.

Welcome, sir.

A lot of repeating. A lot of what I have to say tonight I already said at the last meeting. One thing that I haven't said though is tonight, today is September 1st and it is the 27 year anniversary of my dad's death. He was killed by the FBI in 1999. And I'm pissed off that I have to be here at a county council meeting in relation to that because what does that have to do with county council nothing it shouldn't have anything to do with county council but it does because at every level of government everybody keeps passing the buck nobody wants to do their jobs all the way down to county council and so we're here tonight because the state legislative delegation who meets in this room right here won't let my family speak as you know they're violating the law rachel bennett the administrative assistant she will not obey the law Sheriff Lewis, my family submitted a FOIA request with him about them in May. Like, he shouldn't even be involved in this. You were talking, Frank Farmer, about, you know, you don't want any more lawsuits that you guys can't win. Well, get rid of this one because this is going to be a lawsuit. I've already told the legislative delegation we're suing them. They're getting sued, okay, in their individual capacities. Rachel Bennett's going to get sued. But the sheriff is also going to get sued. And that's a county matter. So if you guys don't want more lawsuits that you're going to lose, then fix this issue with the sheriff and make him obey the law. He is the chief law enforcement officer in this county. So he should be modeling for everybody else and complying with the law. And he's not. We filed a FOIA request in compliance with state law. He is required to fulfill that FOIA request. So you guys hold the purse strings. I don't care that, oh, we don't have oversight over the sheriff. Well, you do hold the purse strings. So if the sheriff is going to be a criminal and he's not going to comply with the law, then pull the purse strings tight and stop giving him money, OK? Same thing for the legislative delegation. Same thing for Rachel Bennett. Rachel Bennett has an office right across the street in that building over there. Get rid of her office. Stop paying her salary. Cut her off. It has been a month since I submitted my request to speak in October at their next delegation meeting in this room, and she still hasn't responded to me. You know how long it takes her to respond to other people? Four days. Four business days. And I know that because of other FOIA requests that we've submitted. It takes her four business days to respond to other people, but every single time our family requests to speak, it's the same thing. No, you don't get to speak, and they take months to respond to us. This is harassment. It's illegal. It is against the law. They do not have any authority under the law to do what they're doing. So pull the purse strings tight. Stop giving them access to this room. Stop giving them funding. Stop giving them county resources. Same thing for Rachel Bennett. Cut off her pay. Cut off her access to that office. She's never in there anyway. And same thing for Sheriff Lewis. Pull the purse strings tight and cut these people off. I am sick of public servants who do not do the job. They are here to serve. You are here to serve. So do your job. Serve. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Ms. Wallace.

Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Edward Bishop on 4410 Old Spartanburg Road.

Welcome, sir. Hello, friends. Benton should have given you guys this. I got this today. And what we're talking about is the property at 4410 Old Spartanburg Road, right at the end of Cunningham. Mr. Farmer, this is on your land. Everything that goes on on this property is going to affect your people and Mr. Shaw, who is mine. I live directly across the street from this. I have spoken several times. The new owner is Electus Development Group, bought from Scott Stokes in 2022. This property, the owner of the property has been harassing the neighbor at $4,500 is Jackie Bishop. She is my cousin-in-law. They have been calling her and threatening and harassing her to give up her property so they can build 56 apartments on that land. That land is also in a giant floodplain. The floodplain has not been looked at for over 10 years. Scott Stokes backfilled all along the creek bed which has raised up the water that goes to all of the neighbors, including David Simmons, and that means Botany Woods, Wellington Green, Kingsgate, Drexel Terrace, Terra Pines, Del Norte, Eastgate, and Sugar Creek all get extra water because the flood cannot go where it is supposed to go because of the backfilling of that property. This is coming up next week for a variance hearing, and we have defeated them twice and once was withdrawn. They have done nothing new With this variance, they're just asking because they've got some new people to talk to. They have told big lies, and part of it will be on this paper where it says, we will be sold with approval and permits in hand. They do not have that. Later on down on this paper, it says, development ready with approval secured for the construction of 56 apartments. And then later on, it says zone permits are in place. That is not true. They have also told county council that they have come and talked to us neighbors that are all adjacent to that property. They have never come to talk to any of us. And that's just not right. Next week, we'll have a hearing. I will be there after my cataract surgery. I will see you then. And thank you for your time.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Since I was addressed. I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT GIVEN THAT I AM THE COUNTY COUNSELOR OF THAT DISTRICT, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THEY HAVEN'T EVEN REACHED OUT TO ME EITHER, AND I'M NOT PARTICULARLY IN FAVOR OF THIS, ESPECIALLY IF, YOU KNOW, THEIR VARIANCES ARE JUST REPETITIVE AND NOT CHANGING ANYTHING AND THEY'RE CONTINUING TO GET KNOCKED DOWN. AND AMONG THE PLENTY OF OTHER ISSUES, THE FLOODING, ET CETERA.

