County Council - Regular Meeting

First off, I need to read this. All Lexington County committees are being broadcast live on Lexington County Spectrum channel 13 o two in Lexington County's website meeting portal. The committee meetings filmed today will be available for viewing anytime on demand at our county website. First thing is, item number five first, approval of South Carolina Department of Commerce locate South Carolina site enhancement grant. Eric Drudado. Good

afternoon. Before I get started,

I just wanna

hope everybody had a Merry Christmas. Happy New Year.

It's You

too. So

thank you.

As aware, the committee is approved to

and council approved Executive session.

Approved to apply for several site enhancement grants with the South Carolina Department of Commerce. There was $80,000,000 set aside for site enhancement initiatives through the Department of Commerce and we applied for several of them. We did get feedback in about mid December that we were awarded one of those and so we are seeking the approval to accept those funds. These funds are to cover some of the costs to purchase a property for product development to market for economic development and we were awarded 2,125,000 for that grant. So we're seeking approval to

Why would we not make the motion to accept it?

To approve. Anybody? Second. I make a motion to

approve seconded.

Michael Bishop made second. Any discussion left? All those in favor? Anybody opposed? Motion passes. Next up, approval of 10/14/2025 meeting minutes. Move to approve. Second. Motion to approve by councilman Brigham. Second by councilman Bishop. Any questions, deletions, additions? All those approve. And by opposed. Motion passes. Approval of 11/18/2025 meeting minutes. To approve. Second. Motion by mister Brigham to approve. Councilman Bishop second. Any questions, additions, deletions?

All those approved? Anybody opposed? Motion passes. Next up, executive session contract negotiations, South Carolina code 30Dash470, economic development with Garrett Gano. And also a second item, executive session for proposed business and industry location or and or expansion. South Carolina code 30 four seventy. Economic development. Garrett Gagano again. Alright. We'll be in About an hour.

An hour. That's your motion.

That's a motion. I'm gonna make the motion. Mister Brigham in second. All those approved? Anybody opposed? Motion passes. They'll be by the hour.

With, no votes to be taken, and we are adjourned.

But we're at planning now. We are at planning now. That'd be a consensus. 60 acres.

No. The 25 is. Know.

Text me. 19 no.

10 to 20 fives out there.

So only 10 to 20 fives out there.

It was January.

You come see Daryl.

I brushed my teeth.

Oh, there.

It's I

brushed my teeth. I'm a go.

Alright. Here's some Here.

First staff.

Yep. I

think we got it.

Ready, Lynn?

I think it's real bad.

Was it hurt, but it is. Hey.

Alright. The planning committee now is in session. We have three items on the agenda. The first item on the agenda is approval of 10/14/2025 meeting minutes.

Make a motion

to approve.

Motion to approve.

Seconded. Motion by Charlie to approve. Second by Cliff Fisher. Any questions? All in favor? Any opposed? Motion is approved. Next is approval for the 11/18/2025 meeting minutes. Do I have a motion to approve?

I make a motion to approve the meeting minutes.

Moved by Charlie Wessinger. I'll

second that.

Second by Cliff Fisher. Any questions? All in favor? Any opposed? Request is approved. The last item is a discussion of possible vote on ordinance twenty five zero seven amendments to the land development manual section six two nine allowable disturbance acres. Planning commission recommendation with community development, Robbie Derrick, and Matt Rowland, land development manager. Welcome.

Thank you, members of council. Happy New Year. I think everybody's aware we've been going through the process since late last year regarding discussions of the allowed limits of disturbance within our land development manual. In November, the Planning Commission initially took up review for ordinance twenty five zero seven, which again the proposed changes to the LDM with limits of disturbance and just a reminder to counsel, some bullet points items of what was initially discussed in the draft text for Ordinance 2,507, It was revised the minimal acres of residential commercial disturbance to 25 rather than 20 acres without an expanded master plan and disturbance stabilization agreement. It's allowed potentially up to 40 acres with an expanded master plan and disturbance stabilization agreement for residential with provisions of engineering justification to have a maximum of 50 acres disturbed across multiple phases, require the 80% stabilization for residential projects to increase beyond the disturbance areas, allow cash surety for disturbance and stabilization agreements and EMPs require five additional best management practices as noted in our text.

The site conditions warrant which type of EMPs should be utilized and have to be approved at staff level. Notification signs is required on-site, required use of mulch filter berms with silt fence, interbreeding curtains for certain situations to protect water sources, allow projects disturbing over the EMP threshold but less than 75 acres to go to Stormwater Advisory Board and Planning Commission for a variance approval process, allow project 75 acres or more to go to the Suave, PC, and County Council for a variance approval. Corrective action plans could be implemented in advance of an approved correction action plan, provided staff and the engineer could authorize this and BMP is not correctly installed result in automatic stop work order. Again, that's just the highlights of the initial draft text. Obviously, some things have changed and some some wording has changed as we've gone through this process.

On November 20, again, Planning Commission convened and reviewed the initial draft text for orders twenty five zero seven. After discussion, the Planning Commission deferred it back to the Stormwater Advisory Board to offer a recommendation for this proposed changes. Stormwater Advisory Board met on December 10 and staff reported the Stormwater Advisory Board's information to the Planning Commission back on December 18. So quickly, just some highlights from Stormwater Advisory Board and from the Planning Commission. From the Stormwater Advisory Board, they asked staff to review some minor language corrections.

There was some language that really need to be cleaned up. Their comments was commercial. They were consistent for staff up to 75 and over 75 acres approval by the Schwab and County Council. For residential, they felt staff up to 50, over 50, but up to 75 would be a Stormwater Advisory Board and County Council review similar to a variance process. They believe that BMPs, having an immediate stop work order if not installed correctly, should have a seven day corrective action for improperly stalled BMPs and there's some language regarding potential of the bonding language to make sure that there's no conflicts with the bonding within the residential subdivision regulations and within the land development manual.

Reporting to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission convened and their comments and recommendations back to County Council was to include a sensitivity checklist, identifying sensitive areas as part of the review process so the engineer calls those out and they're clearly identified. There are obvious concerns about further protecting Lake Murray and all bodies of water and tributaries to Lake Murray. They too were in agreements with the Soil Motor Advisory Board offering a no stop work order fee initially if the BMPs were not installed correctly and having a seven day grace period also. They believe the additional BMP's included within the draft text were a positive impact. The discussion on the acreage, they believe the acreage project size which is throughout the entire 25, fifty, seventy five appeared to be arbitrary and the 75 acres was a concern.

