 |
 |
 |
|
| The following summary minutes have not been approved by Simpsonville City Council. An official copy of the minutes will be available after adopted by City Council at City Hall 118 NE Main St. Simpsonville. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, notice of this meeting date, time, place and Agenda was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall and faxed to the newspapers, radio stations, television stations and any concerned citizens. |
|
 |
SIMPSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES BUSINESS SESSION June 12, 2007 6:30 P.M.
Mayor: Once again I’d like to welcome all of you here tonight. Before we begin our regular meeting we have all these things to dispose of tonight. We’ll have a public hearing regarding our proposed FY 2007-2008 Budget and at this time I would declare the Public Hearing officially open.
Is there anyone who would like to speak regarding the proposed budget. All right, hearing no one from the public who would like to speak, council will certainly have the opportunity to speak before we vote on it so without any further discussion I will declare the Public Hearing closed. That’s one of those short meetings that you all like. So thank you.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor: And now I’ll declare the June 12, 2007 meeting of Simpsonville City Council in session and call it to order. And before we begin I would like to say thanks to Councilmember Bob Gecy for his years of service to our City. He certainly made a contribution to the dialogue up here and we wish him well in his future endeavors. Ms. Bodkins, would you call the roll for us please.
ROLL CALL: Ms. Bodkins: Yes sir: Councilmember Bridges: Here Councilmember Garrett: Here Councilmember Lawrence: Here Councilmember Bagwell: Here Councilmember Zitricki: Here Councilmember Larson: Here Mayor Waldrop: Present
Mayor: Thank you Ms. Bodkins.
Ms. Bodkins: Yes sir.
INVOCATION: Mayor: Is there anyone among us who would like to ask blessings upon this meeting in your own special way or your own personal way, I’m sorry
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor
Mayor: Mr. Bridges
Mr. Bridges: I’ve asked Rev. Danny Bernley to do so and he graciously agreed to do so.
Mayor: Rev. Bernley would you like to come to the front or would you rather do it from there. I’m sure we can hear you so just –
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF 05/08/07 AND 05/22/07 Mayor: All right, council members you have in your packet the minutes of the May 8, 2007 meeting and the May 22, 2007 meeting. I will entertain a motion in that regard. Ms. Lawrence.
Ms. Lawrence: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we accept the minutes of May the 8 th and May the 22 nd as written.
Mayor: Thank you Ms. Lawrence, do I hear a second.
Mr. Larson: Second
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Larson. It’s hard to go from Lawrence to Larson you know. Second – thank you Mr. Larson. Any discussion, corrections or additions, any such thing as that. Well hearing none I will call for the vote but Ms. Bagwell, we’re glad to have you hear but I think it would be inappropriate for you to vote on this since you were not here as I recall. So everyone, with the exception of Ms. Bagwell, if you’re in favor of this please respond with Aye (AYE) opposed No. The Aye’s have it it’s unanimous. Thank you very much.
REVIEW OF MONTHLY REPORTS Mayor: All right, have all of you reviewed your monthly reports. I know you have. Thank you department heads for providing those for us – what a great job you do of keeping us informed. I’m sure if any of the council members have a comment on those that they will include that in their comments later on in this procedure. So thanks again for that.
CITIZEN COMMENTS Mayor: Did we have anyone sign up to speak tonight. Okay, this is the portion of the program where we invite citizen comments. If you call ahead and ask to be placed on the Agenda, we give you 4 minutes. If you sign up at the door we give you two minutes. And no one has signed up at the door and no one has called in. So thank you for that.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT Mayor: City Administrator who has driven through the storm about 250 miles to be back with us tonight. We interrupted his vacation – but that’s okay. So Mr. Hawes, if you will, bless us with your comments please.
Mr. Hawes: Yes sir, Mayor and Council, glad to be here on this great occasion tonight. Freedom Weekend Aloft first of all – Freedom Weekend Aloft was a resounding success for its first year in Simpsonville. Numerous people have stopped by City Hall to let us know what they appreciate – that they appreciated the event and the efforts of so many who contributed to make it so exceptional. We were able to showcase Simpsonville and Heritage Park to thousands upon thousands of folks who may never have visited. The local restaurants and hotels did great business with a number of local restaurants who participated at the event already signing on for next year. City staff held a post-event debriefing last week to discuss ways to tweak things to make them just that much better. All the City’s employees who worked out there before, during and after the event did an incredible job and we are in the process of scheduling a get together for the employees.
The FY 2007-2008 Operating Budget – City Council was delivered by budget recommendation for second reading last week. It is a balanced budget that features new personnel and vehicles, dedicated funding for the road resurfacing match program and no tax increase for the 28 th consecutive year. Finance Director Bob Harrison and all the Department Heads are to be commended for their efforts in developing this workable budget. Second reading on the budget is scheduled for tonight.
With regard to the logo and positioning work that has been underway – the City’s consultant has been gathering information in a series of perception gathering meetings. Preliminary logo designs were circulated in a survey that also measures residents and visitors impressions of our City. From there attributes of the City were identified and small focus groups have begun the benefit testing part of the study. This ranks certain attributes in terms of importance and relevance in achieving the goal of attracting new residents and quality business development to the area. As a matter of fact we had a focus group meeting earlier – it was actually earlier last week and the benefit testing will be completed in the next couple of weeks and from that point there will be a preliminary logo and positioning statement developed.
The sidewalk near the new CVS – work is underway on installing a new sidewalk along Fernwood Drive from Main Street to Cedar Cove. This is part of the city’s over-all connectivity projects where we tried to identify gaps in sidewalks where there could be a small amount of investment but a great benefit in connectivity and pedestrian access to facilities. This will allow pedestrian access to Main Street sidewalks and eliminate that gap in connectivity. Work should be complete by the end of this week, weather permitting.
The next meeting of City Council is our workshop meeting on June 26 th and the Municipal Association Annual Conference is July 12 th through the 15 th . I’m open to any questions.
