Full meeting transcript - May 27, 2025

» Thank you for being present tonight ladies and gentlemen ladies and gentlemen if I could have your attention let's call the meeting to order this is the Kershaw County Council meeting for Tuesday May 27th 2025 thank you everyone for being here tonight a lot of interest in the agenda tonight glad to have you here we've been called to order next up we have an invocation and pledge of allegiance that we've led by Councilman Derek Shoemake Mr.

» Shoemake thank you let's pray Lord please watch over this body as we conduct the business of the people of Kershaw County and Lord please watch over our hearts and minds to make sure we do those things that are wise those things that are fair and those things that do the most good for the most people and lastly Lord we obviously have a lot on this agenda and please let everyone remember that those things that bring us together are far more important than those things that divide us in in your name we pray amen amen 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 thank you Mr.

» Shoemake that brings us to the next item on the agenda which is adoption of the agenda do we have any motions I'd make a motion that we adopt the agenda Mr. Chairman is there a second second we've got a second any discussion I have an amendment Mr. Jones thank you thank you thank you Mr. Chairman members the county council I'd like to amend the agenda to delete the FOI requirements discussion by Jimmy Jones at this time that's deletion of item 7a is there a second second we have a second any discussion Mr. Jones no we'll take it up at a later date okay seeing no discussion all in favor of the deletion raise your hand Ms.

» Hannah it's unanimous for the record in favor of item 7a is deleted we've got an amendment on the agenda any further amendments seeing none we'll move to vote for the vote on the agenda as amended all in favor raise your hand Ms. Hannah it's unanimous by those who are voting all right now that the agenda is approved we've got two items that we're going to move to after public comments that's going to be item 10b and item 11b that is register of deeds recommendation by the administrator and Kershaw health district appointment for district number four and we'll proceed to that point we've got public comments up next on the agenda Mr. Dubose excuse me Mr. Chair did you say e d d yep excuse me 11b and 10b so both b's okay any other questions on the agenda thank you Mr. Jones Mr.

» Dubose public comment members of council we have 15 public speakers signed a 30-minute limit divided by 15 is two minutes apiece first speaker is Helen Crowley okay thank you and I just remind you please be respectful of other people's time we've got a 30-minute allotment look forward to hearing from you it's it's not a time for a question and answer but a time for council to hear from the public yes ma'am please go ahead I'm helping to build a fresh water supply. Just where will the water source be? Lake Watery is our primary source at present, but Charlotte plans to use more of the upper Catawba River system water. At present, Lake Watery has a known algae-bling problem that will affect our water quality and volume. And trees.

» Just where are the trees? We have a large tree canopy in Kirchhoff County at present, but trees disappear when land is stripped of development. Pictures of these large developments do not reflect tree placement. Will there be enough room for large, mature trees? At my age, I won't live long enough to see trees mature. The cycle of nature needs trees to help produce and maintain the water resources. Each of us must have water to survive. Roads. There's no room in the city limits to expand our transportation system. In the county, there is room to build roads if money is available.

» But where is the plan? Yes, we will grow as a county and a city, but we need a well-thought-out plan with very specific guidelines that protect our history and provide for a gradual plan to growth that is sustainable. Continue the moratorium until a comprehensive plan is developed and implemented. Thank you, Ms. Crowley. Mr. DeBose. Next speaker is Ted Brunson. Subject is growth. Mr. Brunson. Point of board, Mr. Chair. Mr. Jones has a point of order. Point of order takes precedent. Yes, the speakers are addressing us, not the audience. Agreed. And Mr. Brunson, please, one moment. And while I generally like clapping, we're on a very tight schedule tonight, and this doesn't eat into your time, obviously, but we're on a very tight time schedule tonight with a lot of people who want to speak.

» And so, asides to the audience or otherwise, just delays in the time that someone else might be able to speak or in keeping staff after hours. Granted, they signed up for the job, but if we could, if you could direct the comments to, and I see a couple of you smiling, if you could direct the comments to county council, that'd be great. We'd love to hear from you. Yes, sir. I was going to say, use the mic, too. There you go. Okay. You can start the clock. Thank you. I'll keep it short. In looking at the moratorium and in looking at the comprehensive plan, there was an old saying, my dad always used to say, there's never enough time to do it right, but there's always enough time to go back and fix it.

» If we take this next six months and the council, both with the city, put their heads together, I think this is something that's very doable for the future, the next 10 years, before we have to look at this again. So, we now have the opportunity. This is the second largest turnout that I've ever seen, and I've been to a lot of these things. So, this is how important it is to the county, and I think you've got to look at everybody, and in extending the moratorium, I don't think we're infringing too much on the property rights, and I've actually spoke on both sides. You know, it is important to maintain those property rights, but it's also having to look at what the Senate concurrency bill of S-227 is up in front of the state.

» You know, all of these things are designed to help y'all plan and help us benefit this going down. So, with looking at that, what I'm going to respectfully ask, and it's based on people on the council right now, and again, respectfully, Mr. Connell and Mr. Shoemate, as real estate attorneys, y'all have the opportunity to benefit from continued growth. So, again, I'm going to respectfully ask that y'all recuse yourself and not vote on this matter. And that's the only thing I've got to say. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Brunson. Mr. DuBose. Next speaker is Mike Burcott, Growth. Mr. Burcott. Good evening, sir. My name is Mike Burcott. I've been a resident of the county for going on eight years.

» I'm in support of the six-month moratorium and all major developments until such time as we have a coherent action plan of what we want Kershaw County to look like and having the infrastructure to support growth. We are in this mess now because of poorly planned or articulated needs or requirements from your predecessors and their lack of planning for infrastructure growth. The airport discussion over the last year is just one prime example of lack of planning. During this moratorium, I recommend the comprehensive plan be reviewed with the development of annual action plans to address the concerns of the public, including the preservation of culture and history of the city of Camden and all of Kershaw County. This is historically an equestrian community.

» Horse racing, steeplechase, fox hunting polo. We need to preserve this heritage. The preservation of open space in all of Kershaw County and the practicality of solar farms in Kershaw County and their impact on the land. Bottom line is we're not creating any more land, but there are acres of parking lots that can be used to host solar farms, provide shade and rain cover. And this includes both public and commercial parking lots. Regionalization of abandoned or blighted properties. You know, the county can take action against abandoned or blighted properties for public use, taking in the totality of circumstances. Power, water, sewage treatment, traffic infrastructure are as needed to support the growth of the county.

» Right now, the data for that should be publicly available and displayed so it is understood what the actual capacity is. Posted and updated regularly. Currently, I have concerns regarding the validity of the data, how it's used or tailored to affect decisions regarding county growth. Impact of growth on schools. Buildings, classrooms, faculty, staff, bus routes, bus drivers. Do we have enough of each? How do we recruit and retain them? We can't do it by hiring them to work someplace where they can't live. And for the sake of time, I'd like to just highlight to the body that the county vision is to find the right balance between growth and preservation to become the future generations, what the future generations deserve. And the county purpose... Mr.

» Burcott, if you could please include your time has expired. Increase in the quality of life for our residents. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Mr. DuBose. Next speaker is Michelle Sanger. Ms. Sanger. Thank you. Good evening. I am the United States Polo Association delegate for the Camden Polo Club. We are celebrating right now our 125th anniversary with polo here in Camden and also with the United States Polo Association. As a delegate, my responsibilities to this club are significant and I'm honored to have them. The one thing that I want to bring to you all is that Camden Polo, this Camden Polo, started again last year with a neighborhood with a fox hunt. And now it has moved to over 70 participants. Those participants are wanting horses.

» Horses in polo is unbelievable how many horses you need. I came from Garrison Forest, Interscholastic Polo, you need an arena for youth, junior, and collegiate polo. We had 25 horses on our string. In the University of Virginia, they had men's and women's polo, which extended to over 60 horses on our string. Right now, our members are actively buying horses, looking to buy horses, and looking for practice facilities and some sort of a place for them to be without torturing poor carcoyed polo field, which we put a lot of money into preserving that. So, coming to you, begging for the moratorium to pass, letting us take a long hold, a deep seat, and let things sort out within the county so that we can move forward as a community and have a wonderful legacy re-established. Thank you.

» Thank you, Ms. Singer. Mr. DuBose. Barbara Tatjee, I believe, last name. Tatjee? Apologies if I've mispronounced it. She'll give us the pronunciation. Tatjee? Ms. Tatjee, please. Mr. Chairman, members of the council, thank you for this opportunity. To speak, my name is Barbara Tatjee, I've been a member of Kershaw, member, resident of Kershaw County for over 20 years. In my opinion, based on my personal experience, as well as information that is readily available, some of the large-scale, high-density developers use predatory and opportunistic practices. In Kershaw County, they've taken advantage of weak and outdated zoning laws, an outdated comprehensive plan, limited infrastructure requirements, and an understaffed planning office.

» They have exploited loopholes, created infrastructure strain, degraded the environment, and displaced low-income families, all while having very limited, if any, long-term accountability. Growth in general, when done well, is very beneficial. It adds value. But our current comprehensive plan, lack of thoughtful land use and zoning ordinances, and lack of truly transparent development agreements, will simply not allow for thoughtful, value-added growth. We encourage you to support the moratorium, take a pause, gather the facts of this new reality for our county and for our state, and guide, manage, and nurture the good growth that our residents deserve. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Tatjee. Mr. DuBose. Next speaker is Linda Knatzer. Ms. Knatzer. Yes, ma'am, please. Chairman Connell.