As we explained to the Planning Commission, I know there's been a lot of talk and discussion about 75 acres, where that number came from. As council recalls, when we started the process back earlier in the fall, there was a twenty five and fifty and the discussion included the concerns if a variance would be necessary especially for our economic development projects. So for discussion purposes, 75 was put in as a rational jump from 2,050 to 75. Even in committee, I believe it was discussed, we were not sure if that was the right number or not but we're gonna leave it in there for discussion purposes as we went through this process. As directed by from to staff with the proposed changes from the Stormwater Advisory Board and from the Planning Commission, staff went ahead and proposed draft text addressing their comments.

Within your packet, there's draft 2,507 reflecting again both Stormwater Advisory Board and Planning Commission comments and also the comments from staff basically clarifying some of the language. Anything highlighted in yellow are the staff clarification points, basically cleaning up some language. Anything in blue is recommended from Stormwater Advisory Board. Anything in red is recommended from the Planning Commission. So if you all allow, I will go through this section by section.

Under 2.6.9 under residential, Again, staff is just cleaning up disturbance and stabilization agreement advising that all components of that must be installed including the cash surety or a letter of credit should a portion of initial disturbance achieve 80% density, not consistency. The land development manual specific saying the density of stabilization, not consistency, so we did that for clarification. We also included the engineer of record shall also ensure the approved sequence of construction is being followed for the project to advance when that stabilization is completed. Again, cleaning up the language in no instance shall allow limits of service exceed 50 acres as we did include some variance processes if it is exceeds 50 acres, so that's why you'll see that struck. Under

75 acres, I can't has been struck, correct?

75 acres is still in there. I'll get that in just a second, Councilman Husson. Under commercial projects, from 60 to 75 is the minimum threshold that staff can review and approve under an expanded master plan and that is in blue. That came from the storm water advisory board.

From say that one more time, from 60 From to 70

commercial, it used to be the current Texas 60 is a threshold that can be approved at staff level with the disturbance stabilization agreement and an expanded master plan. 75 is the number that was discussed throughout the process with Stormwater Advisory Board and that's at the staff level. We included the stabilization portion just as we did with residential for commercial. Under expanded master plan, talking about the various types of additional best management practices or BMPs for our discussion, of course, there's five additional BMPs that are required for expanded master plan when it exceeds the 25 acre thresholds. The additional language that talks about the greater than 15% slopes of soil types to proximity, that was included already.

Staff did include the protection of Lake Murray and its tributaries shall be taken in consideration when the additional BMPs are identified and designed by the design engineer. Going through the various BMPs, question and comments came up about the the impervious area versus pervious area and the additional BNP regarding that. One from the Stormwater Advisory Board was to reduce the total master plan development, that's the entire developed area, to less than 50% impervious surface. Engineer of record shall identify the areas deemed impervious as certain storm water features may not be considered and or calculated as pervious surfaces. Some of your pond features may be holding water so they would be technically pervious.

That would be wet pond. Right?

It could be some part of the detention ponds because they can hold water for what, seventy two hours. So they may be considered pervious.

There was some I never really gave that consideration that a wet full pond would be considered impervious. Yes. That's EPA stuff. Right?

Moving forward in red again is the planning commission's recommendation. In the section where it talks about the additional B and Ps for waters of The United States or the state, we did include the engineer of record shall specifically identify these areas in conjunction with our new plan review checklist which has been implemented over the past few months for residential and engineering plan reviews. Detailed measures and documentation are required to identify how the specific BMPs or other measures will be utilized to ensure water quality protection, especially for any disturbance that may be within 50 feet of these areas. The reason we use 50 feet, 50 feet is a common distance already referenced in the Land Development Manual for water quality buffers and special protection areas. We use that for consistency.

This is the part where it comes into the variance process. This is in blue, so this is Stormwater Advisory Board. Residential developments that need to disturb more than the 50 acre threshold but less than 75 and commercial developments that need to disturb more than the 75 acre threshold shall be presented to the Stormwater Advisory Board and County Council for review and consideration. The final approval by County Council including all stipulations that would be part of the project submittal for the staff approval. The final approval for disturbance by county council should include a minimum of the E and P criteria, which is that's the additional best management practices plus additional criteria for each additional acre disturbed.

So there may be some additional items you look at as far as the way the project advances, additional BNP, stabilization, etcetera. In all instances, the engineer of record shall provide justification as to the need to expand beyond the threshold limits. No development shall advance past any land disturbance threshold without achieving proper stabilization. The proper stabilization is the 80% that's previously referenced in this section.

That is the

various process for commercial and residential and these were the suggestions from the Stormwater Advisory Board, I e that's why they are listed in blue.

I see. But I You're right. The last

changes include the notice of violations. Previously, a stop work order was to be issued immediately following a best management practices that were improperly installed, maintained or implemented. Again, the recommendation from Planning Commission and the Stormwater Advisory Board, we changed that to an immediate notice of violation which is a notice and given them a seven day deadline to go in and complete the corrections to those BMPs.

Seven calendar day.

A seven calendar day. That's correct. The land development manager or his or designee reserves the right in all cases to require the engineer of record to certify that the BMPs have been installed correctly and per approved plans. We felt that was another good tool not only from staff to review it to have their their licensed professional engineer also certify that those BMPs were installed correctly. And again, this has taken the draft text that was presented at the public hearing and including those proposed changes both from the Planning Commission and Stormwater Advisory Board for discussion this afternoon.

Who's the chair? Who's the chair?

I am.

May I speak?

Yeah. Robbie, under the notice of violation, a stop work order, the way I understand it, we if we have a violation, we can do a stop work order. They're asking for seven days to correct it. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Yes, sir. Okay. That's, you know, it's a water we're we're dealing with water, and we're probably dealing with a stormy time when the violation occurs. And usually that water in South Carolina is either, you know, what do you call them? A burst.

What do y'all call them? Microburst. Microburst, which creates quite a problem. Us giving somebody seven days to correct the problem seems counterintuitive of what we're trying to do. I mean, if we've got if we've got red clay dumping into water right now, at this second, it's gonna continue to dump until we stop it and giving them seven days based on history.