Mayor: Okay, thank your Mr. Hawes. Well once again I’m sure during Council Comments people will have questions and we can sort of compact that all together. All right,
COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor: Mr. Bridges
Mr. Bridges: I very seldom give accolades to anyone for a job well done, even though I do appreciate their efforts. But I have to express my grateful appreciation to everyone who was involved with the preparation for, and the conduct of the Freedom Weekend Aloft operation. This was a seemingly impossible task given the time frame in which we had to prepare. Everyone performed above and beyond the call of duty to make it happen. SO thank you employees of the Department Heads in Public Works, Recreation, Fire Department and Police Department for sacrificing the time and effort to insure a successful 4 day event. And Russ I commend you for your guidance and direction in keeping this on track. Again, thank you all who were involved.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Bridges you were right on. Anyone else. Mr. Zitricki
Mr. Zitricki: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I to would like to second Mr. Bridges comments on being thankful for all the hard work that went into Freedom Weekend Aloft from all the City employees and from all the staff and anybody else who participated plus all the people who attended. It was a wonderful gathering. I couldn’t imagine anything better out there. It was almost perfect, except for the parking but we’ll address that later. But it was great, it really was. I do have one thing for Mr. Hawes. There was an article in today’s Greenville News and it was discussing a requested property tax hike by the Simpsonville Fire District and they’re looking for a 3 mil increase or about another $200,000 and it wasn’t very clear the way it was stated in the news paper and I’d just like to have Mr. Hawes clarify this – what it’s really intended to do.
Mr. Hawes: Mr. Zitricki and council – the request is based on the City of Simpsonville ’s contract or the Fire District’s Contract with the County. We entered into a contract with the county in 2005 that stipulated points at which a millage increase could be requested for residents of the fire district outside the City Limits of Simpsonville. This would not be an increase inside the City Limits. This was requested per the contract to the County Council Chair and was brought to the Finance Committee last night. The Finance Committee had a couple of questions and we are going to answer those questions and actually appear before them at their next meeting in a couple of weeks – two weeks from yesterday so that will – we’ll address those questions.
Mr. Zitricki: Mr. Kirven said he wanted you to attend the next meeting and I hope you will be there to actually clarify this to make sure we’re stating what our intent is also.
Mr. Hawes: Yes absolutely.
Mr. Zitricki: Thank you.
Mayor: Okay, anyone else. Mr. Larson
Mr. Larson: I wanted to echo to the success of Freedom Weekend Aloft. I know it’s not just us saying those things, there’s been articles in the Greenville News about how please the restaurant owners are and there’s a great letter to the editor on Saturday praising our Mayor and our City to making the efforts to make Freedom Weekend Aloft a success.
Mayor: That was not my uncle by the way – I know everybody thought it was but it wasn’t.
Mr. Larson: I talked to several of the folks over in Powderhorn and Heritage Pointe and the ones that didn’t actually go to the park they enjoyed it – they sat out on their back decks and watched the balloons come over and listened to the music and I think it was just all around a huge success and everyone should be very proud, especially our employees. Looking forward to next year – how many days is it Chief.
Chief: 350
Mr. Larson: 350 days until next Freedom Weekend Aloft
Mayor: And 18 hours and 29 minutes and counting
Mr. Larson: Yes, I’m looking forward to the appreciation event for the employees because they all certainly deserve it. And a couple of other things. The paving around town is looking great. I had a couple of questions on it where like over at Wemberly where they paved I don’t know 50-60 feet into the entrance and a lot of people were asking well how far down are they going to go – are they going to do the whole street – when folks have questions about what’s going to be paved and what’s not going to be paved do they contact Joe – call Joe Carter
Mr. Hawes: Yeah – call Joe Carter at Public Works he has the specifics on the exact locations for the paving project.
Mr. Larson: And also I noticed the sidewalk over there by CVS and that looks outstanding to – so I think that’s a great idea to make that connectivity and an inexpensive way to get the City more pedestrian friendly.
Mr. Hawes: Exactly – it ties in directly with our downtown enhancement project.
Mr. Larson: Well it looks good.
Mayor: Okay, before I recognize Ms. Lawrence – since we brought that subject up – since Fernwood is a state road and since we have that agreement with the State – I’m assuming we still have that – why could we not extend that on down to Almond Drive which is the next stop sign down there and further connect two communities with CVS.
Mr. Hawes: It’s possible if we can get the state’s agreement to fund the materials cost as they have the agreement with us to do. The thing is the state will not do that on new construction sidewalk, at least up to now. We can certainly request but this is new construction sidewalk however.
Mayor: Well if you’ll just look into that I’d appreciate it. Now excuse me Ms. Lawrence you’re next.
Ms. Lawrence: That’s all right – just as far as paving – I’ve noticed a lot of it around town but do we get in touch with public works if they broke a curb in a couple of places
Mr. Hawes: Absolutely – Public Works is aware – when the paving occurs – inspectors from public works are observing those and there is an example where an extruded curb was damaged – of course we don’t allow extruded curb in the City so that’s – any more – so we will repair it as best we can but it’s not something we’re going to go in and replace entirely.
Ms. Lawrence: Okay, thank you
Mayor: Okay – anyone else.
Mr. Larson: One more quick question – sorry. I had another call this week from someone who noticed several of the bulbs in the traffic signals are out along Main Street would that be Public Works they should call if they notice those.
Mr. Hawes: It’s actually DOT who controls the traffic signals. DOT is 241-2010 – they’re in Greenville
Mayor: But they could call you and you could make that call for them.
Mr. Hawes: Well certainly I’m just thinking skip the middle man – but either way.
Mr. Larson: What about say could some of the Police Officers when they’re patrolling the town if they notice one out should they try to report that or is that something that
Mr. Hawes: I think it would be advisable any time a police officer notices anything out of the ordinary to report it to DOT if it’s a DOT issue absolutely.
Mr. Larson: Okay
Mr. Hawes: Or to Duke Power if it’s a power issue.
Mr. Larson: So they would just let dispatch know a lights out on Main Street at Garlington or whatever
Mr. Hawes: They actually could file a report and give it to the Chief and then that will make its way to where it needs to go.
Mayor: I think we actually established a policy at one time didn’t we chief and is that being done to the best of your knowledge.
Chief Reece: We did and they should have all of them already reported.
Mr. Hawes: That’s our policy currently.
Mr. Larson: All right, thanks
Mayor: Okay anyone else. All right thank you council.
OLD BUSINESS Mayor: We’ll move on now to Old business • Sewer Analysis Presentation Mayor: And we have with us again tonight at our request from the last meeting Mr. Aaron Frazier from Frazier Engineering who’s going to analyze sewer for us again. Mr. Frazier.