» If you could pull the mic down, please, just a little bit. Chairman Connell, council members. First, I want to thank our Kershaw County Planning Committee for their hard work and dedication on the airport overlay, the comprehensive plan, and the temporary moratorium, which they expedited, so we could come here tonight before you. When I didn't attend some of their meetings and workshops, I always followed them online, just as I do with you. Most Kershaw County residents already agree that we don't want and don't need the mega developments that will bring nothing positive to our county.

» Now, what are we going to do about it? What are we going to do about it? We can either talk this problem to death or put in place this temporary moratorium to give us the time needed to go through the process of developing a comprehensive plan and ZLDR that will hopefully be a good solution for our future. Ideally, I would love to see a permanent ban on these mega developments, but in the meantime, let's get this short-term fix in place. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gennatzer. Mr. DuBose. Next speaker is Lynn Konto. Ms. Konto. Yes, ma'am. My name is Lynn Konto, and I want to thank Councilman Jones and Brazel for bringing this to the agenda today. A moratorium is a legal means for local government to address infrastructure and needs within our county. It is legal. It can be done.

» I'm going to introduce something called a never-settle mindset. This means high standards for housing, refusing to accept mediocrity, and growth is coming. So what are we going to do about it? We need time to plan. I'm asking you to vote yes for a temporary moratorium, which is a legal way to prepare for this growth. It is not a taking of somebody's property. It is a means to address things that are concerning the community, as you see behind me. This gives us time to create a legal capital improvement plan, complete the Kershaw County comprehensive plan, address infrastructure such as water, sewer, emergency services, roads, schools, parks, recreation, and protect green space. We can also look at impact fees that will address certain or specific needs.

» More than two dozen South Carolina governments have implemented fees to protect their infrastructure. What about us? It's time to draft amendments for subdivision standards that protect and match the charm of Camden and Kershaw County. No more cookie-cutter homes. We know Charlotte is planning to do a water grab. Are we ready? I don't think so. Water is a necessity. Never settle. Give our local government and planning commission time to write smart, measurable, and achievable goals for builders in the future. Our local economy depends on it. Require vegetative buffers and don't allow developers to destroy the natural beauty of Camden and Kershaw County. Stripping all the trees is not okay. Kershaw County residents and council should never settle. Mr.

» Miss Conto, if you could conclude, please. Okay. You know that 14% of our population has grown. We're the sixth fastest growing. Nationally, it's only 0.29%. That's scary. Please vote for a moratorium. It's only pausing for six months to complete the comprehensive plan. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Miss Conto. Mr. DuBose. Next speaker is Di DuBose. Miss Di DuBose. Delivery is not very good right now, but I'm going to give it a try. If you could speak into the mic, Miss DuBose, so we can hear you. I had a bit of a head injury in October, so my delivery might get off focus. Not off focus, but anyway, I think we'll be okay. We're happy to hear from you. Thank you.

» Over 50 years ago, my husband Charles and I moved to Camden because of family, its equine and sporting presence, historic significance, and gentle quality of life with his career in real estate. I urge you to vote yes to a moratorium on multifamily housing of not more than 10 houses for the following urgent concerns. Complete the comprehensive plan in its entirety. It still needs a facelift. Implement guidelines protecting our citizens and vintage infrastructure by creating well-thought out solutions to our rabid growth. Address detailed studies on aging infrastructure, traffic, critical services such as police, fire, electrical grid, water, and sewage.

» With increased traffic, are we adequately prepared for floods, which we'll have, fire, which we'll have, and more power outages? Have we asserted evacuation routes in view of all this? Implement equine overlays and historic equine agricultural overlays, as Edgefield County has brilliantly done. Boykin area and Camden Training Center and Camden Hunt Country. Address guidelines for alternative electricity and study their deadly impact on birds, wildlife, soil and water toxicity, and disposal concerns. Let's keep up with the following counties in Kershaw in South Carolina, enacting moratoriums for the reasons described previously.

» Jasper County, Horry County, Lexington County, Pickens County, York County, Charleston County, Aiken, Berkeley, Beaufort County, James Island, and Johns Island have enacted moratoriums for seven years. Mr. Boaz, I'll just let you know your time's expired. If you could please conclude whenever you're able to wrap up. We appreciate greatly your time and all you do. We voted for you, all as advocates for responsible growth. Not cookie-cutting houses without trees and buffer zones. People will always gravitate to Kershaw County if we're careful and prudent in future planning. Ben, you need to read Edgefield County's zoning plan. Kershaw County must strive to keep its identity. We're about to lose it. Please take more time. Get it right. With the help of your citizens, vote yes, respectfully.

» Me. Thank you, Mr. Boaz. Mr. Du Boaz. Ms. Allen, zoning 1045 Highway 1. Mr. Allen present. Coming up. Yes, sir. Mr. Allen. Good evening. First, I have some pitches. If it would be okay, I can leave them here. We might be able to look at them later if you want to leave them with the administrator. Yes, sir, Mr. Allen. My name is Thomas Allen. I moved here about six months ago, my wife and I. We work over in Hartsville, but we wanted a country setting. People told us to go to Camp Cassett. This direction, most of our friends are in Columbia. So with doing that, we found a spot off of Highway 1. This is about the rezoning of a residential area into a business area for commercial use. And when we came here, what we looked for a country setting, that's what we found.

» Now, next thing we know, we have trees falling down behind our house. And I was told before a zoning could be granted or before anything could be done, the land and everything had to be left as is, is what I was told. Now, I may be wrong. I may have read that wrong. But everything is, the land has been cleared already. Then the question I asked myself was, has this already been approved? Or were they just anticipating that this was going to be granted? So all I want to bring up is the area there is very country, but I was told that it was for the expanding of a business. When I came to the zoning committee hearing, I was told that this is supposed to be for a sawmill. I don't want a sawmill behind my house.

» The trees that's been cleared, I can see all the way through to the Dollar General store now. I was supposed to be a barrier. There's not a big enough barrier, thick enough barrier. So I'm asking that this does not be allowed to go through. Thank you for coming out tonight, Mr. Allen. And the pictures I had there are pictures of the land from the front, the back, looking through. Okay. That the land is cleared. Thanks for leaving those. The administrator will have them. Mr. DuBose. Next speaker is Laura Bowen, moratorium. Ms. Bowen. Good evening. I have a letter here. This takes me about four and a half minutes to read, so I'm not going to read it. I have seven copies if I can leave these with you guys, but it does speak on the moratorium.

» And I just want to say that my family has roots here in Kershaw County since before the founding of this county. And I hope that you read this letter and please take it into consideration and feel free to reach out to me. I would love to have a discussion and that's it. Thank you guys very much. Thank you, Ms. Bowen. The administrator will be able to grant it. Thank you, Ms. Bowen. Mr. DuBose. Next speaker is Ron Cooper, growth and housing. Mr. Cooper. Good evening, council members and the public. My name is Ron Cooper. I've been a resident here since 2016. Like some of the others, I'm not going to echo what everybody else said and I haven't prepared anything.

» What I would say is I would challenge the council to be true to yourselves, to be good stewards of the land and of the resources that we have available here in Kershaw County. I am for the moratorium and two things that I don't think anybody else has mentioned. The growth, with that growth comes crime. Okay. We don't have the infrastructure currently. If we get the crime, we're not prepared for that as well. So I would ask you to consider that and I know that you've got a difficult chore and I just hope again that you would be good stewards and I support the moratorium. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. Mr. DuBose. Amanda Ooten. I believe this is speaker number 12, Ms. Ooten. You getting ready to fight or something? Yes, sir. I want a message.

» First of all, I'll thank you all for having us here tonight. I know it's a busy schedule, so I'll get right to it. I know you're on the second reading of the budget, which is a big deal. I thank you for the additional time that you are taking and the attention that you're putting into that. I know that you want to take as much off of the taxpayer as you can. I'll ask you for consideration of the taxpayer and the uncertainties that lie ahead. The president's big, beautiful bill has not yet passed. If it doesn't pass, it's a 25% increase, so please consider that in your budget talks. We are seeing a relief in the cost of living and inflation. Our state legislature is finally approving tax cuts to benefit the taxpayer across our state.

» But what benefit does that do us if we absorb it in our county budget? The property tax reassessment is right on the heels of this approval of your budget. So I ask that you consider that as well. If there's unknown benefits, as only this is done every five years. I stand before you to ask for consideration of these impacts of these unknowns when you are completing this budget. Therefore, moving on to the moratorium. I am in 100% support of this moratorium. Planning and zoning, they're recommended that we approve this. This is their lane. I think that we should support them.

» Why else would we have them in those positions? The 180-day moratorium in conjunction with the property tax income that we are unsure of with the influx of residents, I ask that the 180 days will allow us for the dust to settle and to see where we really need to put that responsibility on our taxpayers, where their funds are needed. So I ask you to look at the budget this year and to do a bare minimum, if possible, increase and re-evaluate in a year. The fact is, we are a soft spot and a target for these. I'm sorry, I had a longer speech prepared. I didn't know it was only two minutes. If you please could wrap it up. I will. I will. So you have another budget coming on your desk. That's going to year.

