City Council - Regular Meeting

scheduled meeting of Greer City Council. I want to welcome everybody here that's in person tonight, all the millions that are watching on the worldwide web around the globe and the ships at sea. Glad that you're with us. Um ask Riley Bettis if he'll lead us in the invocation and the pledge, please, sir. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Let's pray. Heavenly Father, the city is truly blessed by your divine grace. We're blessed to have many good people in Greer and this council humbly and respectfully accepts the charge entrusted to it by the citizens of Greer to conduct the business of this city to uphold principled, virtuous and transparent government and to reject unethical and unh wholesome activity. Help us to remember that you, not government, are our provider and you have armed us with divine guidance, intelligence, design, absolute laws which serve as our guides. Father, please give this city, this state, and this country the courage and strength to prevail over all agents of arrogance, greed, immorality, and evil. that we would truly be worthy of your continued love and blessings with glory to God. I pray in Jesus' name. Amen.

Miss Ducky, do we have anybody to speak in public forum this evening? No, sir. Council, uh, in the packets, uh, in your packets, we have the minutes from our last council meeting, February the 10th. Um, entertain a motion and a second. So moved. Second. Is there any uh, notes that like to be noted by the clerk before we move on? Miss Duncan. Mr. Booker. Yes, Mr. Hopper. Yes, Mr. Bettis. Yes, Mr. Lamb. Yes, Mr. Awood. Yes,

council. We have our departmental reports um contained in your packet. Uh we have um see our finance Chris is coming to Chris Klein's coming. Oh, he's already there. Yes, sir. Chris, tell us how we're doing.

Yes, thank you. Good evening, council. Uh financial performance summary as of January 2026. U just an update to we have started receiving our property tax revenue from Greenville County and Spartanber County. So you will see a uh increase in our year-to- date revenues um both the general fund and storm water. Starting a cash balance of general fund, we had a cash balance of 19,312,000. year-to- date revenues of 26,878,000, year-to- date expenditures of 31,957,000, and we are currently 1% under budget. We have a negative revenue benchmark variance of 1,936,000, a an unfavorable expenditure benchmark variance of 2,221,000, and an overall unfavorable benchmark variance of 4,158,000. Moving to hospitality fund, we had a cash balance of 3,940,000 year-to- date revenues of 2,369,000 and we were 5% over our budgeted collections in this month. So that actually brings us to uh under 1.7 1.7% for year to date and we had year-to- date expenditures of 696,000. Finally, storm water fund. We had a cash balance of 4,541,000, year-to- date revenues of 1,543,000 and year-to- date expenditures of 246,000. With that, I'd be happy to stand for any questions,

council. Any questions? Well, the first part of that was a little depressing. Anything there we need to be concerned about? Which parts? The the first few things were the negative. Yeah, absolutely. Uh so we did the revenue benchmark variance we did have uh it's more of a timing issue. We we expected to receive a little more as of January 31st. We did receive that in February. So that would be reflected in the following month. So we'll see a change there. Um and then the expenditure side we actually this was January we had three payrolls that were ran. So, okay, those two things combined kind of reflects that negative, but we should see that kind of flip to the other side next month.

Two I have any other questions? Two questions or one is a request. Um, I'd like for you to go back as far as you think is is necessary, but on our hospitality dollars, if we could graph that in a in a um um well, just a standard graph based on the the revenue comparing uh budgeted revenue versus actual. Yes, sir. um to see if I I just have a sneaking suspicion that we've almost we're we're plateauing there and then we'll make decisions based off of that.

Yes, sir. The other thing I' I've talked to a couple of folks um who are over their HOAs and they have they're having issues with people coming um soliciting and they have they've posted you know the the at their entrance no solicitation and it comes back to business license because we issue the peddlers's license.