Mr. Frazier: We’ll try to keep it a little shorter this time. I am Aaron Frazier with Frazier Engineering and just a brief recap of when I was here on May 22 nd . I was really here to talk about the flow meter that we had on Hunters Woods. And we weren’t at that time retained to do any analysis of the sewer specific, it was to install a flow meter which we did. At the last meeting we were asked to perform a complete evaluation of the sewer which we have done hastily over the last week or two and I have not even spoken to Mr. Hawes about it – him being on vacation. I have spoken to Public Works briefly about it. But there was a lot of data gathering in this last little period and I got the last bit of data on Friday afternoon. A few things we did since the last meeting – and I passed out a map of the area and I apologize you’re just getting it tonight, but again we were kind of crunched to get this analysis done since the last meeting. The dark line in the middle of the page is the sewer that we’ve been evaluating. It goes from manhole 1A on the left on Hunters Woods to manhole 6, which is across Fairview – so that’s the sewer we’re looking at. When we left last time there was a discussion about some t.v. information on the sewer and slope information on the sewer. When we left we re-evaluated the sewer and televised it from manhole 6 all the way to manhole 1. We hired a company to do that. We also hired a surveyor to survey the sewer to get exact slope and elevations out there. At the last meeting I remember a comment was made you know let’s settle this and come to a conclusion once and for all. And the way to do that was to do a comprehensive look at it.
So I want to just discuss what we found in those two things we did – which were t.v. the sewer and survey it. I’ve put little boxes on the map and all of this pipe is 8 inches in diameter and the slope that I’ve listed tells how the sewer is sloping under the ground. Okay – there was some discussion last time about where the Arbors ties in – which is at manhole 5 – that maybe that sewer was flatter than the other portions of the sewer – and that is the case – manhole 6 to 5 crossing Fairview is at a slope of 2.96% from 5-4 it drops to .62%, which means .62 feet in 100 feet. The next slope is .55% - the next slope is .53%. So you can see it’s coming across Fairview at almost 3% and it flattens out to about ½% .5 to .6%. Last time we discussed what is the minimum slope with an 8 inch pipe and the standard – the national standard is .4% - a more localized standard – our clients usually look at .5% as being a minimum. So this sewer is basically at the minimum slope we would want to see it. When it reaches manhole 2 and we discussed this last time – there was some discussion that we thought it dove down the hill and got real steep again and that is back up to 3.50%. Okay – so in fact there is a flat section from Fairview Road which is manhole 5 down to manhole 2. All right – so that flat section – I’ve also listed the capacity of each section of pipe based on that slope and that capacity is assuming the pipe is straight from manhole to manhole on a constant slope. That doesn’t assume any dips in the line. So you can see the slope there and the capacity the minimum capacity is between manhole 3 and 2 and it’s .57 mgd which stands for .57 million gallons per day is how much that pipe can carry. From our flow metering we had a peak daily dry-weather flow of .25 mgd. So this pipe could still carry that flow fine if there weren’t any dips or sags in the line. All right, the last time I was here of course we didn’t know that because we hadn’t analyzed that we simply had a flow meter in the sewer. Since that time we went to analyze it which included t.v.ing it. Okay. Does anybody have any questions on that as we are right now with the capacities or how that works. Okay so we t.v.’d it and all those slopes are based on our surveyor that did the work – a registered, professional, South Carolina land surveyor. Okay – surveyed this for us. Then we t.v.’d it and we t.v. from manhole 6 to manhole 1 and if we just start from 6 to 5 – I’ve listed the pipe material and then the defects. And these are in the boxes. The last two lines in each box. The material from 6 to 5 is pvc or plastic and that pipe looked okay. There was some grease sticking to the pipe walls – which we suspected there might be some grease from that side of the road from the restaurants. Nothing overly significant but we did see some grease stuck on the pipe wall. From manhole 5 to 4 there were multiple sags in the pipe and we discussed that maybe that was evident at the last meeting or maybe those existed. When we t.v.’d it we did find multiple sags in that run of pipe. A sag may be – a sag is a dip in the line. Again, based on our slope from here to here if it were straight that’s the capacity that we have listed in the box. If you go from here to here and there are dips in the line the capacity of course is less and flow can back-up. Last time again, we were just measuring flow at one point and the only way to know what I’m saying tonight is to do the further analysis of it which you asked us to do.
Mayor: Excuse me for interrupting but at what points were you measuring the flow for on this
Mr. Frazier: We were at manhole 3. We had a meter in manhole 3 and our average flow depth at that point was about 3.2 inches. If you remember from last time also, we did not meter flows during a rain event and you asked us to put the meter back in which we have and of course it’s raining over there this afternoon and this evening we’ll collect that data and have more flow information also during the wet weather event.
Mayor: So your flow measuring was after the clay pipe with multiple sags and
Mr. Frazier: Yeah our meter was in at manhole 3 so – and the sags ranged from maybe an inch – which is real small and normally we wouldn’t be concerned to points of a half pipe – in some cases maybe even upwards of ¾ of a pipe which meant the camera was going under water. Or in this case, if you looked at the video – the camera actually turned – so the camera didn’t go under water and they just turned it upwards and got through it and then brought it back down.
Okay there is listed between 5 to 4 one place that’s broken pipe. The pipe is broken fairly bad where we would need to fix that anyway. It’s kind of fractured up but only in one location. Manhole 4 to 3, again we had sags ranging from an inch to two inches to a half pipe where the camera was getting ready to go under water. On manhole 3 to 2 we had the same situation and one place that had a little bit of broken pipe. It’s hard for me to see because the camera was turned up because it also was a location of a sag. One thing that did stand out at me is the water mark on the pipes. When the pipes routinely – flow slows down and backs up it stains the pipe wall and the water mark was fairly high from manhole 5 to 4; 4 to 3; and 3 to 2. It varied. When it was on good grade, good slope, it was low. As we started to get to a sag we would see the water mark increase, which is normal.