» So I ask that you give the taxpayers of Kershaw County a little relief to see where the dust approved the 180-day moratorium. Let us see where we stand after this tax reassessment property taxes in the summer and see where we fall and then fill in the gaps in your next budget so that we don't put so much on the taxpayer. And also not impact fees but developmental fees on these larger buildings, these companies that are coming in because they're not spending their tax money here. They're taking it in other places. Thank you for it. So I ask that you be considerate of the budget. Consider the 180-day moratorium. Yes, ma'am. We get that. Thank you very much, Ms. Utton. To let the dust settle and then let's see where we go from there as far as what the taxpayer should be responsible for.

» Thank you. Thank you for the message, Ms. Utton. Mr. DuBose. Autumn Dunlap is the next speaker of growth. Ms. Dunlap, please. Chairman Connell and Council, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you. And while it's a little bit more brief than maybe we had planned, I'm thrilled to see a room full of citizens that are concerned for our future. I don't want to echo every single thing that has already been stated, but I saw a quote earlier today, and while I can't tell you who said it, it spoke volumes to me, so I would like to share it with you. We're growing faster than Greenville by percentage, the only Midlands County in this elite growth bracket. That acceleration deserves deliberate, data-driven pause to realign infrastructure and finance.

» Now we know that you guys are getting ready to look more at our budget, and first off, thank you for taking the time to do that. I ask that when you do that, you consider each person not only in this room, but in your neighborhoods, but more than that, the ones in your own home. I have a little different perspective. I did not grow up in Kershaw County, but my family chose 20 years ago to come here, my husband and I, to start our family, to raise our family here. I grew up in Irmo, and I've told my own mother, there is not enough money in the world to make me move back over there because it has changed so much. My hometown doesn't look like my hometown. I don't want my children to say that when they grow up.

» I'm asking that you please allow this next 180 days, take a pause, evaluate the best way for our county to grow responsibly. No one is against growth, but we need to do it responsibly. Thank you so much. So thank you so much. Thank you, Ms. Dunlap. Thanks for coming out tonight. Mr. DuBose. Just as a brief clarification, Linda Knatzer was listed twice on this list. Just one more speaker? This is the final speaker, yes. Okay. Ken Koth, Algae, Lake Watery. Mr. You said top? Koth, K-O-T-H. Mr. Koth. Yes, sir, please. Okay. You might have been down a little bit. I'm sorry. We didn't get a microphone extension. We didn't get the extension for you. This is Ken Koth. Koth. I live at Lake Watery, and I've lived there since 1995.

» And I'm here to discuss Lake Watery Association's request for funding to treat Lingbya algae at Lake Watery. LWA's proposed Lingbya treatment program is based on experience and proven methods developed and refined at Lake Gaston in North Carolina and Virginia. LWA has proposed funding by sharing costs from surrounding counties, water utilities, Duke Energy, and South Carolina state agencies. LWA has taken on the task of surveying the lake to document Lingbya presence using volunteers trained by Duke Energy weed control personnel. LWA has enlisted the assistance of Dr. John Rogers, retired Clemson professor, with extensive experience with treating Lingbya in southeastern United States lakes. Dr. Rogers will direct the technical aspects of the treatment program.

» Lake Watery is a great place to call home, but also a resource to share with others. Lots of people visit the lake to boat, to swim, and to fish. Lingbya is a threat to this resource. For now, I'm fortunate to live in an area not choked with Lingbya, but I know of areas close by with serious Lingbya infestation. I don't fish at Lake Watery, but I have talked with serious bass fishermen there. They tell me some of their favorite spots are now choked with Lingbya. Cast your line there, pull in a wad of green slime. No bass are going to inhabit that area. I have a neighbor around the corner with a serious Lingbya infestation. Her grandkids have developed skin irritations when swimming around the dock. Dr. Rogers talked about the rate of Lingbya progression and the need to be proactive.

» The longer you wait before treating, the more Lingbya will take hold. Waiting to treat will add to the overall cost of treatment. I hate to think that we miss this opportunity and look back in a few years and realize our mistake. For all of these reasons, I highly recommend that you act to include provisions for contributing to the Lake Watery Lingbya treatment program in the upcoming budget. Thank you. Thank you for coming out tonight, Mr. Koth. Mr. DuBose, anyone else signed up? No further speakers. All right, that concludes the list. Thank you very much, everyone. All right, gentlemen, that takes us to the next item on the agenda, approval of the minutes. Is there a motion? Make a motion that we approve the minutes as submitted by Ms. Hammond. We've got a motion.

» Is there a second? Second. Mr. Kato has a second. Any discussion from anyone? Seeing none, we'll call it to a vote. All in favor, raise your hand in support. Are you absent? All is absent, yeah. Yeah, Mr. Jones abstaining. It's Ms. Hammond, for the record, all in favor with Mr. Jones abstaining due to absence. Thank you. Thank you. The minutes are approved. That takes us to item number 10B in the agenda, register of deeds recommendation placed on the agenda by Mr. Templer. Mr. Templer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of council. We have before you a register of deeds position that will be vacant soon with the retirement of our current register of deeds. What we have is a unique position to fill. It is statutorily required to have this individual live in the county. Mr.

» Templer, let me just clarify. Is this for information only or are you looking for a vote? This will be for a vote for you all to approve. Okay. All right. I was just going to explain a little bit. Let's go ahead and get a motion in a second so we can put it on the table. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the county administrator's recommendation for our register and deeds department. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. We've got a second. It's on the table. Mr. Templer, please. Thank you. So, much like the position of the clerk to council, the administrator goes and does the initial search, but the council approves that hire as well as this one here. So, with Billie retiring, we haven't had to do this.

» I think she's our first ever register of deeds, so a unique experience here going through this. We have an individual I would like to present to you, Ms. Kelly Josie. She has 20 years of experience. She has a thorough knowledge of the real estate title industry, and she has worked really close with our current staff in our Register of Deeds office. She becomes highly recommended. I had several attorneys reach out unsolicited to me and just say, hey, you know, we'd love to see her over there. And I think the most ringing endorsement was Billie herself saying, hey, this just puts me at ease knowing that this individual is going to. I know Ms. Billie has her retirement party coming up. That's how many years was she with us? Forever. Forty. Like four decades? Yes, yes. Is Ms.

» Josie here, just so we can know? She is. She is. She's somewhere. In the back. In the back. Smart move. All the way in the back. But if you like, she can come forward. If you have any questions for her, she can introduce herself. But I highly recommend we bring Ms. Josie on board. She's very familiar with staff over there. Staff is excited. Current staff is excited. Excited for her to come on board. Okay. I'll leave any questions to counsel if you have any. And I just want to make sure with Mr. Dubose that we're not stepping in on any contractual matters or anything like that. Not to my knowledge, no. Okay. We'll see where the questions go. Any questions from counsel at all? Mr. Jones. We did advertise this position. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Any other discussion or questions? Seeing none.

» Would she like to come up and introduce herself? Yes, please. If she wants to. It is a packed house. Yes, Ms. Josie. Hey, I'm Kelly Josie. Do you have any questions? Pull the mic down, please. Well, Mr. Templer mentioned I'll hazard one since you came up. He mentioned 20 years of experience. Could you tell the counsel just a little bit about your experience? Yes. In 2005, I started a title company and we grew from two people. At one point it was about 20. So I've had a history for the last 20 years of working in every register of deeds in North and South Carolina. I'm familiar with all the systems. I know most all the abstractors and people that frequent the offices, the ladies that work there. It's just something I'm good at and something I know.

» Records, real estate records are important and it's important that they be precise. And I think that I'd be the best fit for that. Thank you for that response. Any further discussion or questions? I have one quick one just to make sure we're statutory straight. Welcome, first of all. Thank you. I like your energy so you'll fit good with Ms. Billy's left off. She's very positive, very bubbly. Mr. Templer, I think this is a position that's statutory, you or Mr. DuBose, that this individual lives in the county? Correct. I do. And you do? I do. Okay. Thank you. Is that all? Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Any other questions or discussion, counsel? Seeing none, thank you very much, Ms. Josie. Thank you. Mr. Templer, any other summary needed before we call it for a vote? No, sir. Okay. Thank you.

» We'll move it to a vote then. All in favor of approving the administrator's recommendation of Ms. Josie, raise your hand in favor. Ms. Annett, it's unanimous. And congratulations, Ms. Josie. Thank you, Mr. Templer. Yep. Thank you. All right, gentlemen, that takes us to the next item, number 11B. And that is assuming, I'm not sure if, was it Mr. Ogburn? Yes. I'm not sure if he's present in the room. I can't see everyone or if he intended to be here. There he goes. I'm the chairman. I'm in the middle. A lot of faces tonight. So we're on 11B, and this is District 4. Mr. Jones, do you have a motion? Correct. You know, I had the privilege of, well, I've known Darrell for many, many years, and I had the privilege of help getting him appointed to the hospital board.

» And, of course, history tells it all if you do it. Darrell, you've done a great job. And, you know, he's now in the position that they've accomplished. When the carriage wing moved, they've accomplished quite a bit, but they've got a little bit more to do, and I think Darrell needs to be on board to see that through. So that's the reason I'm going to ask that we extend his time, and he is my motion to fill that vacancy, just to continue on his work that he has done over the last 10 years. I'll second that motion. Yes, Mr. Jones. We've got a second from Mr. Shoemake. From council, any further discussion? Congratulations, Mr. Ogburn.