MS. BISHOP HAS HAD THAT LAND RELINED. surveyed. They have been on her property for the last two years, and they will not keep the property up. It is overgrown, and it would, I mean, it's this tall. Mr. Blunt has pictures of what it looked like two years ago, what it looks like now. It's ridiculous.

Do you have her number? Yes, I do. Can you stay after so I can get it from you? Not a problem. Thank you.

Could you say the address again, please? The address? The address.

The address is at 4410 Old Spartanburg. Okay.

All right, thanks. You just mentioned it was adjacent.

Yes, it's at the end. It's where the light is at the end of Cunningham. That's the property, the two properties in question. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms. Wallace.

Mr. Chairman, our last speaker is Layden Cage, and his topic is unreliability of council members.

Good evening, council members. This primarily is a message for Ennis Fant. I'm here because my family have dealt with an ongoing problem since May 2022. My parents have reached out repeatedly to council member Ennis Fant and to code enforcement. After three months, when the Greenville County officers finally came out, they told my parents, we're not the pretty police. Meanwhile, the conditions are anything but pretty. Their neighbor has hazardous trash piled up in their yard, sewage smells, rats and roaches affecting the family and their neighbors. They pay taxes like everyone else. The county has issued a few fines, but for years and still, nothing has improved. And my parents and their neighbors are left living with the consequences. They reached out to NSFANT on May 8th, 2022. Again, June 18th, 2022. Again, July 1st, 2022. Again, January 19th, 2023. Again, September 25th, 2023. All separate messages, emails, calls. And on September 25th, they were given the number to Keisha Gamble in the planning department. No answer from her either. They reached out again July 1st of 2024, again July 2nd of 2024, again September 19th of 2024, again September 23rd of 2024. The neighbors on September 23rd, excuse me, of 2024 were standing outside because they smelled raw sewage, raw rotting meat and sewage smells as they described it coming from their house and front yard. This problem is still ongoing and we've had no answer from Ennis Fant. Sorry, I lost my spot. We need effective code enforcement and real accountability so families aren't forced to live next to unsafe conditions. Every response that they did get was basic corporate, I'll send this to the team, and no response from their councilman. Our community deserves more than excuses. uh... why should your constituents support and reelect you if the past four and a half years you've been unable to do something as simple as answer a message also at the last county council meeting and now tonight councilmember ennis voted no to the wireless telecommunications bill two weeks ago saying he asked five types of AI if it was dangerous to live next to cell towers and AI said no. The fact that a duly elected official is listening to AI and not doctors is childish, it's unintelligent, and we need to do better.

I patiently let you let this keep going. So I'm asking you kindly to put a stop to that.

I'm going to give him his time to finish. I always do. If we could just reduce any of the comments and not be directed at him. I apologize.

I wasn't trying to personally insult him. But I do agree that I should be able to say as I am as a constituent of Greenville County without him getting upset at me. I don't understand, however, the past four and a half years, their council member has been unable to answer any emails, messages, or calls, and this problem is still ongoing. They have...

Thank you. I want to ask him a question. What is your parents' name and address?