Mr. Zitricki: Mr. Frazier
Mr. Frazier: Yes
Mr. Zitricki: What is your definition of high on the pipe
Mr. Frazier: ¾ of the pipe
Mr. Zitricki: That’s pretty substantial
Mr. Frazier: One place in here that stain was pretty much the whole pipe. In one location
Mr. Zitricki: And which manhole was that – which section
Mr. Frazier: I want to say 3 to 2. 4 to 3 – right outside of manhole 4.
Mr. Zitricki: Mr. Hawes where was the problem that we had the back up – which section of pipe.
Mr. Hawes: I believe it occurred at manhole 3.
Mr. Zitricki: Okay – so that’s where the highest marks are
Mr. Frazier: There were other high marks on – as you go down – that was one I happened to note on 3-2 I have a note off to the side – a general note – high water mark in line ¾ pipe. A high water mark again, happens from routine backing up to that point or a routine level sometime during the day. When we were t.v.ing it there were parts where it was that full or we could just see the water mark and it wasn’t that full while we were there. But it really depends on the flow. It also depends on debris. I did ask the t.v. contractor to t.v. it without cleaning it and then to clean it and t.v. it so we could see what it looks like normal without cleaning – what it was – and we really didn’t see a whole lot of difference in conditions.
Another thing – let me I guess finish this. Manhole 2-1 is where it gets steep and that looked fine. The pipe was in good shape. Structurally the pipe is in good shape except for two places where it was broken. It just has some sags. 2-1 looked fine and the normal water level was very low and it’s very steep. And the last section 1-1A we did not t.v. that. I just showed that on there because we did survey it.
Another thing that was of interest in the t.v. was the service lateral connections. Some of them are coming in very low in the pipe and some of them come in low all the way. Some of them the connection is low and they may come in higher. But with some of these sags you could see some water marks up into the connection from the service which would suggest the houses have a hard time getting their flow into the sewer because they’re in a sag in the main sewer.
Mr. Zitricki: So in your professional opinion would you consider from manhole 5 to manhole 2 a problem area of pipe.
Mr. Frazier: Manhole 5 to manhole 2 is definitely a problem area. When we do rehabilitation projects which we do lots and lots and look at lots and lots of t.v. that would be one that those runs we couldn’t pick out a specific problem that was causing the problem and we could go fix one specific problem. There were too many sags, there were too many dips. After we get a few we call them point repairs to fix specific problems. After you get a few of those you might as well replace the whole sewer because if you fix each sag you might be tying into another sag where you make a connection. It’s definitely a situation or an issue with that line. You know, with the circumstances out there and the history of it it made it that much more of a priority when we looked at it. But yes, it would. Last time I think I was asked the question if the camera goes under water – I think Ms. Lawrence asked me that – is that an issue – and is that something that should be fixed. And the answer is yes. And we had several of those on these couple sections of pipe.
Mr. Larson: Excuse me. If the camera goes under water it means it’s gone into a sag.
Mr. Frazier: Yes
Mr. Larson: And that’s problematic.
Mr. Frazier: Yes. And again if you look at our video in lieu of going under water they turned the camera head straight up – because when it goes under water it gets fouled and greasy so they turn it – it was getting ready to go under so they just turn it up. So I also mentioned that one of our criteria last time I believe I mentioned was if we have a half a pipe sag – meaning if it’s an 8 inch pipe and it has a 4 inch sag or more we will always recommend that be fixed. And there are several of those – even upwards of a ¾ pipe sag.
Mr. Larson: Is that something that could be fixed by pipe lining or would the pipe have to be torn up and relayed.
Mr. Frazier: No pipe lining lines what is there and it follows the same contour of the sag. There is a technology called pipe bursting where you put a hammer basically in the sewer and it breaks out the old one – it’s like a bore kind of and pulls in another one – that will take out a little bit of sag here and there but it again is going to follow it. The only
Mr. Larson: That wouldn’t change the slope grade
Mr. Frazier: It wouldn’t change the slope and it would follow with the sags. You know the best situation – really the only method to fix this is to dig it up and replace it. On the bottom right of the map I put a box there with a recommendation which was to install a new sewer from 5-1. The reason I went all the way to 1 in the recommendation was to gain some elevation of the sewer as it goes down the hill so we can steepen the slope while we’re there. From manhole 5-4-3-2 is basically at minimum slope of .55 to .6%. And if we’re going to dig up the road it would be nice to go in and increase that slope if we could. Increasing the slope also gives you more capacity and it also is easier to install the sewer without having issues of potential sags. And believe it or not when you design it at a minimum slope of .5% it’s difficult for contractors to do that and it also leads to some of the sags and things because it’s just so flat. So I would recommend going all the way to manhole 1. That would give us a new pipe slope through there of 1% and a capacity of about .78 mgd and again our – during our previous metering our peek dry weather slope was .25 mgd so that’s about 1/3 of the capacity of that sewer.
Mayor: So you’re saying go to mh1 instead of mh1a. Can you tell me where this 8 inch line ties into the 10 inch line.
Mr. Frazier: Further down – I’m not sure where that is
Mayor: Mr. Hawes knows I’m sure
Mr. Hawes: Basically off the map.
Mayor: Okay – it’s down near Willowbranch
Mr. Hawes: Well okay the cut across – you can see right where the W is in Hunters Woods on the left side of the map it picks up as a 10 at the – where the line from the apartment complex and that meet. So the second manhole after it cuts across the creek. That’s where it becomes a 10. So it’s right on the edge of that.
Mr. Frazier: And you can see – the reason I had the surveyor go to manhole 1A is I was curious how the next run of pipe was and you can see from 1 to 1A it’s almost 6% slope which is a lot of capacity on that sewer.
Mr. Zitricki: Mr. Frazier why wouldn’t we want to go to more of a slope than 1%. Why are we limiting ourselves because you’re talking about you can’t get exact when you’re digging and your above or below a little bit with the law of averages here so why would we shoot for more since you’re starting out at only 3% at manhole 6 and if you went to 1 or 1A you’re at 3-6% why wouldn’t we do that.