Correct. What um what avenues for enforcement do those folks have when someone goes and they they buy a a business license to do that, but then they're going into a neighborhood that says don't do that. From the business license side, we try to, you know, it would be trying to catch and identify them to see what we can enforce there. as far as a I think there's there might be a planning and development side to it that I'm not too familiar with to be honest with you, but

we can provide counsel at the next count through my administrator's report at the next council meeting just a a response to that and then of course I can get something to you in writing before that. But I think there is a mechanism in the ordinance that allows for the revocation of a business license for violating these uh the solicitors and peddlers ordinance uh along with fines. So, but I I'll make sure we get all of that stuff articulated both in the email and then I'll report back in the administrator's report next month. Yeah, we can work together with our department and theirs to try to be able to do that. Are they warned ahead of time not to go into neighborhoods that are

well the Yeah. So, some neighborhoods have a no solicitation posting regardless of our ability to to to um issue a solicitor and peddlers license. So if if it's issued, that doesn't give them the right to go into a neighborhood that still specifically forbids. Well, but I'm saying when we issue the license, maybe we should reinforce it and say, "Now you're going to come across posted neighborhoods. Do not enter those neighborhoods or we will revoke your and that very well may be on the um the application, but we'll find we we will we'll synthesize all that for y'all." I think that's part of the ordinance that says that just as directions don't Yeah. Don't trespass. probably need to read

that that a HOA sign has the force of law. Well, it doesn't. It doesn't. However, but what we're what we're saying is is that an HOA sign may not have the force of law. However, it can restrict, you know, folks pedaling and I think a lot of people like no trespass. That's right. Yeah. That make a lot of people happy.

Yes. Any other questions, folks? Um on council, please review your fire department activity report. You know, we have uh talked for a long time about response times from EMS. Um Greenville County side has improved, but it actually has plateaued. They started getting better. Spartanberg County is probably the same as they were. So, um just check that out and let's talk to the folks in both counties. see what we can make happen for our citizens. Mr. Mayorman, your report, please, sir.

Uh just uh wanted to remind council u of the big bash March 28th from 4 to 9. Um this is uh we're taking over downtown to celebrate to celebrate the city cesennial. Um, a lot of living history, demonstrations, local vendors, and um, uh, just a general celebration of of the kickoff to our Cesco Centennial year. Um, uh, Stone Entertainment is going to put on a laser light show along Trade Street, um, which will cap off that full day of music, community, and time travel. So stay tuned for that. And one other thing I wanted to um also mention, it's just kind of an it's a little anecdotal, but um I was speaking to Ann uh Cunningham, our parks and recreation director yesterday, and she reported that our softball numbers, our participation numbers are up. Um and that's um she specifically attributed the success of the investment made at Big Turner and the um just the welcoming facility that that has become. So, um I just I I say that to say that um I think the investment was well made and I know that it was a um it was tough to get rid of of Victor Park, but um the interest in softball has not waned and is actually increasing. We're seeing some of those numbers go up over Big Turner. So, just a little bit of uh as an aside, I think that was worth mentioning this evening. Mr. uh Mr. Wood, that concludes my report.

Thank you. I'd like to ask for you to uh provide some information to the council maybe next meeting. One uh the status on the this a possible start date for the fire station in the northern part of the city.

And then the other is the status of bringing back online our television channel. Well, I can tell you the uh the solicitation for architectural services has been I think it it may go out this coming Sunday for the um fire station. So, we we are kicking that process off soon. Uh hopefully we should end that by the time we do the solicitation, review of proposals, that that process should be done. If I'm not mistaken, as I'm looking at February 24th, I think it was a a late April. Um we should have an architect on board. Are we going with the existing design?

We have open We have opened it. We have opened it up to um we're resoliciting those services. Do we know how they finance this in North Charleston?

Uh not off the top of my head. No, sir. But I I do believe it would be um a very similar and well-known uh public finance method. So I I can find that out for you. But Mr. Awood, on your other request, um I can get that information to you ASAP. Thank you. Let's move to old business. We have the second and final reading of ordinance number 4-2026. That is the ordinance to authorize the closure of portion of a street and that street that road would be uh a portion of more street. Who who from staff?