Ashley Duncan and Curtis Duncan, 39 Danhart Street.

And just to, not that this is the platform for it, but I think we went far enough into this. There have been times, and I try my best to respond to everybody, but I don't know what email address they're using, but this is a proper place to come and address that, and we'll definitely look into it.

Yes, sir. They have gone. to the code office. They've come to the county office. They've reached out to Keisha Gamble. They've reached out to the code enforcement. They've reached out to Greenville County Police. And they've reached out on Facebook and email to Ennis. And they've received no response of any. They got a response from the police department a couple times. That's when they were told we're not the pretty police. They've been fined a couple times. They're no longer getting fined. And the yard is still in Ravage.

Well, we'll definitely make sure to check into it. I just know with all those different, like I can speak on behalf of Ms. Gamble because I've had to use her a lot to reach out to her, and she's usually very quick. So for whatever took place that caused that confusion, we'll make sure to look into it.

And if ever needed, me and my parents have all the transcripts for all emails, messages, calls. They have all that saved.

Okay.

I appreciate your time. Thank you, guys. Have a great day. Thank you very much.

Yeah, I'll just state, I guess I'll just use my privilege because I try not to use it much, but if there's anybody in the room that has issues from council and you feel like you're not getting an answer, all of our email addresses are available online, and sometimes there's improper email addresses out there, and you might be sending it to a council member that they're not getting it. Maybe a letter's wrong. I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just saying... With all the different entities involved in that conversation, usually they're a lot quicker to act than that.

And I can say this, the gentleman that called me out the last meeting, who I did not know, he sent a fax. The fax was received August 7th. We did not, he was sitting here. Well, I didn't see it until after the meeting when we left and got it out of my box. So I can't, it's impossible to know what I don't know. And we weren't here in between the time he sent it until our meeting. A week ago, well, two weeks ago, and then I saw the facts in my facts box. So I don't mind you calling me, but at least be truthful about what you're saying.

Right, right. Thank you very much. We will now move on to Administrator's Report, and I'm not going to delve into it too deep, but our top administrator is not with us because there was a health situation in his family, so prayers for his family in that. But I will allow our current administrator here to address if he would like to.

YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBER OF COUNCILS DO HAVE ONE REPORT FOR YOU THIS EVENING. CITIZENS ACADEMY WILL HAVE THEIR FIFTH SESSION NEXT TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8TH. PARTICIPANTS WILL TOUR THE VEHICLE SERVICE CENTER ON KEITH DRIVE BEFORE HEADING TO TWIN CHIMNEYS LANDFILL. STAFF WILL SHARE ABOUT THEIR STATE-OF-THE-ART FACILITIES, INNOVATIVE METHODS FOR HANDLING SOLID WASTE PRIOR TO LEADING THE GROUP ON A TOUR OF THE LANDFILL. Current and past participants continue to give overwhelmingly positive feedback about our program and how much they've learned through the Citizens Academy. There will be one more session in October before graduation luncheon in November, and I believe we have several members of the current and past academy class in attendance tonight. Absolutely.

You might as well raise your hand and show yourselves off a little bit. Most of them got up to speak, so they've learned that they're bold in that anyway. Okay, they don't have to raise their hands, but they're in here. Thank you very much. Anything else, Mr. Administrator?

Mr. Chairman, I have a question if the Assistant Administrator can answer. You might not have the answer. In the budget this year was a new position for a communications person. Do you know where that's gone or what? Is there a new position for communications?

Just some of these issues here brought that up. Requested by council to add that it's a social media person to kind of beef up the social media program we have. I believe that's in the process of being filled.

So we have, there's an executive level, government relations person, governmental affairs, and then there was an existing social media person, I thought?

Correct.

And then the council has passed an additional, is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, and the administration is working on developing or finding this person and hiring the position, I guess. That's correct. Okay, thank you, appreciate that.

Next on the agenda, we have requests and motions by council members. Anything tonight? Hearing none, I have one final motion. Motion adjourned. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

We're adjourned.