And I can only speak for myself being the public works chairman based on history. If we don't have it done today, it may tell you where where I wanna be would like to be, and I think I'm speaking for most of the people on this council. I want the people to worry about it as much as I do. I want the people who are doing the building around our waterways, our Lake Murray, our rivers, and our neighbors to worry about when a big rain comes, are we flooding our neighborhood and neighbors and rivers and blah blah blah. And by seven days, I just don't think that in my personal take, I don't think that's fair.

What's a good time to think, Daryl?

Yeah. You know, I I don't know the answer but seven days is too long.

How about if we say an event happened on a Friday afternoon, so you had Friday, Saturday, Sunday, that's three days gone. Right. And you'd want them to be there no later than Monday morning. Yeah. If if they're not. Right. And some of them I

prefer them to be there

that day. Uh-huh. That's perfect world. Right. That's but

I know it's not a person

of these.

Right. So four days reasonable?

I think that's too many.

I think

that's Four is too many?

I mean, I think seventy two hours. If it's that kind of a situation where you're dumping clay into a waterway or something, I mean, you're out in the middle of BFE and a water line breaks and property's flooding, that's not quite the same situation as if our waterways are being destroyed by clay that's going in there. So I would think if it's an emergency and we do have a situation like that after a big rainstorm or hurricane happens to come through Lexington County like it does once every twenty years, I think at that point, it becomes more urgent. And whose call is that to say, you gotta get out there today?

Matt, you wanna relay what the responsibilities

are to do? We to figure it out

if this

even happened. If

it's a if it's a major event, what what their responsibilities are?

It's a major rain event. They're they're supposed to immediately go out there and fix it anyway.

Writing somewhere?

That's in the

manual. Say it was that out so out loud?

Supposed to go out immediately after any rain event. Any rain event that's gonna cause that kind of issue.

Yeah. But that but that's not been happening.

We know that doesn't happen.

So if it happens on a weekend, obviously, our inspectors aren't here to to ensure that's happening.

Right. Right. Right. So here's just answered the the the problem.

So, Robbie, how many of these violations you've issued are being off-site or on-site problems? Vast majority that we've had in the last two years have been for stop work orders have been a out of sequence. I'd say 50% to 60% are out of sequence, meaning they've advanced the site without doing some type of BMP install or outside their limits of disturbance. Beyond that, the next most common ones are offside impacts, failure to to meet an NOV process. So if there's been a notice of violation, just continue to appoint there as a stop report.

So we've had very few of these bad ones when they're bad. I said the word bad.

Right.

So, I mean What's your

what's your feeling on that?

I'm saying most of the time and from the fifty years that we did it, nobody likes that. So three days is plenty.

I mean,

you said

said, we should the next morning. Hours. Yeah. It's usually fixed the next morning.

See, here's a guy that did it for a living. That's the kind of worry I want. That's the kind of worry we want.

I have a follow-up question. So okay. So you're telling me that we're the sixth largest county in the state and we don't have anybody on call on the weekends if there's a crisis that comes through here that you can call and say, hey, you need to get out here and fix this?

No. I have that availability in our department currently.

Well, somebody needs to fix that.

Hey. One other problem is you could never go out to all the sites in Lexington County.

On

call 247. My phone rings, and it's a constituent. I gotta answer the call.

But you could never, as an inspector one inspector on call could not ride all the sites in Lexington. Yeah. I don't know if you can do it in a week.

Don't expect

them to

ride all

the sites in Lexington. I feel

I it's like they

can pick the phone call whoever's in that site and say, hey. You're working on this. Get out there.

But I think the contractors are are responsible enough to do this.

We had a really large rain event and a road, Lake Tide

was a storm drainage problem with the DOT.

Oh, no. It it was more. There were more things involved in that. And that entire road flooded, and that was it had never flooded before.

Bobby investigated that. And what did you find? Yeah.

There was the

respond on that one. That's one of leak

There was a notice of violation that was issued.

Oh, I'm sure.

It had to do

with the utility crossing, utility improvements for a subdivision. I think it has some stabilization issues. Right.

But I was let's get back to this issue. Seventy two hours. We got a guy right here who says it's the business seventy two hours to answer your question. Seventy two hours

Cut it out.

Is your suggestion. I think seventy two hours in my personal view.

I mean, I'm know, I'm not on this committee. Mean, you have an opinion. You have an opinion.

I mean, I'm not yeah. I it's an opinion. An I would trust Clifford. I would that's exactly what I do.

Seventy two would be fair. There you go.

So with with the seventy hours and a notice of violation, are there any teeth that need to be added to a notice of violation, or the seventy two hours is enough teeth, and then it goes into a stop work order?

Seventy two hours is up, it would then immediately go to a stop work order.

Yeah. Now here's the flip side. Now what what we've done is so good. We've added all these additional BMPs.

Right. Yes.

Right? So so we've gone from no BMPs, you know, just a basic we we we've added all these BMPs. Now we've got some teeth. Now we've got some urgency, and I think that will fix hopefully

You know what? For the audience and all the cameras that seem to be in here today, maybe somebody should explain what a BMP is.

Basic management practice. Yeah. A BMP,

they they say they define it as a a best management practice. It's basically the best way to trap sediment, the best way to direct water into other BMP such as ponds in order to prevent erosion and sedimentation that we see on job sites.

Thank you.

Hey. To follow-up what you said while I get bit about the sixth largest county, we don't have anybody on call. How about this? We've done enough research, I guess, for other counties. Do any of them have the standards of which we were putting together that you can find? I mean, I know I've I've I've watched the entire Schwab meeting. All hour and forty minutes of it.

Planning commission and Schwab did ask staff if there were any other municipalities or jurisdictions or counties or even DHEC who handles a lot of storm water review for smaller municipalities and counties within the state if they had a maximum disturbance limit. No one else, even comparable jurisdictions has a maximum limits of disturbance.

Not not only that, but some of them even the standards that we've been talking about stock work orders and things like that, They don't even have that level of regulation or oversight.

From what we can tell, ours are head and shoulders above other jurisdictions as far as our enforcement process.

We may be. We may be. I'm not saying we are. We may be one of the most, if not the most restrictive in the state according to what we've have got now through

Well, there was a caveat with that that are comparable to us.