Uh there's no new or updated information on this uh second reading. Council, I entertain a motion in a second. So moved. Second. Folks, any questions, comments? Mr. Marian, for for the sake of tonight, can you can you refresh our thinking on how this request and suggestion was arrived? Sure. This was was involved and the exact reasoning why.

Yes. Um, so this this came to us by request of both Northfor Southern and the South Carolina Department of Transportation. Um, it was a it was a safety initiative identified by both. They came to the city seeking our um approval to close this section of Moore Street to allow for the um the gate to be moved um to better regulate the uh flow of traffic at that particular intersection at that at grade crossing. From the city's perspective, the timing is apt and actually advantageous to the city because we are beginning the quiet crossings uh process with Northfor Southern and that is one of the quiet crossing um locations. So, um, this is very advantageous for the city because the cost of the, uh, improvements are now being borne by South Carolina Department of Transportation in Northfor Southern and not by the city. So, um, but the closure of that section of Mor Street uh, necessitates um, or this action necessitates that that section that closure that section of Mor Street. So the two parties in tandem, DOT and the railroad

are are the ones who made the request. They made the request. Yes, sir. They're going to bear the cost of the the matter. Yes, sir. And the issue is moving the gate is is the It is. Yes, sir. There's some other improvements that need to be made there, but the bulk of that is is how they're moving the gate. Don't they do double gates for quiet crossings?

Uh they need that extra room. So, it depends on, as I understand it, and and Heather actually is our kind of our quiet crossing expert, and I don't want to put her on the spot here, but it is an engineering question that there's there's various types of of gates that are required. I even think there's some median type improvements that need to be made. I think each one of the intersections are looked at individually as to what would be required um to effectuate that. From a design point of view, uh, have we thought through yet what it's going to look like after we're done? I guess my question would be, you know, cars are, it's a road now, so cars are going through. Even if we take the asphalt out, cars can still go through those quote unquote yards, backyards at that point.

I suspect put curbing. Yeah, we'll we will. Yes, sir. We will we will take the necessary actions to to deadend it right there and force that down which I believe is first is that first street right there. Um but yes sir we'll take those necessary actions even if we put some shrubbery or something that kind of shows like hey you can't get your truck through unless you plow these over. Please don't be official. Yes sir. But I guess my request would be not to necessarily just have road in signs there.

Oh yeah. Absolutely. So ugly. I agree with that. It's not from an aesthetic standpoint. I don't want a big yellow and orange sign that says road closed. I think we need to take whatever reasonable steps to make a an attractive visual barrier. Yes, sir. Others. My objection to it is the way when it was presented to us for the first reading is that it is a part of the the quiet crossings

and we haven't been made aware of if we are moving forward. There's been no definitive statement saying council we we want to move forward with this and this is what it's going to cost and because it could be the cost would just be so astronomical that we say no, we don't want to do it. So now you go back to it's a safety issue for the state and the railroad. Well, if it's a safety issue and they believe it's a safety issue, then to me, if they're asking us to uh do away with the use of an asset, then they should pay us for that. They should buy that road, maintain it, do whatever they need to do to make it safe. Um, we were in the same situation on Park Street, not with the railroad, but we closed a street uh because a in a for-profit entity had an issue, had a had a financial issue. Um, whether it wasn't the result of of the city and I I don't know why it there's there's a lot of reasons why that issue may have happened. But we never were giving given any definitive answer as to why that there was this error. So we've we've closed Park Street. Um in in my opinion, it's to aid a for-profit entity. The railroad sure is a for for-profit entity. And if it was a safety concern to them, if they were truly concerned

about safety, then they would approach us and say, "We want to buy this, take it out of your inventory. That way, we can uh make the improvements to make it safer." because there's nothing there's nothing I know we're trying to link it to these quiet crossings but there's nothing says that that we're going to give the a okay for the quiet crossings and as an aside as I was coming in earlier today the CSX train came by and and I know there the the numbers of those trains are not near what uh Norfick Southern is, but they still blow the horns just as much. And I don't guess we'll be taking down that. We won't be putting quiet crossings there, will we?

