Council - workshop

My issue is the term hospital. There's no difference between hospital and urgent care.

classified as professional where a hospital is totally different. You have visitors, you have people overnight, you have most urgent cares are not going in a town this size are not going to be 24 hours. So you're putting hospital, you know, medical treatment facilities, in my opinion, it was already covered as professional services, but to put a hospital in a congested area and look at the map at where we have C1 currently. They're highly congested areas. So I think it's an unnecessary possibility of adding to congestion unless we have a plan to eliminate or alleviate the congestion.

You have redundancy. According to the description here, a hospital meets the medical treatment because you say inpatient as well. It's provided on an inpatient or outpatient basis. A hospital meets that so you have a redundancy in the title.

Well, if you just say medical treatment facilities, that will cover, that covers everything. It does not eliminate veterinarian offices, it includes, because it doesn't say medical treatment facilities for humans. It says medical treatment facilities. So if you leave the title medical treatment facilities, leave the definition in Article 3.2. Thank you, Joseph. Either that or throw me your glasses. All right, we can share. I don't think he's giving them up. But, you know, I just say medical treatment facilities, and that covers vet offices, covers us.

I understand, but this would technically cover them if it was not. However, that's just my opinion.

This does not include the original proposal, which was changing the 10% declining to a 5% in the first year and then go with a total elimination. Now, the budget supposedly had a shortfall of $94,000. So we not only have to look at that, but that just simply covers the existing budget. we're looking at some very major expenses. We have a compensation plan that we have to step up and address. I would prefer to do that in segments, but we have to address that's hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, additional revenue needed. In addition to that, we have a need for uh, new equipment. Uh, I b

Air packs are coming up. Uh, we need, uh, probably to go ahead and, uh, obligate ourselves to a replacement fire truck since deliveries are now five years out. So we're talking big bucks and, um, You know, this is one area. My viewpoint is, yes, it is a change for our businesses. However, typically, businesses will pass this through. If we take it and put it on a – if we eliminated it totally – What does that mean for a $15 tab in a restaurant? Pennies. You're talking maybe the last time I looked, six cents. A $495 television set out of a furniture store would be a buck and a half. So... And i

Eliminate the declining scale. Okay. Okay. NEWBERRY HAS ONE, 10%. ON THE OTHER END OF THE SCALE IS COLUMBIA WITH EIGHT, I BELIEVE. THEY HAVE ONE THAT STARTS AT $100 MILLION FOR THEIR LAST STEP. SO THERE'S A WIDE VARIETY, A LOT OF COMMUNITIES.

100% on the local residents. You're only putting 15% of the burden on the local residents.

But I'm also saying that it's not being put entirely on residents. It is being put on only 15% of residents. Mr. Mayor, if I may. I'm not debating that.

I believe we should do it in a two-step process.

But that gives them time to adjust, even though, again, when you're talking to some of these people...

I understand that situation on smaller businesses, but it's a situation where MASC strongly recommends that you not discriminate in any form. It has to be a standardized version. Also, I believe there was an attorney general ruling on a situation. We do have abilities to help some small businesses. If we want to put the tool in our toolbox, and that is the ability to forgive business licenses or any portion of on people who are willing to occupy vacant buildings or specific buildings, specific locations.

Yeah, and we can do it if we copy someone else's ordinances, or it's not plagiarism.

Could you get clarification from our attorney on the fact that I believe it is recommended that you not, but is not illegal to poll because it is not an actionable item here. We can take no action. So in work sessions, you can actually poll and find out if Mr. Cunningham agrees or not.

Well, and again, and I'll go ahead and kind of to refresh your memory.

Has a permit been pulled yet? No, sir. They estimate 30 to 60 days, and that was 30 days.

And then you're talking for development impact fees for being four to six months? impact you're talking to development impact fee steady to be four to six months out and then you're talking three months for us to digest and regurgitate the results so we're going to lose out on nine months worth of which is probably 50% of the construction. On that phase one. On that phase. Fortunately, no other has been started. But we stand right now to lose out on the increase in water sewer on some of the units.

But it stifles up what they sell the house for. Again, you're looking.

Well, my understanding is you can reduce the fees at any time, but you cannot increase them. beyond the capital plan. Yes, this is the max that you can do. That is the max we can do. And you can do something like 60%. And then when the other plan comes out and we see that this is going to be exorbitant, and we need to ask Mr. Cunningham whether or not we can reduce fees, we know we can't increase them beyond this. but can we reduce fees at a later date will be a controlling factor. My other question is, are we tied to specific in-ground projects, or can the total amount allocated to the water

So our capital improvement plan can't say that we intend to install five miles of water and sewer and then at a later date determine because my concerns are we're talking north of here and actually the developers are probably looking south of here once the lake properties are gone and what happens if we have a developer come up right outside of town and says we would like

They sold portions of the property and used the proceeds to build or provide grants to build on the property.

My concern is that the study indicates where we can spend the money. So once we pass this, we're locked in to where we can spend the money. We talk about sewer in town and water in town. We are now having houses built in town on septic tanks, and we're having houses built with pumps or with wells installed, this plan does not allocate any of the impact fees to be able for us to extend sewer lines in town or water lines in town. So we won't be able to serve. This will not benefit our current in-town customers. Correct?

Well, the capital improvement plans does not show any extension of water lines inside the town, nor does it show extensions of sewer lines inside the town. So, therefore, if we lock it in to the capital improvement, Improvement plan, then we cannot spend this money. On anything that is not specifically spelled out.

So we have residents in Leesville, and the predominant number of sewer septic tanks are in Leesville. I believe Longs Terrace does not have sewer. So there's no ability for us to use these funds. to extend that sewer line inside two long carriages.

Once you've covered the cost, get over the initial. But the in-town order is a... functionality of the system improvement, not necessarily making the product available for sale. In other words, those lines aren't exposed to large areas of developmental property as such. But just my thoughts.

75% of the water impact fees plus the sewer will be $4,000. Is my math that bad?

Yeah, 75% is roughly 2300 roughly 23 plus 16 makes it. Yeah, just I'm bad at math.

Okay, so you're looking for what to put on the agenda for the utility?

Or we can go down. We can go down if we need room to be adjusted, giving us room for some development fees.

Okay, you're going with the planning commission for 100 bucks, but we agreed to pay each planning commission member $50. So therefore, nine times 50 is 450. So we cannot afford to.

Lexington County says that they will not do it for us because they have to add people. Have we approached them about add the person and we'll pay 60%, 70% of the cost?

I've had a conversation. I am very uncomfortable with a non-governmental entity in a position that they're in.

Lexington County. All right. I mean, you know, they sound like they're in a position they need to add another one anyway. So could we co-op with them?

Yes, I would like for us to look at all the options. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has an idea of what an option may be. All right. But... We need to end up with someone in an official governmental capacity handling those situations.

Okay. Because you're not just doing one option. Let's look at other companies as well. Again, my preference is, if we possibly can, make it. Give them a little backing in a legal standpoint.

The county only has the authority we give them inside our town limits. I mean, this is, all right, Saluda County cannot come in and do our, say that they must have a Saluda County inspector. In fact, they can't dictate our building codes. So if they can't dictate our building codes, they can't dictate who we have.

Safe bill. The population of Florida County is 18,000 people. All right, down from 23. Jake, when can you get that to us? Is this something that the council needs to vote on?

Brigham is still there until January 1st.

They've actually had a unit sitting there, but not inside. Because I've been buying, they've had a unit sitting there, but not inside. A fire truck? Yes, a fire truck. And the issue is with the contractors, the punch list.