Well, you've got some jurisdictions on the coast. They have other requirements through DS, the ocean coastal resource management requirements. So they've got more provisions in place especially for tributaries and wetlands, bays, etcetera, which are dictated by state government or state regulations.

Well, did you we'll just say Richland, Newberry, Fairfield, Saluda, Aiken and Calhoun. None have anything

the Central Midlands, we probably have the most restrictive requirements for for land disturbance.

Applause. Most restrictive requirements.

Yes, sir.

Not restrictive requirements.

That's correct.

Very correct.

So the limits of disturbing with the amount of acreage. I understand commercial is a little bit different than residential. With this and the areas surrounding the lake, and I'm not just talking about District 6, I'm talking about all areas that surround the lake, is there any way we can have a caveat in here where it does not exceed 30 acres?

Just for the property surrounding the lake? Correct.

That's not what your planning commission or your swab, who's your technical board recommended.

Oh, I'm asking if we can do that.

Well, we could probably do anything we wanna do. The better question here is is there people on this council that would vote in favor of there being that sort of an overlay is what you're saying for land clearance around the, Lake Murray Waterway. Yeah?

What are

you thinking? Like, a two mile?

Any any of the waterways that feed right into the lake to protect all of that and not clear more than 30 acres. And if you wanna put a distance on it or if you wanna put, like what we did before with the Lake Murray overlay, that boundary.

Use the Lake Murray overlay as

the boundary.

Use the Lake Murray overlay, the former one, as the boundary.

We need to be extremely careful because this is not a zoning ordinance. This is a land development manual and overlays are not identified to be used specifically in land development.

So how

We do have the ability to identify special protection areas. Some of those areas may include, like you said, tributaries, TMDL affiliated watersheds. So there are some methods that we could potentially look at from a staff level to identify areas that the council may well consider for those more restrictive.

We do that and identify those areas?

If the body would like for us to, then we most certainly can.

Isn't there a didn't the planning commission speak to that?

The planning commission did ask for a checklist to identify the the special protection areas. So we have a we developed a checklist with the engineers this past fall to help identify what they need to specifically include on their checklist and their submittals for review. And this will be an item that's added to that checklist that they have to specifically identify that these special protection areas and what they are specifically doing to ensure that they are protected as part of their their design process.

With with that being said, if we adopt and move forward with the changes recommended by the planning commission and the swab, which most time I think we have accepted their recommendations here in the last couple years. Through their recommendation form, wouldn't that do what Charlie's asking anyway to identify area around the lake for them to I think What what more specifically

This would identify the special protection areas including this section. Waters of The United States, which are your Lake Murray, your perennial streams, some intermittent streams, rivers, TMDLs which are identified sensitive areas through watersheds. I think what councilman Wessinger is alluding to is identifying large areas to have more restrictive limits of clearing is what I think she's alluding to. Correct.

Around the lake itself. And and do I understand you correctly, did you say that the land development manual doesn't provide for us to do that and therefore we prohibited from doing it?

You're not prohibited from doing it. It's not considered an overlay. You have to identify a special protection area, which is more

House around the lake would be a special protection area.

Land development and water quality is watershed based, so most likely it's something we have to look at as far as watersheds that basically contribute or feed to the lake would probably be a suggestion we need to look at.

So I would like to suggest that before we approve this as written and suggested, I would like for us to go back and add that to go back and look at those protected areas and identify those for a lower level of clearing before we move forward with this.

And then we get

have the same thing that they asked that basically, the same thing they asked for.

So It's kind of already in there. Right? Mhmm.

Robbie. What portion of For a rainwater falls in Lexington County goes in Lake Murray? Not all of it. Oh, there's a ton of it. 50% of the county probably drains in Lake Murray?

Well, I will give you all one example which is unique. I know we started this process back in September. We received a complaint from the river keeper about sedimentation within the Saluda River and staff spent two days trying to find the source of that sedimentation. Basically, was natural erosion. The only stop work order that we had issued for an off-site impact was within the watershed and that watershed was located in Gilbert. There's no way that that off-site impact would include that damage or that impact to the river. So these watersheds are very large. They do have a lot of area that does fall into some of these these these basins.

One thing you need to understand since everybody's fault that because I'm in the great was in the grading business. Okay. When you take, say, a 60 acre subdivision, you have to do it in 20 acre increments. It's not that easy of a statement to say because until you realize what it takes to do every phase of that. Most of the time, the pond is dug first, and then you can clear that 20 acres.

So that takes two different kinds of equipment in and out on a lowboy. Then you gotta stockpile that dirt from the pond so it never gets in place and so you start doing the subdivision. I'm cutting this short. But every phase, water takes different equipment. Sewer takes different equipment. Paving and putting the road in does is good for equipment. So when you divide it three times, you got three times the traffic going up the road. You're moving the dirt two to three times. We're talking about housing costs. That's one reason it's so high is because you get paid every time you move the dirt.

So by moving the dirt one time, you also get the certain drainage areas. The the storm drainage is gonna pick the water up and take to the pond. So and the reason it picks it up, usually, the road is the implement for catching water. The roadway is a big part of the storm drainage. So until you pave the road and do all these drainage areas, that retention pond that was designed two years ago is the only started work then.

So we have created tremendous time of of problems with roads, with equipment going up and down, moving dirt couple times, stabilized. It's not as good as when it's all grassed and pretty. I agree with that. But you're because it's temporary sediment basins. You're really creating four times the work messing with the dirt.

None of this system is working until the 60 acres so called subdivision is through and the roads are paved and the retention pond has got pipe going to it. Water will not jump from the front of that site to the back. So environmentally Environmentally, you are doing it all the way it was designed, and your design does not come through permission, whatever it is, until the whole subdivision is finished.

Different to your point, I was at the last planning commission meeting and there are two of those members of both of which one is a retired DHEC employee and the other one worked there for a number of years. And to to what you're saying is what they wanted to be emphatic about it was is the longer the site stayed open, the longer it stays unstabilized, the more chances of events for things to happen to create stop work orders. That's why they wanted to be able to do it in a timely, speedy manner to keep from having these sites open for such a long

period of sequence all the time because the grading guy will move over here to do a little something to keep something from happening, but the engineer did not see on-site. It's impossible to draw something and go with the the texture of the dirt. Say the dirt was real wet. When you took out that pond, you're supposed to stockpile it, but there's no way to put it on two acres when it's running like soup. So you ended up using six acres to stop bylander. You get a letter, you get a violation. Well, you can't make soups stop running.