» He's been a dear friend and mentor of mine, and I definitely agree with Councilman Jones that his leadership is critical at this very important stage on the board of the Health Services District. Thank you, Mr. Shoemake. Any further discussion? Any questions? We should... Go ahead. How are you? No, I was just going to say, I think we should probably clarify. There were some questions regarding term limits, and legally, we are able to reappoint him for another six-year term, correct? Yes, sir. Yeah, he's not a holdover. So I just wanted to clarify that, because if somebody watched last meeting and then this meeting, they may be confused. But we did gain clarity, and Mr. Ogburn is a good friend, and we do support him in this role. Mr. Mr. Tucker, you yielded. Go ahead. Thank you.

» Can't see Mr. Ogburn. He's not much taller than I am. Darrell, I just want to say thank you for all the hard work you've done. You've gone through this new health service district that we have, the old Herschel Health Board, trying to keep our hospitals open and propped up, and we could have services here locally, and I say thank you because those challenges weren't easy, but it's not one day that you sat down and said, I quit, I give up, I don't want to do this anymore. And for a man to glutton for six more years of punishment, we are happy to give it to you. So with that being said, congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. And in closing, do you have anything? Welcome him back. I just want to thank Darrell for his service.

» A lot of good things are always said about him from the other people that serve with him, so thank you for your service. Amen. Thank you, Mr. Cato. Mr. Ogburn is dangerous to ask him to say anything, and so I won't as a long-time politician, but if he were to get up, I'm sure he would give credit to his board and his staff. And the team that he works with in stabilizing the Health Services District, bringing him to a financially sound place, and having a bright future, partially at Beechwood and in other locations in the county. And so with that, if there's no other questions or comments, we'll move it to a vote on Mr. Jones' motion. All in favor? Ms. Hennett, it's unanimous. Congratulations, Mr. Ogburn, and thank you, Mr. Jones.

» All right, with the amendment to the agenda, we had item number seven deleted. That takes us to public presentations. Item 8A, South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families, Kareem Edwards, who's the president. Can we get a motion? Make a motion that we hear the public presentation. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Shoemake seconds. Mr. Edwards. Yes, sir, please. And I noticed you left some materials up here for us? Yes. Okay. Provided you all with our impact report, as well as some items from the South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families. My name is Kareem Edwards. I'm the president of the South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families. And members of the commission and members of the public, I thank you for this opportunity today.

» I'll have you know that every morning in the state of South Carolina, there are 382,000 children who wake up in a single-parent household. We know that most of those homes are headed by women, and their father is not only not in the home, but not in that child's life. Now, South Carolina ranks 40th among all states. That's an improvement from the last few years, from 41st, but none of us should be content. We appreciate the improvement, but things need to be better. As a parent, I have two spoiled brat daughters. Two daughters don't come with a user's manual, and having two parents in the house is fulfilling, but it's not easy. But studies show that a child who grows up without the father in their life have more challenges in life.

» And on the flip side, children who grow up in two-parent households perform better in school. They resist drugs at a larger rate. They don't have the same number of behavior issues, and other improvements to the community are attributed through the presence of a father. At the South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families, we work with DSS and other partners in all 46 counties throughout the state. Midland's Fatherhood Coalition serves this area. And we work with fathers to improve their relationships and co-parenting. We help them improve their parenting skills. We also help them with financial literacy, physical and mental health, and other individualized services such as custody issues that they may have, paternity, and things of that nature.

» But why I am here today is to ask you all to issue a proclamation to declare June fatherhood to elevate fatherhood. To elevate fatherhood, the funny part of the story is Mother's Day always happens before school is out. And there's usually some school activity where they make flowers or something to take homes to mom. But Father's Day is usually that first or second week into the summer, and the school infrastructure isn't there to provide attention to dads. But the real story is, is that we have to recognize the importance and the significance of fatherhood, not just in the family, but in the community. In communities where there's only one father in the neighborhood, that one father is usually the basketball coach or he's the person playing catch with kids in the neighborhood.

» And that's an impact on other kids beyond kids, just in that family. So every year at this time, we ask communities to pass proclamations just to bring attention to fatherhood. And I'm asking you to join the governor, as well as other counties throughout the state, to elevate fatherhood and it is no, no strike against moms. It's an acknowledgement that moms need the help too, and they need the help from the fathers, not only in their homes, but in the community as a whole. So on behalf of the Center for Fathers and Families and the children who will benefit from having their fathers in their lives, if not in their homes, I beg of you to please consider issuing a elevate fatherhood proclamation for the month of June this year. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Edwards.

» If you would hold the podium, we'll see if we have any comments or questions from council members. Members. If I may. Mr. Tucker. I won't be long. Mr. Edwards, I was just checking on the back of this pamphlet that you issued. Where are you located? You got satellite offices all over South Carolina? Yes. We cover all 46 counties. Midlands Fatherhood Coalition covers the whole Midlands. So they have offices in Lexington County, in Aiken, opening soon, in Orangeburg. But they cover all the counties out of those hub offices, and we consider all the outreach counties, quote unquote, "spoke areas." Do you guys partner? Because I went through at one point when my kids were younger a fatherhood coalition through the United Methodist Conference Church. Okay.

» So do y'all do anything with some of the churches? Okay. We have various partnerships throughout the state in each area, so there's a possibility. We have numerous partners through the Department of Corrections, Department of Veterans Affairs. Many of our organizations were either founded in churches or headed by pastors. So there is quite possibly that relationship, but there are numerous other relationships as well. Well, keep up the great work. We thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Any other comments or discussion? Any other questions? I appreciate you coming out tonight. Thank you. Ms. Hanna, if you would, just please circle up with council members on anyone who wants to put their name on a potential proclamation, perhaps for next meeting.

» And I just want to mention one of the great milestones for fathers and their engagement in your life is some of the recent graduations we've seen. Mr. Jones with master degrees with his son, heavily involved in his life. Mr. Shoemake with his son going on to college. Mr. Brazel with his son going on to college. You've got great men up here on this dais who are very involved in their children's lives, and I congratulate them on that milestone, and I'm glad that you're bringing attention to this issue. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tucker. Can I ask for the record that myself and Mr. Shoemake be put on the sponsor of that proclamation, and we may need some content from you, Mr. Edwards, so make sure we have your contact information. Ms. Barlow's got his information. Okay. Thank you, Mr.

» Edwards. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Follow the ear next to me here. I agree with Russell's name, Father. All right. Gentlemen, that concludes public presentations. This takes us to a first reading under ordinances 9A. It's related to an amendment of a 3.75-acre parcel. It came to us from the Planning Commission with a 5-2 vote, and the tax map number is cited. Any summary that we need at all in first reading? Don't see any for planning zoning here. Yeah, so it came as a 5-2 in favor of vote. In favor of. I'm just wondering, do we have any summary coming from Planning and Zoning staff? If not, we'll move it to a motion, but do we have any background or summary? All right. Some might not have some.

» I can volunteer that, at least on the vote, I'm aware that the two negative votes were concerned about the fact that South Carolina doesn't have conditional zoning and that any of the allowed uses in that general development district would be allowed if this property were rezoned. Other than that, not a ton of articulation of the pros and cons at Planning Commission. Could we have the landowner and his translator come to the podium, please? I may. Sure. Good evening to everybody. Before we go much further. Get it on the table? Yeah. We got to get it on the table. So someone making a motion? I'll make a motion. Mr. Brazel makes a motion. Is there a second? I will second the motion. Mr. Tomlinson second. So it's on the table. Mr. Brazel. Thank you.

» I'd like to hear from you as far as the type of sawmill. We heard from the other gentleman and his concerns, and of course, we respect his viewpoint. And so what we'd like to hear is what size sawmill, because a sawmill can be a small portable band mill, or it could be New South. And those are two totally different things. I actually personally have known Jaime for like 20 years, maybe, and he operated a sawmill in Boykin from Mr. Allen Wooten, and it was of the smaller capacity, so could you elaborate on what type of sawmill it is and if it's portable or stationary and -- It's actually portable. Okay. So you can take it everywhere. He was doing it in the work zone, but he was told not to do it anymore, so he ceased of doing these things, so that's why he got the lot to do it.

» What we ask is to convert this to a commercial that will bring development to the county. And also, it can be required for him to work in some time of the day. We don't want to work, you know, in the middle of the night and make a bunch of noise to the neighbors, because that's not the purpose. So we want to respect the neighbors, but we also want just to work and be able to do what he's, you know, able to do that he's been doing for a long time already. So, what is that, a Wood-Mizer, like a LT-40? So is it runs on electricity or diesel fuel? So that's a -- it's a portable mill, so -- Mr. Brazel, if I could, if you're going to comment and speak, just talking to the mic, so we can have it -- No, I blew English. Well, I heard him speak in English.

» If it's good enough for me to understand, it's pretty good. He says it's a portable, it's something that it doesn't connect to electricity, it's diesel. So it just work with like a little diesel tank, would you say that? Yeah, it's like a diesel tank and then he just pour it and works it up. So it's really something really small just to transform the wood, the trees into wood. So it's something really simple that he does. Mr. Brazel, if I can ask a question. Yeah, of course. Yeah, sure. Thank you. Now, is that going to be outside looking at the pictures or is that going to be encased inside of a building? Well, depending on what you want. If you want him to have a building to be inside and for him to be able to do this, he can do that for you. Once again, it's about regulations from you.