Well, initially we're looking at the highest trafficked areas, which would be North Southern's um trains. I believe right now I think CSX has two trains that come by um throughout a 24-h hour period, but obviously NS NS's trains are um more heavily utilized. And um yeah, while you know the it is imperative that SC DOT and Northfor Southern address this from a safety perspective, it ends up being our police and fire that respond to any incident on there. And so the safer the crossing, uh, arguably the less calls that we will respond to, um, at that particular intersection.

Okay. I'll be the devil's advocate. In the last 10 years, how many crashes has the PD and the FD been there because someone running that? Oh, well, I I mean, I can probably point to two at least in the last 5 years that I've been here. Uh, one of which was a fatality. So, um, I can provide if that would help, I can provide that information just for for information's sake, but, um, this is obviously is is council's decision whether or not to shut this section more street down.

Mr. Mayor, just to double back kind of building on what Mr. would is saying when we're talking about who's bearing the cost of of this if we do approve this tonight, the removal of the asphalt, the grassing in any landscaping, whatever, in addition to the moving of the gate, that all of that cost is on is on them. Is that correct?

We haven't articulated with them whether or not they're going to landscape that section of Moore Street. They're they are going to bear the cost of that. I think it would be incumbent upon us to make it what we want it to be. But I think given the substantial savings that could be seen at the largest atgrade crossing that would be part of our quiet crossings initiative. I think that is a fairly low cost to bear

and I I can I can understand where Mr. Wood's coming from. You know, we haven't had a more expanded discussion about the quiet crossing. Is it fair to say that if even if we approve this, you know, we did close this stretch and we didn't move forward with a broader quiet crossing effort, whatever that process looks like, we've still improved the safety at this spot. Is that fair to say? Yes, sir. Um, what would be what would be the likely reasonable guess as to our higher carrying costs as far as ongoing maintenance goes? if we left it roadway or if we did close it and it became grass off.

I mean, if we if if we left it the way it is, it would all just remain equal. I think um then we would have to get into another realm of discussion with SCDOT as as to the potential for a taking for some other redesign, etc. Um, but I I felt like this trade, for lack of a better term, was the easiest for SCOT, the easiest for for NS, and was convenient for the city is a goodwill effort to um the fact that recognizing the fact that they're bearing the cost on that particular um at grade crossing. And the good news about this partic section of Mort Street is it doesn't we're not shutting anybody out from an access standpoint. Mr. Wood, are you are you referring to DOT or the railroad compensating us in some form?

Well, I would the SC DOT doesn't have a financial interest in this. Um, Norfick Southern most definitely does regardless of if it's their right away or not. And they they'll treat anybody that's on their rightway that gets hit by a train as a trespasser. They still have to defend the lawsuits. They still have to fix the trains, all that kind of stuff.

Yeah. And so if it was truly a safety issue, I think Norfolk Southern would be making the the making the request. Let's close this down. we will let us take this bit of road, pay you for it of course, and then maintain it. But they're not going to do that. The it will stay in our inventory. We'll have to do any kind of improvements and then we'll have to do any kind of maintenance. I don't see we're kind of sort of doing that now. Yeah. So, we save money on the maintenance, right?

That's our road. So we have to maintain it now. Yes, we do. But when we maintain it, it's with other dollars uh to maintain the rest of that street. We're losing part of an asset. It may not be much, but we're losing part of an asset. And we are, as far as street closures, making a habit of helping people with their bottom lines. And um

I I get that. I think I think the biggest the the thing that zips to the front of the line in my consideration is we're being told it's a life safety issue and there's documented e ev evidence of there being a life safety issue there. So we can kind of grit our teeth that way and go, you know, we feel like there should be some sort of compensation, but it sounds like there there's there is a legitimate safety issue here that if this can help address, keep our visitors and our residents safe, you know, in a more thorough way, then that I think that's that's the driver for me.