Mr. Frazier: Well you can – we’re limited by the fixed elevations we have – so by going to manhole 1 we gain to where we can have 1%. If we go to manhole 1A we can even steepen it more and we can continue on down. We even thought about we could put a 10 inch pipe in. The difference in cost between an 8 inch and a 10 inch pipe is negligible. It’s just material costs. Based on the flows we saw you know carrying the 1% slope – which is a really good slope on an 8 inch sewer. I mean usually 8 inch – I mean it doesn’t show here but often 8 inch sewers will be at .6% or .7% - 1% is a pretty good slope. We stopped it there and we can look at that – to get to manhole 1 I think would solve the issue and give you a real nice slope. We can look at it it would just add cost to the project and that’s something that we can consider and see how far we want to take it.
Mr. Zitricki: I’m just looking at – this has been an on-going problem for years. This has been a thorn in the side of the residents of Hunters Woods, the City and everybody else and if we’re going to fix this we need to fix it right so it won’t happen again.
Mr. Frazier: And what I’m proposing I’m confident it will fix it and fix it right. The one thing versus the steeper slope I may consider and look at if we were looking at it for final design is it’s my understanding some of the homes have back flow preventers on them and we would want to survey those and see if those can go away and the sewer could be deep enough to take those away. That may or may not happen at a 1% slope. I mean we have a slope going from here to here and the back flow preventers are tied in up here. We need to look at that. The sewer could be dropped potentially and carried on down to manhole 1A and maybe do away with the back flow preventers.
Mayor: Do you know the elevations of 1A and 5. I guess the better question would be do you know the difference in elevations between 5 and 1A.
Mr. Frazier: Between 1A and 5 –
Mayor: In other words how much total slope could we get if we went all the way from 1A to 5.
Mr. Frazier: 1A to 5 is about 34 feet. And that’s over about 1300 feet.
Mayor: 34 feet grade change – elevation change – yeah that’s pretty good
Mr. Frazier: You know the recommendation – it can be moved on down the line – that’s a really steep slope there that we have – pick up more grade and again I – we were looking at the minimum amount to get this and 5-1 I’m very confident will do very well with a 1% slope. The issue again – I would want to do during design would be to look at those back flow preventers as well because my – and I think I mentioned this last time – my history with back flow preventers is that if they aren’t maintained over a period of time they’re going to fail. And I also mentioned a project we’re working on elsewhere where we’re relocating the sewer and making it much deeper to get rid of back flow preventers that have failed over a period of maybe 8-10 years. So, the back flow preventers have been installed to prevent back flow but they also put a maintenance issue on somebody to maintain those. So those will be the things that I think also need to be looked at is the elevation of those. I mentioned some of the services tying in and the water elevation. We will be looking at a minimum drop in that to try to drop that water elevation that we saw at some of the services. All those things combined may force us to go down another manhole – but at a minimum if we did 5-1 I’d feel pretty good about that. There’s just some other information we’d have to collect during final design.
Mayor: I don’t suppose you’ve run any cost estimates on this yet.
Mr. Frazier: Not hard and firm but you know the sewer itself is probably $100,000 and then I would assume that we would have to repave the entire road and that from curb to curb and looking at the pavement out there – which happens a lot of time – it’s probably going to have to be removed or milled because it looks like its building up on the curb. It might be another $100,000. SO you may be looking at $200,000. Often the pavement – this does go right down the middle of the road. We have service tie in’s. We have traffic control issues – it’s a pretty narrow road and a lot of traffic. Pavement usually doubles the cost of a project. So to get to what we have probably on the upper end about $200,000.
Mr. Zitricki: And what kind of time frame to complete this work
Mr. Frazier: If we did manhole 5-1 that’s about 900 feet and I think you’re probably looking at to finish everything and clean up and what not – probably two months. To get it cleaned up, tested and out of there and paved.
Mr. Zitricki: So we won’t have access for two months on that stretch of road.
Mr. Frazier: Well it would be in portions or phases. I mean from start to end would probably be two months. To lay the pipe probably 3 weeks and then we have service lines to tie in so maybe 4 weeks to lay the sewer – you know it would need to be tested and t.v.’d. The pavement would be patched as they went or they’d bring it up with stone and by the time you finished the patching and overlay you’re probably looking at two months of total disruption. Maybe a month to do the hard digging work. It’s going to be difficult – they’re going to have to pump flows while they do it. They’re going to have pumps set up pumping around that will add to the cost of it. It’s not like laying a new sewer where there’s no flow. All this flow will have to be pumped. You’d have to specify a quiet zone pump which dampens the noise because there are homes out there. You’d have to look at temporary tie-ins during the day at the end of each day so those pumps don’t run all night long. So there are a lot of factors involved with replacing existing sewer with flow and that’s why the cost goes up. It’s not like laying a new sewer out to a new development. So there are lots of issues that will take time and lead to more time. I mean if we specified this I mean we’d probably be looking at two months from start to end for them to be done with everything and off the job.
Mr. Zitricki: If we decided to go with this route this would eliminate the need for a parallel line back through the woods.
Mr. Frazier: That’s right. The other thing – and I’m not a part of looking at Arbors going somewhere else and things like that. I will say that the Arbor’s flow is probably helping this sewer at this particular point in time because there is a good bit of flow when the pumps kick on to flush things down through the sewer. So while there was some concern about maybe that was adding to some of the problem – I’m not going to say it wasn’t because the flows go up but it does add flow into this sewer to help wash things along right now through those sags. This would take care of all those issues. Again, during final design I think there are a few more things to look at. A few more elevations to get – extend the scope potentially based on those elevations and what we finally sort out. If you extend the sewer down to manhole 1 that’s another 400 feet so just doing that may add $50-60-70,000 so that’s why we kind of limited it to what we thought was minimum.
Mayor: Okay thank you Mr. Frazier. Anyone else have any questions of Mr. Frazier. Thank you very much. I’m sure you’ll be here for a few more minutes in case we think of something else. I’d like to ask Mr. Hawes to look into some pricing on this. Obviously we’ve got a ballpark to work with tonight, but could you report back to us at the next council meeting on perhaps some bids
Mr. Hawes: Well I wouldn’t say bids but I’d say estimates – bids are formal
Mayor: Well we’re highly informal here so – all right, thank you very much for that.
• Election of member to Planning Commission Mayor: Ms. Bodkins you have a little issue before us tonight an election to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Bodkins: Yes sir, as you all know you have a vacancy on your Planning Commission right now. At the last meeting I gave you two applications to fill that vacancy. One from Caroline Richardson Mahaffey and one from Scott Fowler. Tonight I’ve placed on each of your places a ballot that I need you to complete. You need to vote for one of those two people and sign it and date it.