» If you want to allow it just to be outside, that can be the case too. So what are the, and I know this is kind of a technical question, but what are the decimals as far as the sound that that produces? Because looking at it, and I apologize, this is the first that I'm seeing of it, but trying to look at the acres, this 3.25 acres. 3.75 acres, so it's a small acres and you have surrounding residents. So basically the noise that it generates is like a mow lawn. It'd be the same as a tractor or something along those lines is what, what you're saying. It's something that's super small, like somebody's mowing their lawn. And is it one? Yes. One single? And do you have plans to then buy another one to expand? He just wants one for now. It's just.

» Just one for, so potentially it could go to expansion. If it's allow it, if it's, you know, too much of a noise, we can stop there. But right now he's just thinking of having just one small one, which is what he has right now. And then you mentioned hours of operation, just looking. So what, what is your planned hours of operation? And is that, or I'll ask my next question next. It can be the eight to five, you know, just like a normal regular day office hours. Mm-hmm. And for staff, is that some, so hours of operation is not something that can be regulated based upon an ordinance or rezoning, correct? Could we say in general development that you're allowed to operate between certain hour and certain hour? Yeah.

» So as part of this rezoning ordinance, know the specific rules of hours of operation for GD for this particular use type. I'd have to research in the ZLDR or get some staff guidance on that. Yeah. But that's certainly something we could get back to council on. Yeah. I mean, just for first reading purposes, I, I love having people who come in and, and want to build a business and a future because that, that is what it's about. But it's also about the, um, surrounding landowners too, and having, you know, we can't control up there and we shouldn't be able to control the hours that you operate your business. Because I, you know, working, you know, in, in my industry, there are times where I'm working until two, three, four o'clock in the morning because I have a time crunch.

» Um, I, I would, would be more open to having, um, a building and you being inside of a building so that can control, um, the amount of volume that's going to be to surrounding residents for nuisance purposes. Um, if that'd be something we could be open, I'm not sure if this could be included in, in this, but, um, I appreciate you bringing this to me. And with it being first reading, um, along and that we heard the gentleman's, um, concerns and those are valid concerns. And I think this being first reading, I would like to learn more about it because it sounds to me, um, with the future to expand, um, that kind of scares me.

» So I would, like I said, I would prefer this being inside of a building where it does not hinder other, uh, surrounding property owners, because that is something of concern to me too. But it's also a concern, um, and a want to for people to have, uh, the ability to grow and expand. So for first reading, I will be supporting it. Thank you, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Shoemake. Yeah. Um, so I don't have any questions, but I just want to flag a few things for, you know, cause I think we're missing the broader picture here. One of the reasons I was concerned when we rezone that dollar general property is exactly what's happening now. The only reason we're not dealing with spot zoning is cause we rezoned that parcel to, I believe the south, uh, GD. Yeah.

» To the south GD to make way for that dollar general, uh, because council did that back in 2015. We did a different one, but so you've got, you've got otherwise other than this GD, uh, to the south, you have this, uh, you know, rule zoning, which is our most restrictive zoning going to our least restrictive zoning. The fact that it is a small mobile sand mill gives me even more concern because that means he could decide next year. He doesn't want to do this. The zoning stays in place and someone could put a slaughterhouse there. Uh, because that is GD. I mean, GD is our most, anything that is allowable is allowed under GD. So literally if he moves out next year, somebody could put a slaughterhouse there, uh, anything they want, a liquor store.

» I mean, anything that fits inside of GD could go there. We can't regulate ours. We're only rezoning. We'd have to change the whole zoning structure. So while I respect the ingenuity and I get it, there's no way I can support this. The whole point of these zoning districts is for it to be rule. We're about to have some, some spirited words, I suspect about the fact that people want a rule way of life. And then we do these one offs. And this is part of the problem. And I'll talk about this later is we're kind of doing this patchwork quilled approach to zoning. And that's not working. We need a holistic fix and these one off spot zoning fixes. Cause it's great for him. And I think he's going to do the right thing.

» But what happens in two years when the business doesn't work and then a lesser, a less scrupulous developer wants to come in and put some really nasty business back there. We can't do anything about it. So for that reason, I can't support it on this reading or any other. Thank you, Mr. Shoemake. Any other questions or comments from council? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tucker. Forry? Is his last name? My question is when you purchase this property, were you of the understanding that this was already commercial property? So it was announced as a commercial property and they, they own. So the owner of the land was the owner of the house next to. And he was announced it as a commercial too, which to my understanding, he sold the house.

» And now it's just residential, but it was announced as a commercial. Did you have a realtor helping you? Ah, so I'm the realtor and he bought the property by himself. So he didn't check the, you know, the zoning at the time. So he just invest the money and he was told it's super easy. Just go to planning and zoning and then you can convert it in commercial. So right now we're here. That's the reason. It was that easy. This room would be this full. Trust me. Exactly. Exactly. So, you know, mistakes are made. Yes. We just tried to fix it and help him fix it. So I'm going to say just my opinion, and it's not worth a lot to some people, but it's worth a lot to other people. Is to see can you probably find you another piece of land and get your money back that would be in the proper zoning.

» Because I'm with Mr. Shoemate. I can thank the world of you. And if you decide to change your mind, which is legally okay that you can do, if the business fails, anything goes wrong. Who comes after you? Because here's what I can tell you. None of us is going to live forever. Property will be here forever, but none of us is going to live forever. And I just stood up and listened to Mr. Allen in public comments, and he has valid concerns about his property, his privacy, his peacefulness that he moved here for. So I would have to, at this time, let you know that my vote will be a no tonight. Yeah. Thank you. If I may, Mr. Tucker. Yeah, Mr. Brazel, you can be next. I'm complete. Yeah, Mr. Tucker's done. Mr. Brazel, go ahead.

» So a couple of things, like, I definitely see both viewpoints, but who told you to stop using your portable sawmill on your property? The county. It was a complaint for one of the neighbors that was trying to sell their house. And they were like, oh, it's too noisy. So the county came and say, you are not supposed to do this here. And he stopped doing it. So you complied with someone pretty easily and stopped. So, yes. Yes. Mr. Dubose, is it legal to operate a farm sawmill on a piece of property, its own rule, RD1, RD2, whatever his is? I think it would entirely depend on the reason that that sawmill is being used, whether it's commercial or purely personal.

» And there's some other nuances, but, you know, without having all of the specific facts of this, I wouldn't want to venture a guess as to the legality or illegality of using that saw on a residential property. Woodmeiser is a tremendous company. They have a big display in Germany right now at a show called Ligna. They sell these portable sawmills all over the world. People use them on farms every day. That has absolutely nothing to do with the rezoning. But I'm here to say if he was asked to stop and he complied in good faith, do you think the county acted in accordance to the written ordinances that we have? So, again, I don't have all the facts of this, but I know the gentleman referenced land clearing prior to the rezoning.

» I believe that in and of itself is a grounds for a stop work order. Were you... All right, hold on one second. Yeah. Jaime, were you clearing land or are you just cutting timber? Were you digging stumps and pushing dirt or just cutting timber? Just cleaning. All right, so clarify for me. Were you just cutting the tree down or were you digging the stumps up and grading? So, he does grading and all the stuff that came from there, he used to bring it home and just use his saw to actually do the, I don't know, like all the loads of the wood. So, he was just transforming it from whatever he was grading or he was paid to grade. So, that's all he was doing. So, you're like clearing lots and doing that sort of thing and then you're utilizing the wood instead of wasting it. Exactly.

» So, it's a very intermittent thing and there's several people in the county that have done this and done this for years without any issue. I know several of them personally. I don't know that he needs to rezone his property to resume what he's doing. Maybe you can't clear your property and grade it without a land disturbance permit, but these are two separate things because forestry in the state of South Carolina, the cutting and harvesting of your own timber is perfectly legal. I graduated Clemson in 2000 with the degree in forestry. I can assure you cutting timber on your own property is legal. Now, clearing it and grading it, maybe you have to have a land disturbance permit, maybe you don't. Depends on if it's rural or if it's how it's zoned.

» It would be tougher to do if it is general development. So, only because it's coming with a 5-2 recommendation to rezone and we rezone property next to it for a large megacorporation will I support this tonight. And I think, I know your character and all of the worst case scenarios probably won't happen in his lifetime. I know that down the road something could happen, but I know for a fact that we had two business owners in the last 18 months on Highway 1 in Cassette had their property rezoned without question. So, for those reasons, I will support it tonight. Thank you, Mr. Brazl. Mr. Tomlinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to just remind my colleagues that this is first reading. This is something that I've just seen. I don't know about Mr. Brazl or anybody else on here.

» This is something that I have just seen. I would like some time to do a little bit more research. And I am for entrepreneurs. I am for someone who wants to do better, but I'm not at the will of putting that burden on the next property owner. You know, there's a fine line in between this all. And that's why I will be supporting this tonight. This is first reading. I heard the gentleman in the back. We have the opportunity to get more research. And I would like to be able to talk to y'all personally to find out more information. Because we have rezoned a few properties not too far down the road from there for other reasons.

» And if this is something that could be helpful, you know, there's no reason to go into somebody's pocketbook for somebody who's going to do something good for the community and for themselves and for their family. Now, if you're looking at maximizing that property for a huge operation, that's going to then be a huge burden on that adjacent landowners. At that point, that's another discussion. But from the conversations I'm hearing, I just ask my colleagues to keep this in mind. This is first reading. We have two more readings after this. And we, you know, would like the opportunity, or I would personally, to just learn more about it. And I will be supporting it on first reading. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Any other comments or discussion from Council? One more question. Mr. Brazel.

