Council - Regular Meeting

For clarification, we're actually going to approve the expenditure of $656,000, not the full $680,000. In the white paper, I had recommended just as a precaution a 5% addition. Let me back that up.

Well, that would be the logical thing to do since the work is not going to be performed. I don't understand why we would approve the expenditure of the money. I was referring to the contingency. Well, but the contingency is not part of that contract. The contractor is saying he's going to do work worth $656,000, not $689,000. Yes, sir. Now, the contingency is still there because it's a separate line item and may be used. But at this point in time, I feel that what we're voting on is $656,713. And if additional funding beyond the contingency is needed to cover anything, management would come ba

Excuse me. I'm lost here. And, of course, some people say old and senile, but I'm a little bit lost. If we eliminate the exclusion, then you're telling us that we're telling the contractor he has to do that. It was excluded. We're eliminating the excluded. We're going to go back to the contractor and say, you cannot exclude this. You must include it. Okay. is that the logic i would agree with that okay correct so if we exclude it we need to exclude the cost i mean if if you're if you want the work done that's one issue if you're going to not do the work then we need to exclude the expense but

Mr. Mayor, if I may. Yes, sir. Is there someone here who could explain the reasoning we want to put a hospital in such a highly congested C1, C2 zone? I don't understand the reasoning of that. In the modern-day world, you do not locate hospitals in an area that's already congested. Now, basically, a hospital, by state law definition, is a facility that provides surgical ability to perform surgical operations and to keep a patient overnight. We're what we're calling a dock in a box, for a better definition. does not have the ability to maintain patients overnight. I just question the need for t

But technically, the International Building Code classifies it as a professional office, and C1 and C2 say professional offices. So therefore, what you're doing is trying to correct something that the zoning administrator erred in previously by rejecting

Well, my point is that we already have traffic congestion issues here, and now, of course, it's very remote that we're going to get a full-fledged hospital anytime soon, but we're intentionally adding to the congestion by putting a hospital there. What Lexington does, we have a comprehensive plan, which is in the best interest of our citizens. Our citizens, not Lexington, not Columbia. And if you'll recall, most of those facilities predate most zoning requirements. So I seriously object to putting a hospital in a highly congested area.

international building codes. It has its own definition and it is not typically classified as a professional building. It is classified as a hospital. South Carolina state law treats hospitals as a separate classification with its own definition. It does not define unfortunately state law does not define uh what a that a dock in a box is a professional building but international building code does but it does not say that hospitals are the same and nor does it say that they fit in c1 or c2 so mr mayor yes jay basically

Mr. Mayor, may I make a motion to table this for further workshop?

Under this provision, if it says may, then obviously it has to come before council to determine not only if there is a bond required, but the amount of the bond. My question is, if we make it shell, who makes the determination whether or not the bond is adequate?

What is the amount of the bond? So we're going to advocate the financial responsibility to the Planning Commission?

But those are estimates provided by the developer, subject to review by council to see whether or not they feel they're adequate. You can get a developer to lowball it. Therefore, his requirement for the bond is obviously going to be significantly lower. I personally feel the council should review the bonds to see whether or not they're adequate, regardless of whether they're 150% of what. We should determine what the what is. Just my viewpoint.

under 13-3 there's some procedures there that my question is does changing the verbiage from will to shall remove the ability of council to actually review any bond before it is made fact or it says we shall It doesn't say we will. Will leaves the option open for the council to review the bond. My question is, if we say shall, it says we will accept the bond.

Well, I'm saying does the shell give us an option of saying yes or no? Why would we say no? If it's inadequate.

i simply read it as removing council from the ability to review and to approve i don't see it that way i don't either that's the way it works it sounds like we're debating uh the amount of improvements because i mean this obviously says uh one and a half times the amount of improvements that that's not a debate but is it that council wants to

Excuse me, if I'm reading it says the base for ladies will count down shall accept a bond. It says we must accept the box.

If I may, Mr. Mayor. Yes. This represents only about 10% of the budget for the Poultry Festival, unlike others where we go as high as 50%. So it's money well spent. I believe, correct me, Mr. Hendricks, but we receive... publicity by the fact that it's featured on the literature that's circulated. So actually we're buying $10,000 worth of advertisement at a festival that contributes a great deal to the community. So I'm heartily in favor.

Mr. Mayor, if I may. This brings up an issue that the council needs to address, which is related to H-Tax grants. Our procedure, but it's not part of the ordinance, but our procedure specifies that grants need to be closed out and final reports within 30 days of the actual I note that in the event, in the case of the St. Paddy's Day Parade, which I believe is typically held in March, just being Mediterranean Irish myself, But I believe that report did not close out until June. I suggest that council consider a proposal that if reports are not closed out as specified, that a 10% deduction be ma

Board of privilege, please. Yes. If I may address Councilman 2, District 2, I suggest he have a DNA run.

50% of me is Italian. If I may correct the council member, DNA will prove that you are Greek.

Is there a reason why we don't just make this the badge for the police department? We should be proud of it in year 2028 as we are in 2027. We're going to spend $157 per badge for a badge that's going to be worn for one year.

So every agency has given away coins and also badges to private individuals. And my concern there is that we comply with all federal and state laws. And there is a concern on the federal level.

So you're saying that the badge that is being given to officers will be different than the badge that is being distributed to donors?

Right. Because basically federal law says that private citizens are not entitled to possess an official badge. So this is going to be a commemorative badge. We're buying one badge for the police officers were buying another badge to be distributed to the A's?

For the town, the 31 badges will cover our projected. We have how many sworn officers that are entitled to a badge?

But how many of those will be commemorative badges and how many of those will be available to law enforcement? I'm saying you've got 31 sworn.

Well, how many sworn officers do we have?

I'm not cutting you short, sir, but I've read the numbers. But my question is, we're getting 31 badges for sworn officers. We have how many sworn officers?

So we're only allowing one for turnover?

As I read your proposal, sir, essentially this would be technically possibly a break-even that you're not actually – the town is not going to be out the full 20 – $6,000 because you're going to auction off?

So those funds would go back into the general fund?

Right. There is no reserve fund, if I may say so.

But my point is, of course, obviously, I have to protect the funds from our constituents. And we have a budget that we approved based on revenues that council has yet to take action to. procure those, so therefore we have some questions as to whether or not this year's revenues will meet this year's expenditures. In addition to that, I understand we actually removed a police truck, a truck from the police budget in order to balance the budget. Call for the question.

The discussion is whether or not we can afford it.

I would like to place the changing our zoning ordinance concerning streetlights in new developments, please.

The background is the current ordinance specifies high-pressure sodium streetlights, which are obsolete and no longer supplied.

Well, actually, the ordinance specifies 15,000 lumens. Dominion has a standard 15,700-lumen light among their five choices. So it would be fairly clear-cut as such. But work session, if you'd like to put it in a work session, I'm agreeable to that. that'll work also uh well do we're gonna never mind i i'm actually i withdraw that i'm fed up anything else anybody would like to have on the next agenda