Mayor: Okay – I think Mr. Larson sponsored Mr. Fowler so you want to tell us a little bit about Mr. Fowler.
Mr. Larson: Scott Fowler is a long-time resident of our area. He graduated from Mauldin High School . He got a Bachelor’s Degree from Clemson and an MBA from the University of South Carolina so that should make everybody happy.
Mayor: No not really.
Mr. Larson: He owns his own business here in our area and he is a resident in Chancellor’s Park and he’s interested in serving his community.
Mayor: Okay, thank you. Well I sponsored Caroline Mahaffey and I think she’s with us tonight and probably most of you know her. Caroline’s attributes that made me think she would be a good planning commission member is that first of all she is a realtor and historically we’ve tried to have representation of at least one member as representation from the realtor/builder/developer and all those other slashes community. The bonuses she has is she grew up in Simpsonville and has been here her entire life. Her family has always been active in Simpsonville and in trying to make this place a better community. She’s been very active in the education community here. Caroline has some impressive degree – I can’t remember what it was but I believe it was from a very impressive university named Furman and she also has an interest in the future because she has a bus load of children that she is raising here. I think she meets all the qualifications that we would look for in someone who is not only interested in our community from an historical perspective but also for the future. So I proudly recommend her tonight. So those are the two nominees and if you folks will enter your vote and Ms. Bodkins if you’ll take them up and I’m sure you’ll report back to us in a few moments after you do that high level math.
Ms. Bodkins: Yes sir, I will.
RESOLUTIONS • Resolution regarding Administrative Fees Mayor: All right, next on the agenda is Resolutions. Mr. Hawes your up. Tell us about the resolution regarding administrative fees
Mr. Hawes: Yes sir Mayor and Council at our Budget Workshop session in May we discussed the change to the Building Permit Fee structure to include an administrative fee that would be collected at the time building and construction related permits were collected. The fee set at a rate of $100 plus 1/2% of the total project cost.
Mayor: Okay – and I think we need a motion on this before we have any discussion so I’ll entertain a motion. Ms. Lawrence
Ms. Lawrence: Yes Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we accept the Administrative Fee Schedule for Construction.
Mayor: Thank you Ms. Lawrence do I hear a second.
Mr. Garrett: Second
Mayor: Mr. Garrett seconds. Thank you Mr. Garrett. Any discussion? Well I got to say it because I said it back there – I hate to see increases in building permits because I think we hit the contractors hard enough but I understand the reasoning behind it and I understand why we really need to do this and I guess we’ll just need to bite the bullet and go forward with this if everybody agrees. So hearing no further discussion I’ll call for the vote. All those in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it it’s unanimous. All right Mr. Hawes how much more damage can you do with these resolutions.
• Resolution regarding Encroachment Permit Fee Mr. Hawes: We’ve got another resolution for you and this one is specific to right-of-way and easements and encroachment permits for such. We currently have an encroachment permit for street cuts set at $200. This is a $500 encroachment fee adjustment – adjusted to $500
Mayor: Okay, I’ll entertain a motion. Ms. Lawrence
Ms. Lawrence: I make a motion that we accept the resolution for the encroachment permit fee.
Mayor: Thank you Ms. Lawrence do I hear a second
Mr. Zitricki: I’ll second that Mr. Mayor
Mayor: Mr. Zitricki seconds. Thank you Mr. Zitricki. Do I hear any discussion? Hearing none I’ll call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it that to is unanimous.
ORDINANCES – 1 ST READING • FY-2006-2007 Closing Budget Amendments Mayor: All right Mr. Hawes, we have some ordinances to talk about. The 2006-2007 Closing Budget Amendments
Mr. Hawes: Yes sir, Mayor and Council. The 2006-2007 Budget Year is at its closing point and we have some specific amendments that are identified. This is part of the preparation for the audit and getting our books in order so that they don’t have to be placed in order by the auditors basically. And what we’re doing is we’re adjusting for some changes that occurred that were unbudgeted throughout the year. Primary of those was the issuance of the 2006 Certificates of Participation for 2 million and 5 thousand dollars. This was reimbursement to the general fund and monies that funded the construction of the amphitheater at Heritage Park for Phase II. Also we issued GO Bonds for $785,000 that were used to complete the street resurfacing throughout the City that was discussed earlier. Also the street scape project – some of the grant money that was budgeted for this fiscal year needs to be carried over so that’s an adjustment and completion of Alder Bridge – that goes way back basically but it was totally funded in 2005 budget the bridge finished being built late in 2006-2007 so therefore produced a capital expense in this year with no off-setting revenue. So these are just adjustments within our budget to get everything balanced to where the auditors can take it and move forward so this is a standard thing that we do each year.
Mayor: Okay thank you Mr. Hawes. I think we can cover all these in one motion can’t we Mr. Parliamentarian – thank you sir. So I’ll entertain a motion in that regard. Ms. Lawrence – nobody wants to talk but you.
Ms. Lawrence: Well I make a motion that we accept the budget amendments as written.
Mayor: Thank you Ms. Lawrence, I’m glad your here. Do I hear a second.
Mr. Garrett: Second
Mayor: Mr. Garrett seconds. All right, any discussion
Mr. Hawes: This is a first reading Mayor
Mayor: Yes, I’m sorry well I’ll remind them before we vote
Mr. Bridges: I have a question
Mayor: Mr. Bridges
Mr. Bridges: One of those figures you gave was $2,000,005,000.
Mr. Hawes: That is correct
Mayor: That was the famous/infamous however you look at it repayment of the money that we’ve taken out of that account
Mr. Bridges: I just thought that $5,000 was an odd amount
Mayor: All right, anyone else. All right, hearing no other discussion I’ll remind council this is the first of two readings so I’ll call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it it’s unanimous.
ORDINANCES – 2 ND READING • FY 2007-2008 Operating Budget Mayor: All right Mr. Hawes how about the operating budget itself.