» How many years have you resided in Kershaw County now, Jaime? He's been living here for 24 years. And his business has been operating since 2016. So it's not something that we're just, you know, flipping a coin to see if it's going to work. He knows how to do his job. We're just asking for an opportunity to keep growing. And for the record, I knew about this whenever I walked through the door and I saw him. So I had no prior knowledge at all of this situation. Thank you, Mr. President. Ms. Kato. One question. What I heard you talk about clearing and cleanup. What is his primary employment? Is it land clearing and cleanup or is it the sawmill? No, no, no. It's just his primary thing is clean up the property. So if a builder wants to build subdivisions, who call? This man.

» If you want to, you know, clean your, you want to have a patio now, who would you call? This man. He does a great job. He has done it in my house. So. So he, so then, and I'm just clarifying. Then he takes the lumber he can salvage or the trees he can salvage. He brings them back. He saws them up and. Make boards. And he sells them. Yeah. Okay. Well, as my colleague here said, this is first reading. I can support it on first reading, but there's, there's, there's some more that I want to hear. I want to hear some more details about this in the future, but I'll support it on first reading. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kato.

» Any further comments or discussion? I'll just close with, I can support it on first reading as well as my general practice on rezonings to give the property owners an opportunity to discuss and figure out there's some way to work through it. In the past, though council cannot mandate or require this at all, people have reached deed restrictions or other things that limit in some way, the zoning that might apply and that might be tolerable for the neighbors. And so I want to give you an opportunity to discuss further. And again, I'm researching it myself. I called you and we spoke briefly today in my, in my broken Spanish and your broken English trying to understand exactly what the issues were. And so I think it merits a little bit more discussion.

» But again, that, that doesn't promise my support on second reading. I just have to get more educated on the issues. Any further discussion? Okay. Let's move it to a vote. All in favor, raise your hand. We've got Brazel, Connell, Tomlinson, Kato in favor. All those opposed? Jones, Shoemake and Tucker opposed. So it passes first reading. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. All right, gentlemen, that takes us to item number nine. B first reading of title only. This is related to project NAM. Do we have any staff summary at all? I have Mr. Burgess here for this. If you have any questions in particular, Mr. Burgess, could you give us just a brief summary? I don't see Mr. Burgess. He may be outside in the hallway. He's outside to make way for citizens as folk to sit.

» When do you want to peek out and see if Mr. Burgess is our, have one of the staff members take a quick look for Jeff Burgess. He's coming in. There we go. Jeff, I know you're making space for folks to sit down and be present. Thank you. So we're just getting a brief summary before we get a motion and a potential second on Project NAM. Project NAM. Project NAM represents a $12 million project with the expectation of hiring about 50 people in new jobs in the county. They'll be going into an existing structure, which they will be looking at, I believe, the date's for a textile site, which is reuse of a property. Okay. Thanks for that summary. Is there a motion? Make a motion that we approve first reading in title only. All right. Is there a second? Second. We've got a second motion. Mr.

» Tucker, any further questions, comments, or discussion from Mr. Burgess? Just want to tell Mr. Burgess, thank you for your due diligence and hard work as always. Thank you. Keep them coming. Will do. Mr. Burgess, the primary thrust of this, even though it's on first reading, is for SSRC credit? Correct. Okay. I'll just highlight, before we vote on this, that the Economic Development Office and Council overall, thank you for your support, gentlemen. Between Laser Form at $16 million, Luck Stone at $25 million, Project NAM at a proposed $12 million, and then Camden Copper, which saved jobs, essentially, at the old Denkai building.

» We've had quite a bit of economic development interest that gives jobs like this one, 50 jobs that will be created locally for people to work and hopefully stay here instead of the brain drain we see with a lot of high school seniors, some of our best and brightest, go somewhere else where they can work. We like to keep families together if we can. Any other comments or discussion? First reading, seeing none. All in favor, vote. Ms. Hanna, it's unanimous it passes first reading. Thank you, gentlemen. All right, gentlemen, that takes us to item 9C, second reading on an ordinance to provide for the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. We add first reading on April 22. Is there a motion? I make a motion that we approve second reading of our 25-26 budget for Kershaw County. Okay.

» And is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Shoemake. Mr. Tucker, you have the floor. Thank you. I just want to say from the Finance Committee, thank you. Thank you for staff. This budget that is presented in your package is a budget that has four meals increase, some fees increase, and I won't go into further more detail other than we have worked real hard because I know that there's some amendments to it, and then I'm happy to discuss anything and further answer any questions. But at this time, I'll yield to any amendments. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Mr. Cato, do you have any motion? I do. I have an amendment to the second reading of the budget. First part of my amendment reduces the millage increase from 4 to 3.5 meals, with half or .5 of those meals going to solid waste.

» The reason for me wanting to decrease to 3.5 meals is that this would be absolutely no cost to the taxpayers due to the local option sales tax. And we have a reimbursement on that this year. So we can raise our meals to 3.5 meals and it will be absolutely no increase to the taxpayer. The second part of this is reduced the solid waste fee from $32 to $26.70. The third part is increased the fire budget by 3 meals and decreased the fire fee that's proposed from $45 to $17. And this will -- I just want to say the reason I'm bringing this amendment is I want to make sure that I'm -- If that's the motion, we just got to get a second. That's the motion. I'll second. All right, we got a second for Mr. Tomlinson. So now you got the floor. Go ahead.

» I just want to say that I bring this because everybody looks at us really hard on doing the best we can to save taxpayers money. I have to pay these taxes too. So I want to make sure that we get the most bang for our buck. And unfortunately with the economy the way it is, the way things are now, when inflation goes up, it doesn't just go up for the consumer and for the citizens, but it goes up for the county and it goes up for the state. And I just -- I have attended several of these -- I'm not on the finance committee, but I've attended some of these meetings. And I've asked a lot of questions. And based off what administration is telling me and what I'm finding, this is a -- I think it's a really good budget.

» I do want to encourage administration to try and work further to see if there's anything that we can do to lessen any more of the blow on any fees that's being increased. And they agreed to do so. So they're going to diligently work between now and third reading to try and get that taken care of for me also. But that's my amendment. Thank you, Mr. Kato. Mr. Thomason, you have the second. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all of your hard work, Danny. And I know Mr. Connell has been putting in on trying to make an amendment to be able to lower the amount of mills and the fees. The fees directly impact a property owner. No matter what your budget is, a mill is spread across every single person and does not increase as much as a fee. A fee is a very hard number.

» And just to be clear, you said the solid waste fee would go down. That is basically what the solid waste fee is now to what the increase was. So that's the increase. The increase would then go down. Same with fire. And to talk about fire specifically, and I said this in our budget meeting, I've said this to every single council member up here specifically. In my district alone in Antioch, we have probably the oldest fire department. We don't even have a full-time firefighter in Antioch. And Charlotte Thompson and Antioch alone are the second largest number of calls in Kershaw County. You have, and that is to the other side of the river, the Elgin area. That is the number one. Our rural community in Antioch and Charlotte Thompson are the number two as far as calls.

» And a lot of that has to do with interstate, but our first responders are very, very important. We've done a lot for the sheriff's office. Now it's time for us to really nail down and make sure that our homeowners are protected. Our fire is served because if not, we could sit up here and say all day that we're not going to. I mean, right now we have Lugol Fire District asking for a mill increase to come forward, which I am supportive of. I think, and it's on the backs of all homeowners specifically, because if we don't do this, our rating is going to go up and your insurance is going to go up. So you're going to feel this one way or the other and increasing this over mills is something that I'm, I'm very supportive of.

» I'm glad that staff has put together alternative options because I don't like increasing the fees, but we're in a situation where we have to do this. I appreciate you, Mr. Cato, for putting this amendment on the table. Thank you, Mr. Tomlinson. We are on the Cato amendment. Still any further discussion or questions? Yeah, a couple, couple of questions regarding the amendment. Just to clarify, you want to go from, for the general budget or the general fund, four to 3.5 mils. So a half a mil reduction. And, and the reason for that is because if it falls to 3.5, that way with the local option sales tax reimbursement, it will be no cost to the taxpayer. And that's. If we go above that, then we don't get the total reimbursement. And, and I remember last year being very similar.

» I think it was three mils and I think my tax bill went down $2. So I, I did research that and, and I don't disagree with that. Now, what was the proposed solid waste fee? The proposed increase was $32, but that would come down to 26.70. It was, it was, it was 33 and 32, 32 and 26, 70, 26, 70. And then the fire, I thought we were maxed out in the county's fire budget for millage. We have 3.3. Um, of increase maximum for Chris Rock County fire. According to staff, what we've received in a budget presentation. Okay. And. You know, three of them. And it's, and I think an important point to that is if we increase the millage, the millage will continue to grow. And the fee, if we increase it, the fee amount, we would have to take away those three mils.

» We'd have to increase the fee up to about 45, $46, uh, extra a year. So the millage would actually drop this fee down to a $17 increase. And the mill for the fire service would actually grow in years to come. So the proposed fire fee was the new fee was going to be 125. Is that right? The increase was going to be 45 and it'll come down to 7, 17. Yes. So it was going to be 80. So it's going to be 97. 97. Um, I like the direction it's going. Um, I'd like to dig a little deeper. I was, um, I don't, I don't know that I need to do that right this minute. Uh, well, we have more time to dig into the budget after this amendment. Chairman.