So I understand what you're saying. All I'm asking and, Robbie, you phrased Well, we have done that. Perfectly well. Can you please just say that again of what I was trying to do with the protected areas around Lake Murray?

I think you're looking at for methods within areas around Lake Murray to have more restrictions or more protection for the lake is what you're looking at.

Right. And and lower limits of clearing around the lake in those protected areas.

And I think we can achieve that by putting this in order right now and following again the planning commission recommendations to continue to look at that and put it in place. This is nothing preventing this but all Yeah. Mean for us to take one sentence or two sentences and hold up everything from moving forward, it just makes no sense. If if you didn't watch the swab or the planning commission meeting, it's probably one of most informative that I've seen in a long time. Right.

As you had a very technical based people here in this very room, engineers, people that work in it every day just like he did for fifty years and listen to them talk. And and their assessment and the way they see how things should transition in sequence are far more liberal than what's being discussed here. The planning commission even had a open mind about it too to to taking the information they got from the technical committee. That's why they're there. That's why they were established.

Agreeance with that. All I'm asking is for some additional protective measures around the lake and the watershed and to reduce that from 50 acres down to 30 acres in those

We don't know the thirty's right.

In those designated areas.

I know thirty's right, Charlie. I think we'd throw it back to the swab and let them give us some advisement again just like they've given it to us now.

That's what I was gonna say.

Send it back to them again?

That's what I'm

gonna say around the lake. If it's a special special you know, if we need to look at it, we'll put restrictions in per project and look at it according to them looking at it and do a study on it to see if it needs that. Some areas might not need that protection. Right. Some areas do need it.

In terms of Can we we put that in with a particular acreage amount to be looked at

The acreage would be determined The would be determined by the project.

Then go and Yeah. And take this again as a subsection and we've got we've asked them to do this and they did exactly what we asked them to do. And I think we're compelled to take their recommendations and move on. I mean, I think the other thing will tell me on councilors think we have wanna go against the planning commission.

Can we get it identified?

You can't I

think we're we're missing the point. It may be and I'm not on the committee. They've already asked for that information. Okay. So

So do we have that?

Yes. They hadn't got it.

We just they do meet the meeting just happened.

Right.

So they've asked Robbie them to to identify that area Correct. Which is the same area you're asking to identify. Once Robbie's crew identifies that area, which they've asked to identify that area, then they will discuss them will discuss what they ask about, then we can continue that conversation about land land disturbance at that point. They've asked that question. Yeah. So they're very curious too because they're concerned

about land quarrel.

So we need to get that information back to add

to that.

That's it.

We can get the information back to them so they can review it.

So Can I say something?

Go ahead, Beth.

Do you wanna finish up?

Go ahead.

I just

wanna throw this out there because it it just strikes me as so very odd. Maybe I'm I'm in my backwards thinking, but a whole lot of beautiful neighborhoods in Lexington County that are still the most desired neighborhoods in Lexington County were built without clear cutting property, acreages of properties. They went in, they laid the roads, they started putting infrastructure in and they went lot by lot to build a home. They didn't cut down trees, they didn't smooth out lots, They certainly didn't clear cut 60 acres of property to lay infrastructure for a neighborhood that will never look like that property did again. So while I respect you

No. I know you've been doing saying, do you know do you know why it's changed?

I do know why

it's changed. Water. Storm water requirements has changed. They're right there. Robbie's shaking his head.

Yeah. But that didn't happen until they started desiring to clear cut and storm water became a huge problem.

The problem. You go through these subdivision. They only have curb and gutter. They don't have a retention pond that you're talking about. They have none

of that.

I've lived in two of them. We never really had any flooding.

I would I would say storm water is probably more controlled by clear cutting because you can direct the flow of water.

Only since we started clear cutting and adding new subdivisions which added more potential of concrete for storm water to run on.

Correct. I do have

one question. To go above the 50 acres, that does have to go back to storm water and to council. I just wanna be clear on that. That's not just to give me 75 acres. That's special provisions with permission, and stormwater has to prove any staff here. That's correct.

That's commercial. No. That's residential. Commercial residential is over 50 to 75. That's that process. If it's commercial, it's above 75. That's not And and I think the comments and discussion with that was goes back to the original language that we put in place, what, four, five years ago. There were more restrictions on residential because those projects tend to take longer than it was commercial. That's why residential commercial had a larger threshold

Right.

For disturbance. And it's a similar similar conversation and discussion with with the SWAB on that. The commercial sites usually completed within twelve to eighteen months. You've got your infrastructure already in, so it helps defer and and, handle some of that stormwater and stabilization issues very quickly.

I mean, I think we have pretty strong protections in place to keep the and we could shut them down if they get out of.

I'd still like to see some more comeback before we approve those those protection areas if possible.

I mean, I think we have them in place.

It's all in place right

here.

It's going to storm storm water and planning.

And They're not identified yet.

Correct? Not identified yet within this text because it's the limits of clearing. We can go back if if this body would like for us to to look at other method methods for special protection areas. I know we've gone through, we've been working for to overhaul the entire land development manual for the last four or five years. So we have been discussing some things like that through that process. So if we need to report something back, then yes, we certainly can.

That's If

we move forward to what we've got from the form of two of our appointed bodies today, we can amend this.

I just wanna say, we go ahead and approve it and then have them amend and put your special they're gonna

do it.

And it can be amended at any time.

That's correct.

It could be amended. Mister chairman, I'm gonna make a motion that we approve what's been submitted to us by the Schwab and the Planning Commission. I'll second it.

Alright. Todd Cullum has asked to vote on it and Cliff Fisher is second. We're gonna go ahead and take a vote on it. Robbie?

Do we need to amend the seven days to seventy two hours? Seven days to be included as part of

that motion. And I would like to, you know, work on identifying and make amendments to that and have Charlie's input. We'll definitely work

with council one Westinger on that.

I think if if this passes that we as we continue to move forward, we prepare to get this sent back again to the swab. Let them make the recommendation back to us again. I mean, that's the the more trusted body between the two, technically.