Mr. Hawes: Yes Sir Mr. Mayor and Council. You’ve been presented with the 2007-2008 Fiscal Year Operating Budget for the City of Simpsonville . We had a very productive budget workshop in May. We had first reading on this budget. There were a couple of tweaks of the budget that I forwarded you information on between the workshop and second reading. The major change was we bumped up the Revenue slightly because of the train revenue increases. The train operation at Heritage Park were actually coming in at a higher rate this year than they were last year. So as that got underway we were able to adjust that. We also had adjusted for the 800 mgh radio system to be funded by the state. All indications are that the state will be funding that – the operating costs for the 800 mgh. We still have to pay the match for the grant for that system but that’s in the budget so that’s taken care of. Also Public Works had $10,000 added to its resurfacing budget for City Speed Humps Program and that was discussed at the Budget Workshop and that has been placed in the budget as well. And those were the primary changes.
Mayor: Okay, thank you Mr. Hawes, I’ll entertain a motion. Mr. Bridges
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor I move that we adopt the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Operating Budget as presented.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Bridges do I hear a second
Ms. Bagwell: I’ll second it.
Mayor: Ms. Bagwell seconds. All right, any discussion. Well I think we’re all up here very happy that we were able to have you bring us a budget that does a lot of things that we wanted to do – we’ve increased some spending and improved some things and been able to fund it with our growth and not have a tax increase. So I think everybody’s thrilled about that. So I hope that I speak for everyone. I’ll remind council that this is second and final reading and after this vote if it passes we’ll have a budget. So hearing no further discussion, all in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it it’s unanimous. Go forth and spend, very gently.
ANNEXATIONS/REZONINGS – 1 ST READING • AXZ-2007-03 Capewood Place Planned Development Mayor: All right, Dick Witkowski, thank you for your patience. You’ve been here a long time and we are happy to have you back. You were well represented in your absence the last time, but it’s always a pleasure.
Mr. Witkowski: Well thank you Mr. Mayor you’re always very gracious, especially when I reach the podium and I thank you. I’d like to congratulate Ms. Bagwell on her election and I knew some day you’d have two women sitting around you.
Mayor: It’s kind of an interesting feeling.
Mr. Witkowski: Mayor the first thing before you is AXZ-2007-03. This is a double tract annexation and rezoning of Capewood Place . The request is from County R-S , single Family Residential to Simpsonville City Planned Development. The developer is Brian Seppala and the engineer is Kevin Ross. Capewood Place is surrounded by the Westwood Subdivision and is 6.5 acres with nice pond of unspecified size. To give you some historical perspective, plans for this property were brought forward for annexation and rezoning in January 2005 and April 2006. Both submissions were rejected by City Council after recommendation of the Planning Commission. During this period of time a substantial number of citizens appeared at both the Planning Commission and City Council to voice their overwhelming objections to those two submissions. During a planning commission meeting of April 5, 2007, there was no objection voiced from citizens of Westwood. The commission attributes this to the very positive approach of the developer and the engineer at a meeting held with a large number of the citizens of Westwood. This meeting was held at Beth Haven Baptist Church . The current proposal is for 15 single family homes which is considerably less than the original two submissions – they called for 20 and 19 homes respectively. This plan calls for homes to be between 1,200 sq. ft and 2,000 sq ft with 3 bedrooms. The existing home on this property will remain and be remodeled leaving 14 new homes to be constructed. The large pond will remain as an open space as well as an area to the rear of the property. The Planning Commission voted 5-1 in favor of the development with the following contingencies. The pond and adjacent space areas – open space areas are to be developed with a pedestrian access from the newly constructed road and an additional access along Capewood Road . Sidewalks would be included on the new road; an undeveloped buffer of no less than 25 feet is to be included on the rear of all lots directly adjacent to other pre-existing residential properties. A tree survey is to be performed. Although not a contingency the Planning Commission encouraged the developer to pay special attention in incorporating this new neighborhood into the surrounding neighborhood with the least amount of adverse effect. The Planning Commission also encouraged the developer to consider the use of pervious concrete wherever possible. The developer agreed to this proposal and indicated that they will look into this possibility. Again the Planning Commission voted 5-1 in favor of the development.
Mayor: Okay, thank you Mr. Witkowski. Do I hear a motion. Mr. Larson
Mr. Larson: I’ll make a motion that we approve AXZ-2007-03
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Larson
Ms. Lawrence: Second
Mayor: Ms. Lawrence seconds. Any discussion. Ms. Lawrence
Ms. Lawrence: Yes sir, Mr. Witkowski when I look at the Plat that they have – well you know the little map drawing – it shows where the storm water is going to go off – but it doesn’t show a retention pond.
Mr. Witkowski: Well the large pond there
Ms. Lawrence: No I’m talking about the water further down –
Mr. Witkowski: Off the back of the property.
Ms. Lawrence: Uh-huh – off the bottom lots.
Mr. Witkowski: There was some discussion with regards to that back part of the property. There was some concern – one of the commissioners that that flow was going to go down
Ms. Lawrence: The back yards that’s what I’m scarred of.
Mr. Witkowski: The engineer of course assured us that that wouldn’t happen and of course DHEC wouldn’t allow that to happen. That water is going to have to be taken off somewhere else. It’s going to have to be either piped off or it’s going to have to be put into another basin of some sort. Now of course this is just the first time the Planning Commission has had an opportunity to look at this and there will be a – it’s a Planned Development so we will be looking at it again. And of course this is your first reading on it.
Ms. Lawrence: Okay, so I don’t need to worry about the water running all over those houses –
Mr. Witkowski: Gosh I would hope not. We’re not at the point where there’s been an engineering study (TAPE SWITCHED SIDES) – I will assure you that the Planning Commission before it finally approves this plan will make sure that there’s adequate run-off. Just as we do with the sewer flow. There’s plenty of sewer flow back in there even though the Westwood people have had – the people in Westwood have had problems with sewer issues before – those have been taken care of. There was even some problems with sediment in that pond – in that stream that went through there – those issues have been taken care of so I’m confident that this issue will be taken care of. I believe that this project is really going to enhance the Westwood Subdivision. I think it’s certainly going to increase the value of property in that area and the builder comes from a family of builders. The Seppala family. This is the son. I think he’s gone into business with the son of AHO together. And they seem to be very anxious to please. And I believe you attended that meeting that they had at Beth Haven Baptist Church
Ms. Lawrence: Yes, yes I did
Mr. Witkowski: And I believe you came away with a very positive feeling about it
Ms. Lawrence: Oh yeah, I did – the people were fine with it.