» Got, um, it's for a later agenda item, but yes, we're looking at third reading acute, uh, occurring on June 17th, canceling the June 24 meeting, uh, due to summer travel schedules. Yeah. Yeah. No, but I mean, tonight, like, I don't, I don't want to spend all the time tying up his, his amendment vote is what I'm saying. I mean, as long as we're on this agenda item, we can discuss it. Um, and then, uh, of course in council briefings or otherwise, you can discuss as much as you want to. So prior, prior to this vote, I don't want to hold up your vote, Danny. That that's what I'm saying. But there, there are more before we vote on the budget. The second reading, I'd like to have some more discussion. Is that fair? Yeah.

» There's opportunity for other amendments or discussion prior to the final vote. We'll be voting on as amended at some point. Uh, hopefully not too late tonight, but yeah. Okay. Then. Any further discussion, Mr. Brazel? Not at this point. Okay. Any further comments, questions or discussion gentlemen? Um, one thing I'll bring up for the public's benefit on the fire mill. This is something that we've been working on for a long time as Kershaw County has grown some. And as people have had jobs outside the county, we found that, um, our professional fire service, the volunteers, uh, often worked outside of Kershaw County. And so you would call 911. You'd ask for, um, you know, come my house is burning down or I have an emergency.

» And some of these folks would work in Richland County, some in Lexington County, some in Florence and other where, and they'd have to ask their boss, you know, can I take a moment off? I need to go and respond. I've been toned out. And however long it takes you to get to that call. So that, that was the precursor to the fire study that we started, um, a long time ago to make sure we could respond to the calls. And we're no longer, uh, essentially an agrarian society where we can do neighbors helping neighbors all the time. The neighbors aren't always around. So we decided to transition to a full-time professional fire service. And the, um, the fee and mill increase is related to part of that plan that's been going on for about seven plus years.

» This increase of three mills, um, ultimately reflects hiring six more full-time firemen. It was a hub and spoke system we were looking at in Kershaw County to rotate out and have mutual aid agreements with Camden. So Camden needs something. We help them. If we need something, Camden helps us. Lugoff fire. If they need something, we help them. If we need something, they help us. And so we try to cut down on personnel costs by having these mutual aid agreements. But, uh, this is one of the expansions that was planned over a six year period. And I'm not going to get into the weeds of act 388 and the millage increase in caps and all of that. Um, I'll save that for, for probably third reading or maybe some counts. But I can support this budget. It's a decrease from what was proposed.

» No offense at all, Mr. Administrator. But, um, I, we just felt like there's a way maybe we could get this done on second reading and save a little bit more money. So thank you for working with us on that. And I also want to thank the finance committee. Um, I see Mr. Jones has a hand up. Yes, sir. If I may, this isn't necessarily the budget. Mr. Templer, how much organic growth do we have this year? And, and give an explanation on what organic growth is. And the general fund we put on maybe, I think it was close to maybe 1.7 million. I'll have to check my numbers. Um, I hadn't looked at it. But what we have done different this year. And the sheriff, no, that's not counting the sheriff's department, correct? That is, that's before, that was, that was the whole, okay. Okay, okay.

» Because we just dedicated, uh, his, his operating costs, if you will, and turned it into millage, or, or assigned millage specifically to him, uh, in his operation. And so, when we did that, the, uh, the organic growth in the big pot of mills that we have for the, uh, general fund was, a lot of that was cut over to the sheriff, because that, that organization is a very large budget. Um, but it's a very large operation. A lot of moving parts, as you would imagine. But total is just 1.2 million. That's about right. Approximately. That's all I need to know. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any further comments or discussion before we consider voting on the Cato amendment? Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. All in favor, raise your hand. This is for the amendment only.

» For the Cato amendment, correct. We've got Mr. Shoemake, Tucker, Brazel, Connell, Cato, and Tomlinson in favor. All opposed? We've got Mr. Jones opposed. It passes, Ms. Hanna. Um, just for the record, that's the Cato amendment only. So the budget's back on the floor as amendment. Any further amendments? Mr. Mr. Chairman. I'll yield to, I don't have many. If you want me to go first, I just have a few comments. I have an amendment. Oh, well then. Go right ahead. I have no amendments. No amendments. Okay. If, if you, if you're not going to be long-winded, go ahead. Because I am. Yeah. Well, let me just go. Yeah. Let me, well then. Yeah. I'll jump in. All right. I'll jump in to this. I think, you know, as Mr. Cato pointed out, every year we get a credit on the local, local option sales tax.

» And that credit is, if, if all predictors hold true, which they have in the past, we'll see an increase in that, that will totally eat up the mill increase we propose. You know, the fees are what they are. I mean, if, if the solid waste fee is not increased, then we're, recycle centers are going to have to cut hours and staff fairly substantially. It's really a question of whether people want to less service. And certainly with fire, it's the same issue. If the fire fee doesn't move up nominally, you're going to see less fire services. It's not like by not raising fees, we keep it the same. If we raise fees to keep it at basically the baseline level of service, some small addition in fire. But this is, this is not even an inflationary increase.

» So again, it's all the millage is subsumed by the law's tax credit. So I think this is a very financially conscientious budget. So I'll certainly be voting for this budget as amended. And that's all I have on the budget. Thank you, Mr. Shoemake. Mr. Brazel. Thank you. Um, I've, I've got a couple of questions. Uh, I spent, I don't know, three or four hours prior to the meeting, um, reviewing the budget. Um, I've, I've got a couple of numbers that concern me. Just seemed arbitrary. Under non-departmental delinquent property taxes, the 2025 budget said $226,338. A no mill increase. Um, there's a half million dollars kind of place there. And then it says recommended 600,000. And the change is 373,000. Round numbers, uh, catch my eye.

» Could, could I have some explanation as to the what's in the why's behind this? Is that, is that an estimate? For delinquent tax? Yeah. Is that revenue or expenditure? So it will be revenue. So what we're seeing is a, a decline in revenue for delinquent tax because people are paying taxes and, uh, I'll get to that page in a second. But, um. So it's, it's a second line item under the general fund. The first page. What's your line number there? 116 is your account. Couldn't read that. I'm sorry. Okay. That's okay. That's okay. That's why I'm trying to track you down. That's what I'm trying to find out. Mr. Templer, uh, do you have any staff that we want to speak on this? Yeah. I'll bring Tyler in here. Poor Tyler. Come on Tyler.

» Essentially as a thrust, the delinquent tax ratio has gone down because more people are paying their taxes on time. Right. Okay. Chair, members of council, I'm Tyler Kirk, your budget manager. Um, to answer that question specifically, um, there's a couple of reasons why you would see that go up even with, uh, better collections for starters. Um, I'm now budgeting as if we're collecting more of our delinquencies than otherwise. So we're basically writing off less of, uh, that expected money. So basically we've changed our collections ratio, uh, to assume that we're going to get back more of that delinquent money. So you take that up even the slightest bit, even the percentage point. You're with some big numbers.

» So you're going to see the delinquent that we are actually collecting increase. Even if it's not like more dollars being billed because we're doing a better job of actually collecting those. So it's a little counterintuitive, uh, when the administrator says we're collecting more, it actually means that we're, we're getting the money that was delinquent instead of writing it off as, Oh, we can't get anything for this. We're actually getting some of that revenue. Uh, quick question. Follow up. Mr. Brazel still has the floor, but for follow up, um, are better collections due in any part to the change that the council made budgetarily to including the millage and the budget in one vote? Cause I know we had some issues in the past with sending out notices on time.

» If the millage rate, uh, didn't get set at an appropriate time, it either Tyler or Mr. Administrator, is there any, is that any of the explanation or potentially? And, and, um, because it's more timely now and we're able to hit our marks. But, um, I think in the past we, we've always hit our marks. It's just been more cumbersome. So tax notices statutorily have to go out at a particular time. So we've always hit those marks. Um, so I don't know that I could really attribute much of that. I think it was just a healthier economy and, uh, and now at least staff has another couple months to process everything and get it out accurately. All right. Mr. Brazel has the floor. Okay. Hey, so get comfy. We're going to be a while. Um, sorry, everyone.

» Tyler to the, you see this as a positive change to the budget of about $373,000. Is that correct? That yes, sir. Okay. All right. So, um, vehicle property taxes. If we had no mill increase, we'll gain about $150,000. If we don't, uh, if we do, do have a mill increase, you think the revenue change is going to be 325,000. Is that correct? Yes, sir. So it looks like our natural growth and our, um, the tax increase are about the same in revenue. So it's about a million and a half each. Is that correct? Uh, I'm sorry. Could you repeat that for me? I said it looks like our natural growth is about 1.4 million and there's another, say 1.4 in increased tax increases. Is that right? Is that, is that about what, what we see? I do these estimates based on aggregates of data.

» So, uh, I probably might've taken the vehicle number at a different time than the no mill increase number. But the recommended numbers are, um, my estimate on what was, or rather the most recent numbers point towards that. So we go on a percentage of the assessed values that we get from the, um, assessor and the auditor. So the, uh, no mill increase budget was sort of established maybe three or so months ago before we got deep into planning with the finance office. So if you see small differences there, it's primarily just, I had to set the numbers at one point when we're doing one plan, which was no mill increase. And then a different set of numbers, the most recent that I was able to update maybe two, three weeks ago in talks with our assessor.