Most likely, what we'll do is moving forward with direction from counsel is we'll provide some options and I think since councilwoman Wessinger is very familiar with the lake and the concerns with the lake, we'll work with her specifically to get some draft language back to council, then we'll start that process again, which will include stormwater advisory board and planning commission.

I think Charlie just wants to wait a couple weeks to see what we can come up

with and do

it one time.

That's that's right. Just wait a little bit longer to get the information before we just jump in and approve this.

Let's just get some of it done.

I mean, Charlie, are you okay if we approve it and you're gonna work and make these amendments? It's gonna about it. We're gonna I feel confident we're gonna get the amendments fixed to your satisfaction.

They're gonna come back with a recommendation.

So why not just wait?

Because we can move forward.

Move forward and get this behind us because this has been on for months.

Move on. Get this done. And it's been a year.

Call for the vote.

Go ahead and call for the vote. All in favor? Any opposed? Alright. Approval on the request approved, and that is gonna be it for the planning committee.

Robbie.

Thank you. Can we meet next week to start working on this immediately?

That's Page, brother.

Alright. Called to order the administration committee seeking

approval

of 11/18/2025 meeting minutes.

Move to approve November.

I've moved by

councilman Bishop. Second. Second by council lady Carrig. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anybody opposed? Motion passes. We are adjourned.

Call to order health and human services committee. We have, two sets of minutes, 10/28/2025, seek approval.

So moved.

Second. So

who got who's the second?

Both of

Who's got the one.

We're not gonna lose a quorum, are we?

I bet Charlie was first. Alright.

She made made alright. Charlie Wessinger made the motion. I'm looking to who made the second.

It had to be him. Okay.

Todd Cullum made the second. Any questions, alterations? All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes. We have November 18 meeting minutes. Move to approve.

Second.

Okay. We have

Hudson was the, motion. Westsinger was the second. Any discussion, changes, deletions? All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes. Okay. So we got that out of

the way.

Now we have, Library Services and Technology tuition reimbursement grant award for S. Smith, Kelly Poole Library Services. It's all yours.

Thank you. Good afternoon. We recently received information that we were awarded a grant on behalf of staff member Summer Smith. This is a tuition reimbursement grant. Summer's been employed with us at Lexington Main Library in the Reference Department. She recently graduated with her library science degree. The grant award would reimburse her for part of her tuition costs. We're just the conduit for this. There's no out of cost out of pocket costs for the library nor the county. They would reimburse her up to $2,894 And that is my request.

Okay. I move that we accept.

We have a motion by councilman Dudson. Who's the second? Second. Second. Councilman Wessinger. Any, discussion? All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes. I'll vote for vote. One.

Very similar request. This one is an identical, grant opportunity. We were notified of an award on behalf of Jayjree Webster. Ms. Webster works at our KC West Columbia branch and has been with us almost six years. She's just begun library school, and so we're really excited about the opportunity for her to continue her career with us. The grant award would reimburse her up to 66% or $1,301 of her last semester cost. There's no out of pocket costs nor the library or the county, and that's my request.

Remooney, Kelly. That's it. That's it. Move to approve for miss Webster.

Second. Alright.

We have

a motion by councilman Hudson, second by councilman Cullum. Any questions? All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Kelly. Alright. Let's see. Here we are. Alright. We have approval to accept EMS grant and aid award emergency services chief Megan Hallman.

Thank you. Good afternoon. EMS been has been awarded $22,632 through the Department of Public Health EMS grant and aid. The grant the grant does require a 5% 5.5% match. These funds have been accounted for in the current budget. Staff requests these grant funds be approved to be utilized in two training initiatives.

So we're getting $22,000, and we have to participate 5%.

Mhmm. With the 5% is $22,000.

I I move to approve.

Alright. I have a motion by councilman Hudson, second by councilwoman Wessinger. Any questions, comments?

I just have one for the chief. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

This emergency vehicle operation training, now is that for the entire staff?

That's for entire staff and new staff bringing in this year.

Yes. That's just on a yearly basis. Is that right?

Yes.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

That'd be all. Mr. Kellen, that's all.

Yeah. I just wondered if everybody was gonna be subject to the drain.

Okay. Alright. All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes. Alright. We have a second item. Ahead.

EMS has been awarded a total of $45,576.23 through the house hospital preparedness program. This grant does not require the county to provide a match and is reimbursable. Staff requests these grant funds be approved to be utilized in a regional training program and a replacement shelter for RMET.

Move to approve.

K. I have a motion to approve by councilwoman Carrigg. Second. Second by councilman Hudson. Any questions, comments? All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Now we have approval to accept twenty twenty five Walmart Spark Good Local Grant award. Fire chief Kyle Minnick. Good

afternoon, mister Chair.

Members of council, council approved Lexington County Fire to apply for the Walmart Spark Good Grant in the amount of $5,000 for a no match for our fire investigative unit. We were awarded $2,300 to be used for equipment, for that team to help, do fire investigations where on the county.

I'm gonna move to approve the accepted $2,300.

Second. I have a motion by councilman Hudson, second by councilman Carrig. Any questions or comments? Now we've used this grant funding before. Right? Yes, sir.

We we applied last year and received it for smoke alarms at that time. So this time,

the same group applied, but to put

it for the fire prevention bureau for their fire investigations.

Keep your eyes on that one. Seems like it comes around pretty often.

Yes, sir.

Alright. All in favor? All opposed? Alright. Motion Now we have discussion and possible vote on contract for nine eleven nine one one communications radio consoles. Deputy administrator, Lucky Doo.

Good afternoon, counsel. We're here

today to talk about a

to ask you guys to move forward with a contract relating to a nine one one communication radio console project. Our current radio consoles at the nine one one communication center out on Ballpark Road and in our backup facility here at the County Administration Building will be reaching end of life by 2030. The current ones that we have are about twenty five years old and are just reaching end of life.

To to

replace these radios by end of life, this project would have to start by at least 2028. Motorola is expecting most nine one one communication centers to wait until about the 2028 year to do these projects. And so we have been talking with them, and they have offered us a significant discount if we were to go ahead and engage in a contract to move forward with this project now. This is about a three this project at full cost is around $3,054,000. They have offered us a discount of $454,585.28 if we move forward with the project now.