I I I understand that. But if you go back throughout history before that grade crossing had any arms or anything, it may it may have some flashing lights. Yeah, there was there's been people killed there because for whatever reason they came out in front of a train u since the the the grade has been improved with crossing arms, better bales and lights and things like that. According to Mr. Mayorman, we've already had a fatality and we've had another one. um just on Fourth Street, not gosh, a couple of weeks ago, uh had a tractor trailer um come across there and that was well I won't say it. There is a grade crossing. There is a arm there, but you know the train ran into the truck. So, uh, yeah, these grade crossings need to be safe, but I to me if that's if that is the big issue, if it's truly a safety issue, why now? Why not 10 years ago? And why don't they make the investment? Because it's for them. is for their safety so they don't run over folks.

Well, it's for the safety of our citizens also because if you come down more street, you would be inside the crossing arms. They're dead. Yeah. I mean, that's the problem. Mr. Mar, it why now? Because the request is coming now. It's being that the issue is being brought to the forefront now. Is that a fair like not to not to wax I don't know that we've ever had anybody come forward about this what's actually a useless little block of road there that only a select number of people use and it's not their only route and I don't know of of an issue in the past where anyone has brought it to us. Yeah.

Why not 10 years ago it because it because it didn't get done 10 years ago. It's being brought right now. Anybody else? I'd say it wasn't on the railroads radar 10 years ago. You know, Miss Dun. Mr. Booker. Yes. Mr. Hopper. Yes. Mr. Bettis. Yes. Mr. Lamb. Yes. Mr. Arowwood.

No. Council on new business. Uh, we have a uh ordinance number is 5-2026 is to provide an annexation for a certain piece of property. um owned by Mr. Curtis Hip. And we don't have Ashley with us tonight. We have Miss Heather.

We do. Um good evening. I apologize for the typo at the top. This is an annexation. It is for three parcels on Mwrath Road. Um the existing zoning is unzoneed Spartanberg County and the request is to annex and zone to traditional neighborhood with the intent of building a single family detached subdivision. Um here's the aerial. All three parcels are about 17.4 acres. Here's the zoning map. You can see Ryder Junction to the south is zoned medium density residential. The surrounding parcels are all Spartanberg County residential. The future land use in the area is traditional neighborhood. Uh here are some photos of existing conditions on Mathra and Beach Springs. Here are the traditional neighborhood zoning district standards. Uh the maximum density that is allowed is 10 dwelling units per acre. Once again, the request is to annex and zone two traditional neighborhood. Uh the surrounding zoning and land uses are all residential. Uh staff recommends approval.

I'll entertain a motion in a second so we can move forward. So move second. Any questions? council is have has the owner uh indicated an an intent for the property? Yes, they plan to do single family detached subdivision. Do we know any more than that? Just um right now I believe there are about 67 units. And do we know the square footage size that kind of anything? Any anything like that? Do not

do not and I'm assuming this has to go before planning commission. It it will it will for um a recommendation before it comes back to you and also for preliminary plat in the future. Any other questions? So on this stretch of I believe it's this stretch of macar looking at the engineering reports for February it appears they're at like 99%ish for the design on this section. Mhm.

Are we going to be working potentially with these folks to to make sure that whatever we're doing will incorporate some of the things they're doing or any call sharing potentially? I mean potentially um we have contacted the city attorney to ask about um any cost sharing opportunities that we might have. The timing um is a little difficult um because we are already so far along in design. Um, but we are open to those discussions.

Anything else? M. Duncan. Mr. Booker. Yes. Mr. Hopper. Yes. Mr. Bettis. Yes. Mr. Lamb. Yes. Mr. Awood. Yes. We have nothing listed on the agenda for executive session. Call this meeting adjourned.