Mayor: Okay. Anyone else. Mr. Larson
Mr. Larson: Going along with what Ms. Lawrence was saying I know there was a discussion about the pond being used as a catch for the storm water but it seems like if I remember the lay of the land most of the lots are going to be below the level of where they would gravity feed into the pond
Mr. Witkowski: Well I’m not an engineer so I can’t respond to that.
Mr. Larson: As long as DHEC and the engineer are saying that whatever doesn’t run into the pond is going to be contained without running out the back of the property
Mr. Witkowski: The engineer, Mr. Ross indicated there might even be a need to extend the damn of that pond some to take care of that.
Mr. Larson: So they’ve looked at that issue.
Mr. Witkowski: Yes
Mayor: Okay – Ms. Bagwell
Ms. Bagwell: Mr. Witkowski has Mr. Seppala said anything – the developer said anything about the pricing of the homes that are going to be going in there
Mr. Witkowski: We normally don’t get into that from a Planning Commission standpoint. We can ask him at the next meeting and I can report back to you about that but we normally don’t get into the prices of homes. I can’t afford any of them quite frankly.
Ms. Bagwell: I’d just like to know because of the surrounding community to know how it will affect those obviously
Mr. Witkowski: Well we’re fairly confident it’s going to affect the prices of the older homes very positively. And with that I think we’ve done some paving over in Westwood recently and you know all those things that we do to that pretty large community over there is going to have to have a benefit.
Mayor: Okay – anyone else – Mr. Zitricki
Mr. Zitricki: Will this be part of Westwood or a separate subdivision
Mr. Witkowski: It is a separate subdivision – which gives us a little bit of heartburn but we don’t know any way around it. It’s what is called a donut and it wasn’t part of Westwood when Westwood was built therefore it can’t be part of Westwood. They’re going to have their own separate homeowner’s association. Westwood does not have a homeowner’s association they have a community association that is starting to get fairly active. So, no it will not be part of what we call the Westwood subdivision.
Mr. Zitricki: Thank you
Mayor: Okay anyone else. Well I think we’re all interested in making sure that the storm water is handled properly so Mr. Spain I’m certain that when you talk with DHEC and the engineers in preparation for that you’re going to make sure that they’re aware of that silt that was in that pond. I heard you say that that had been removed but I wasn’t aware that it had been removed.
Mr. Witkowski: Maybe I was thinking of the creek because I’ve heard some talk about the creek that is in that area that some of the silt had been removed.
Mayor: Okay – well just as long as Mr. Spain you make sure that they’re aware of that and look at all that and consider all that before you report back to them and they report back to us – I think all of us up here will be happy with that. All right hearing no further discussion I’ll remind council that this is the first of two readings so all of those in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it it’s unanimous.
• Z-2007-03 805 W. Georgia Rd. Proposed Rezoning Mayor: All right Mr. Witkowski Z-2007-03.
Mr. Witkowski: Yes Mr. Mayor and Council, that is a rezoning of a piece of residential property at 805 W. Georgia Road . It’s being considered for rezoning from R-12 to C-1N – neighborhood commercial. The developer is A&W Land Acquisitions. This is an area of a little over ½ acre .54. There is a single family home on this property which has burned and is a visual blight along a rapidly developing corridor of W. Georgia Road . You probably all know where it is – you probably have all seen it. The developers are requesting rezoning to allow for an office complex. While the 1999 Future Land Use Plan designates properties in this area or local as residential, many changes have occurred since then. In recent developments along W. Georgia Road make properties such as this less suitable for residential use. It’s more appropriate for office, retail and mixed use at this point. Other large parcels across the street have been annexed and zoned C-1 and Planned Development. In addition a precedent has been set along this side of the road with a newly constructed Day Care Center , Classy Kids. I think you probably all know where that is at the corner of Neely Ferry and W. Georgia Road . A zoning to C-1N also allows the Planning Commission to further site review – a further site review to insure the building type and use in this area is appropriate. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that council approve this development.
Mayor: Okay, thank you Mr. Witkowski. Do I hear a motion. Ms. Lawrence
Ms. Lawrence: Since it’s in my Ward let me make the motion that we do this.
Mayor: All right I have a motion do I have a second
Mr. Larson: Second.
Mayor: Mr. Larson. Mr. Larson seconds. Thank you Mr. Larson. Any discussion. All right hearing none I’ll remind council this is the first of two readings and I’ll call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it it’s unanimous. You’re batting 1,000 so far.
ANNEXATIONS/REZONINGS – 2 ND READING • AXZ-2007-02 – Statement of Intent Revision to The Towns at Fowler Planned Development Mayor: You’ve got one more time at the plate. This is second reading on AXZ-2007-02.
Mr. Witkowski: This is a brief overview of this. Council previously approved the Towns at Fowler as a PD. Since then the developer Dillons Development LLC has acquired about .5 acre tract to be added to this development which will add 4 houses for a total of 54 homes. This change represents a small change in density from 5.37 units per acre to 5.47 units per acre. Planning Commission recommends unanimous approval for council on its 2 nd Reading .
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Witkowski do I hear a motion. Mr. Zitricki
Mr. Zitricki: Mr. Mayor I recommend that we approve AXZ-2007-02 on 2 nd reading as presented by the Planning Commission
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Zitricki do I hear a second
Ms. Lawrence: Second
Mayor: Ms. Lawrence seconds. All right, any discussion. You all are too easy tonight. All right hearing no discussion I’ll remind council this is second and final reading. All in favor signify by saying Aye (AYE) opposed No. Aye’s have it it’s unanimous. All right thank you Mr. Witkowski and welcome back.
Now, Ms. Lawrence it’s time for you to make another motion.
Ms. Bodkins: Mayor
Mayor: Oh the results of the election
Ms. Bodkins: Yes sir. Ms. Caroline Mahaffey will be the new member of the Planning Commission.
Mayor: Well congratulations. Be sure and get her social security number and we’ll start issuing her the paycheck. (Laughter) I didn’t tell her that part.
ADJOURNMENT Mayor: All right. Now, Ms. Lawrence it’s time for you to make your motion.
Ms. Lawrence: Mr. Mayor I make a motion we adjourn.
Mr. Garrett: Second </ |