The that would bring the total cost of the project to $2,710,354.78. I will also say we have been engaged in this conversation for close to a year with them. We had a cost estimate in May 2025, and since that, we received an updated one in November 2025 and the cost had gone up over $200,000. Due to inflationary cost increases, tariffs have played an impact greatly in the technology realm. These costs are projected to continue to go up over the next few years.

We also to bring up another point, we had a radio console go down for over six months, and it was down that long because we could not find the pieces and parts needed to make the repairs because they are no longer making those pieces and parts. So, one of the big points that I'd like to bring up is there would be no impact on this current budget if we were to move forward now. This would be something we would budget for the fiscal year 2627. There are sufficient funds in our nine one one state allocated fund to pay for this project. And again, there would be no impact to the general fund whatsoever.

This project will replace and install 32 total new radio consoles, 24 at our primary nine one one center on Ballpark Road and eight here at the backup center. The reason we're seeking approval to move forward with the contract today is to take advantage of the significant discount being offered to move forward now, but it will also allow them to go ahead and order the equipment so it's ready to ship and install shortly after the new fiscal year begins. Any questions?

2.7, is that the figure you said? Two seven?

Seven would be the final.

Plus the technology, you know, every time you buy something, it's already antiquated. That's what I was saying. I hate to say that. So by putting it all three years, does it Somewhat some new improvements and gonna last longer?

So they expect the the life expectancy of the new system that they're going to put into place is going to be twenty years. And then, you know,

I think everybody on the committee is kinda of all, you're not because you've been involved in the studying of it. Right? But $2,700,000 for

how many radios? That would be a A

total of 32.

Now would describe a console to me. Where is that as it laying somewhere? Or That

is what that is what

the dispatcher has in front of them. That is the the computers.

I'm sure the new technology will show some different stuff on the screen that will help with dispatching.

It it will. I mean, it's kind of a it'll be an improvement not only with the radio side of it, but the display side of it. It'll it'll be kind of a whole new improved.

Is there another competitor besides Motorola? Because I've dealt with them all the

pretty much a monopolized

That's what I figured. Yeah. Because they have a little scam on all that stuff. I

didn't say that and it's hard. I did.

Everywhere you go, it's

That's something I

usually would say.

You could have said that.

I could

have said that but I

Go ahead.

Help me out. Okay. Go on. So,

obviously, it's county wide services that we're and we're talking about sheriff's department, fire service, and EMS. Right? Now there are some other PSAPs in the county. Are they also gonna be subject to this program too or we should we include them? And the first two that come to my mind are West Columbia and Casey both have their own because they still do their own law enforcement because we are doing their fire and and always done their EMS. I'm not sure if Bakesport LEAS will

They're still doing still have their own piece app as well.

So would we not try to get them included also within this the same contract?

We could certainly reach out and have

It's a 13% reduction if if I heard your math right. So

We could certainly reach out to them to let them know that we're moving forward with the contract, and we

could talk with our

Motorola representative to see if they chose to jump on now. Could they possibly take advantage of the discount?

Is if if if we're gonna improve the communications within countywide services and leave those three jurisdictions out because of their law enforcement aspects of which I think we agreed many years ago that it was probably better that they do their law enforcement because they just know the lay of the and you're it's spending time in municipalities. You understand that too.

Right? I think we were on opposite sides of the table last time

this was discussed with a

piece of

And then nobody wanted to put any money in it. But anyway, the long and short of that is that I really would like to see us include the municipalities in this too if we can and to bring them along them as in Motorola.

And there may be an opportunity for them to take advantage of some savings by moving in conjunction with us.

And we may wanna consider if you have it, you probably already have. The New West Region's gonna need one, didn't it? I haven't

been to trucks.

No. I haven't been there in units. This is the EOC.

Gotcha. Alright. Well, I'm not gonna make the motion to make the either

do it now or the left cost 2.7 or wait two or three years at 4,000,000.

So Approved.

Alright. Mister chair. This time, but not the other one by money.

Do you have a motion, mister chairman? Second.

Yeah. Who second? Best

I made the motion. I second. Alright.

Got a motion by councilwoman Carey. Got a second by, councilman Cullen. Any comments, concerns? All in favor? All opposed? Alright. Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Alright. We are adjourned.

Alright. We're gonna call the justice committee to order, and I would seek a motion to approve the 10/14/2025 meeting minutes.

Move to approve. I think I'm under justice. Thank you. Yep.

I have a motion by councilman Hudson and a second by councilman Fisher. Any comment or question? All in favor? Anyone opposed? Alright. I would seek a seek a motion to approve the 10/28/2025 meeting minutes.

So moved.

I'll

second it.

I'll second.

You're welcome.

Alright. I have a motion by councilman Hudson and a second by councilman Fisher. All in favor? Anyone opposed? And last but not least, I would seek a motion to approve 11/18/2025 meeting minutes.

So move.

I'll go ahead and second it.

A motion by councilman Hudson and a second by councilman Fisher. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes, and we're adjourned.

Good job, miss Gerrick. Always. Of course, it's now open. Seeking a motion to approve the, the minutes of say approval of October 14. Move to approve. I have a motion by mister Brigham, second by mister Fisher. All in favor? All opposed?

Very

good. Approval of the October 28 minutes. Move to approve. I have a motion by mister Brigham, a second by mister Fisher. All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes and approval of November 18, 2025 meeting minutes. Need to approve. I have a motion by mister Bregman. Second. Second by mister Fisher. All in favor? All opposed? I'm sure there's no discussion on that.

You hold off. I got my motion and second. I gotta get in here for Francis Street.

Okay. So

hang on. Unless you wanna jump to the next one. But do you

Ann? Yeah. Let's see here. No leads on the next one. So taking a short, time out for the hold on. I have to Part of my committee's eating biscuits.

Do you have a caller?

I don't think so.

I got him

coming in. Okay. Where is he on the committee?

Yeah. Okay.

That's in.

Alrighty. Welcome.

Bishop. Yeah. Where's Bishop?

How are

you, Tim? Doing fine. Thank you.

Mister let's see here. Discussion of possible vote on Francis Street partial closing town of Batesburg, Leesville. And I think mister Brigham has some information about it also, but go ahead, mister Shepherd.

Yeah. We received a request to close a portion of a dirt road in town of Batesburg. It's off of East Church Street, known as Francis Street. It's about 800 feet from the intersection where it intersects with East Shirt Street. That's Highway 23 near the Walmart in Batesburg, if you're not familiar with the area.

I am. So we have a request to just close that portion and, you know, there is some development going on in that area and at some point in time, there will be another road that ties back into 23 as part of that development which will be a much better geometric alignment. So, you know, this portion of the road will not be needed at all. And, you know, of course, Public Works is glad to get rid of any dirt roads that we don't have to blade any more often than we have to. So But basically, that's We have reached out to, you know, all everyone including the town to get there.

Okay on that, everyone and including, you know, emergency services, you know, GIS and all of our other agencies are are have no objections to the closure.

Very good. So we have a road closure recommendation and we have the citizens with no objection.

I went to the meeting, if you don't mind, mister chairman, to the meeting last year sometime, Batesburg Lethal Town Council, myself and Brent Hyatt and told them what was going on and and why and entertained a few questions and there was no objection or opposition from BNL Council. I needed to do that and wanted to do that because it's in their jurisdiction, the road is in the town even though it's a county road, so I need them to be okay with it. And they were. But I am gonna have to abstain from voting because my brother-in-law owns one side of that road. The builder owns the other side.

So being that I am related to someone that owns some land on that road closure, I'm gonna have to abstain. So with that said Wow. Call for the motion.

We approve it. I do have a question if we get a if we have a second.

Yes, sir.

We're gonna second the motion.

Oh, I

see. Yeah. Me

and her.

Okay. Well, I thought you had a you had

I thought you were I was gonna ask it

after second. Like I was asking after

we had

a motion. Motion.

Mister Coe, I'm in the second. Who seconded it? Mister mister Bishop now. Discussion. Yes.

I'm just reading in the in the staff's explanation of the request that Can you

hear a question?

A new road called Southern Fox Lane is part of the Creekside Ridge subdivision. But there's not a subdivision on this closed part of the road. Right?

On one side, they're building a 199 houses. Yes. In the town?

Yeah. Yes.

Behind Walmart. How they how are they getting access?

Oh, no.

I guess This is it. This is that's why they're closing the road because it comes in

kinda at

an angle. Yeah. It's a dirt road right off of US 1 that takes you to North Lee Street.

Okay.

And it's only, whatever it is, 800 feet that they're closing off, not the whole road. So they can get a entrance.

They're gonna build the entrance off of Church Street.

Oh, to cut Francis Street out of it and and enter on Church. Yes.

I was okay.

It's already in construction. Oh, it is? At home. It looks looks like it.

Hundred 99

Home. Hundred 99.

Yep. Wonder why. Only one entry and exit. Wonder where they got that from.

But what I'm saying is the town's building up. Right? What? Town's building up. Yeah.

Hundred And 99.

Alright. Batesville is very good. I'm happy for Batesburg.

Me too.

We have a vote. We have a second. We have a discussion. All in favor? All opposed?

And I have to abstain.

And Larry abstain. Thank you. Thank you. Lee McIntyre is our director of solid waste. He's here to talk about the approval of electric waste recycling agreement with Dynamic Lifecycle Innovations. Welcome, sir.

Thank you, sir. Solid Waste Management staff requested an approval of an agreement between the county and Dynamic Lifecycle Innovations to recycle electronic waste. This will be our third year if approved to move forward with this agreement. Few years ago, there were some changes in the laws and things which changed the way we do things and and the agreement or the amount

of business that they do

with us falls well below the the need for a bid. But based on the history of electronics recycling and some things, legal issues, we wanted to bring it before counsel to get their approval on it. The estimated yearly cost of this would be about $17,000 a year, and this is just a one year agreement.

So, babe, you've had no problems with them in the past, and you're asking for a recommendation we use them again?

Yes, sir.

Correct. No issues. Y'all heard the information? One question. Yes, sir.

Alright. So when they take it, it's theirs. Right? Correct.

There

We're going back.

Yeah. I know

the story. Yes, sir. There there is there is in the agreement, there is some language that mister Anderson has added that makes it once it is placed on the trailer, it

is their property.

Very good. Really?

There's some history to that There's

behind that.

So

Yes. It is. Expensive history.

Can I have a

motion Motion to approve? Motion by mister Cullum.

Second by mister Fisher.

Second by mister Fisher. You're there you go. A motion by mister Colm and second by mister Fisher. All in favor? All opposed? Any discussion? Lee, I have something for you for you, Lee. You got a pen? Yes.

Now or later?

I know. Okay. Allendale Drive. The end of Allendale Drive, we had a walk the other day beside the Grey Academy at the end of that road, his tires and mattresses. Would you mind swinging by there and snatching them up for us?

Yes. We'll take care

of them.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. We are now adjourned. Alright.

Zee, I think we've all kinda entered back and forth. Everybody I'm a take

a break in the bathroom.

Alright. Anybody, do you want we're gonna proceed on then. Think we're just a little bit behind. Alright? That's it. We're gonna call to order today's committee of the whole meeting. I got three sets of minutes here. I'd ask for a a motion to approve the 10/14/2025 meeting minutes.

It's approved.

Mister Carrey makes the motion to approve. Second to Conwell seconds. Is there any comments or questions about the meeting minutes? Hearing none, all in favor? All opposed? Looks like it passes. How about October 28?

Second.

Miss Carried makes motion to approve the 10/28/2025 meeting minutes. Second. Second by mister Conwell. Any comment or question on the minutes?

Hearing none, all in favor?

All opposed? Motion passes. Miss Carrig?

Move to approve.

November 18, three twenty five meeting minutes. Miss Carrig has moved to approve. Is there a second? Second by mister Conwell. Any comment or question on the meeting minutes? Hearing none, all in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Great. Alright. Mister Stack.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Happy New Year, sir.

You too. Four contract extensions starting with food service program for the sheriff's department detention center. Procurement in Lexington County Sheriff's Department are requesting additional one year extension for the food service program at LCDC contract with Trinity Services Group. County council initially approved this contract on 02/14/2023 for a period of three years with the option to extend seven additional one year periods. This contract went into effect on 04/12/2023 and currently expires 04/11/2026.

We are requesting that the first extension begin 04/12/2026 through 04/11/2027. The estimated annual value of this contract is 2,669,000 and no no issues. Alright.

Is there a motion to approve this contract extension for food service program for the detention center? I hear First. Miss Carey makes a motion to approve. Is there a

second? Second.