» Uh, so my understanding is that those recommended numbers are, are what's closest. Um, and if you see something small like that, I mean, obviously four mills is not going to add $150,000 to what we're going to get from, from vehicles. It's just, uh, that best estimate there. Okay. All right. So, so the numbers aren't, aren't a hundred percent accurate because. For the no mill increase amount, sir. Because. That's just because again, you, you're working on these projections and you can only work with the data you have on the day you do the projection. I understand that. Um, taxes on watercraft. There's, there's a bill in the state house that begs of a reduction in, uh, taxes on, on boats. Yes, sir. Uh, you, you're fully aware of that. Yes, sir.

» Uh, and let me, let me, uh, just finish a statement. So I was told if that passed, we would lose about $600,000 in revenue. And I'm, I'm looking at this now in our, in our 2025 budget, it states that we collected $153,000. So to go from 10 and a half percent to 6%, um, that doesn't equate to me. Can you clarify that that is the total amount of revenue collected in Kershaw County for, for boats? It'll be one second for me to double check that then. Off the top of my head, I don't have the note for the collections this year, but I'll update you as soon as I can. Okay. You do see the line item that says watercraft $153,862. Oh, yes, sir. Okay. So there wouldn't be another line item in which boats or watercrafts were a part of that line item.

» Not then I'm aware off the top of my head, but we work on these things a while back. I'll have to double check that for you and get that information to you. Okay. Um, Mr. Brassel. Yes, sir. Can I ask you a quick question? Uh, if I'm not mistaken and correct me, Tyler or Danny or whoever, um, you've got your boats and you have your motors, which are taxed different, aren't they? Again, I have to double check it. This, every time I go through revenue projections, I sit with a big set of guides and then I talk to RSS or an auditor. And so I don't like to speak to specifics unless I have guides in front of me. Yeah. And I know that's more on the auditor's side. He knows that better than you do because he actually sends out those bills. Yes, sir.

» But if I'm not mistaken, they're taxed the boat and then the engine is taxed. That's right. But this line item says, uh, watercraft. Right. So I would assume they would both be, be in there. So that's why I'm asking for the, and I'm sorry to be long winded. It's just, it's, it's a big budget. And you know, there, there's a lot, um, being asked of the taxpayer and there's always a lot being asked of, of our fire department. And what Brant was talking about earlier, um, with his community, I think it's important. Okay. So I noticed something under our county council budget. Um, and I can ask our administrator, I can ask, um, our, our chairman of finance. There's a overtime, a recommended overtime number in our budget. Um, can I get clarification? It's $89,167.

» And that will be an increase in, in this year's budget. Plus a $63,716 insurance fringe. So that's 150,000 bucks. That's about, oh, I don't know, half a mil. Do we know what that's going to be used for? I apologize. So that's a scrivener's error entirely on my part. What those are is, uh, insurance rate in the overtime block before I, um, increased it for this year's changes to insurance costs. So I apologize for that, that $89,167 is not part of your, uh, actual totals there. And I'll have it corrected before third reading. And the insurance fringe as well. Uh, so that one almost definitely is actually at that higher amount. And that's because we've had big changes to insurance from last year. So we had some turnover on council and some people moved to full family.

» Full family insurance is over $19,000 per person now. Uh, so those insurance prices are getting very high for health insurance. Okay. So that's the county's portion of the insurance. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. So I did, I did write that number twice though. And I do deeply apologize for that. The $89,000. Right. That's a 95 figure is the correct one. Okay. So we're looking at two different line items. One's 89,000 for overtime. And then one's, um, nine, five, nine, five, six for insurance, $95,000 for insurance fringe. So it's moving from 63 to 95. Yes. That does clarify that. Yeah. Very, very sorry for that. That's okay.

» I just, I mean, I didn't, the first one concerned me more than the second one, because I didn't know why we needed 90 more thousand dollars in our county council budget, because our budget isn't that big anyhow. Right. As we move into contribution, contribution agencies, um, I noticed there was several requests and I think only one of them was met fully, uh, the fine arts center. They last year, they weren't in here this year, they, they requested 25,000 and the recommendation was 25,000. That was the only agency that changed. Um, am I reading this correctly? I believe. No. They were in there last year. It says zero for 2025. Councilman Brazel, I think in it, I think we may have funded them through a different revenue source. I don't recall though, but they've always gotten that 25.

» I think in that budget, they may have come from a different revenue source, um, but I'm not entirely sure. I have to look back at my notes from last year, but I do know from the meetings, they've always gotten, they've been in there for, yeah, they've always gotten 25. Okay. So. Yeah. I don't know, I'll fund it from somewhere else. I'll have to check. I'll put a star by it. Okay. Um, so no, no one else received any additional monies from, from any of these agencies. Um, as a matter of fact, the C&T Lynch's COG, um, went down $13,495. Is that right? Right. That was a one time spending for a specific project. Uh, I believe it was renovating a building, but. Yes. Yes. It was. It was one time money that we, uh, requested. It was not requested again this year. This budget year.

» It was all distributed, uh, during the course of this year. Okay. That was actually for the freezer and stuff. Okay. All right. All right. Um, under a lot of these categories, I see data processing. Um, under administration, it's $43,570. Can, can I get clarification on what data processing is? Absolutely. So, um, we use that line item to include a lot of the ongoing software expenditures, uh, that don't normally require an involved contract. Like you would see in something that's like a contracted service. So if it's software only without, uh, an incredibly extensive sort of support apparatus that goes into that, we'll use, uh, data processing for it.

» So, um, we've added a bit of software this year that that's what you're seeing there for, I think it's better council reporting, uh, but the specific name of that service we'll have on hand. Okay. So I see it in a lot of, um, I see it in a lot of budgets. Um, there's a, there's a increase of 7,000 bucks in the finance department as well. So that, that number gets, gets pretty big, pretty quick. Yes, sir. Um, I'd just like some clarification as to what that total number is and the, the types of services that they are. They're very different for each department as well. So that could reflect, uh, for example, um, well that, that council software, but it also sometimes reflects specific IT needs, uh, like some of their ongoing contracts. So it's really gotta be case by case.

» Um, we tend to get a lot of large contractual increases in times of inflation. Um, so when those fees go up, you'll see that reflected in the data processing lines. We're also trying to make sure that we are, um, heightening up as much as we can on where those specific accounts lie. So I know at least one circumstance where something was booked as a contracted service would be more appropriate to list as data processing. Um, and I believe that was in, uh, E911. Um, we moved that over. So if you see a corresponding drop in some of those contact and services lines, that might explain some of what you're seeing. Okay.

» Also, you're gonna have, we have just a slew of data processing in everything we touch because everything is just so, um, online, electronic, moving, uh, we've gone from paper timesheets that, you know, that 1985 approach to payroll to a, um, time clock plus. So there's, there's automation, accountability. If you look at just the assessor, auditor, and treasurer's software needs alone, that, that gets pretty, pretty big, pretty quick. And those, it's where a lot of our inflationary pressures come from, um, almost specifically is with these data processing contracts.

» And it's, it's, it's software, it's GIS, it's, it's web service, it's everything you can imagine that if you can pull up online, um, with, uh, keeping our ordinances and things of that nature, being electronic and searchable, register of deeds. So there's just a slew of things. And that's not even dispatch over there where that, that's when I wasn't part of standing that software up. That was a $750,000 project to lock that up. But that was, uh, that was in 2012. Um, so these costs escalate, um, and they're pretty consistent.

» We don't really see anything that goes up significantly, but for what we need to do, what we need to be able to provide, what we need to be able to be in compliance with on state and local and sometimes federal regulations, um, we are very much an electronic based organization. I'll just mention too, while you're looking at your notes, Mr. Brazel, that we, we had a big financial, uh, hit or cost whenever we moved to the, did the codification project, which the former Mr. DuBose was here and just, we harped on that for years before we could codify and get everything online so that folks wouldn't have to show up and look through ordinances and things with Ms.

» Mary, uh, you know, in a, in a binder this big and a couple of them, but we made it all searchable so that people could find what laws might apply to them online. So that was a big, a big hit, but then we were able to reset and say, we're codified, we're online. Um, but also general FOIA compliance with the number of requests that come through, making sure I see Mr. DuBose rolling his eyes because that a lot of requests come through. Um, and so these software programs allow us to remain FOIA compliant and produce documents as they get requested. Thank you. Um, Mr. Mr. Brazel, are you gonna, are you gonna be a minute before anything happens? If so, I'm gonna use the restroom while you're still talking. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Continue on, Mr. Brazel. No, you, you know, I would have.

» Pass the baton when you come back. Um, so what we do is important and, and I, you know, I apologize in advance for being long-winded, but if I wasn't, I don't feel like I was doing my job. Um, our attorney, but our attorney budget is a quarter of a million dollars in 2025. Um, there was a quest for an additional $100,000 and I'm sure just as our chairman stated, uh, to cover all sorts of things, including FOIA request and that sort of thing. But the recommendation is actually $145,000 more than that. Um, so the recommended budget is, is $495,000. Is there any particular, am I, am I missing something? Is it, um, due to FOIA? It is due to the, some of our commissions, which I'm reining in. Um, the attorney works for me. They don't work for the planning commission or anyone like that.

» Now I want a mesh point there, but there has been this, um, tendency to just, instead of, uh, just looking something up or whatever, engaging the attorney, uh, for things that maybe didn't necessarily need legal review, um, contracts. Uh, we, we've dialed that back a little bit, but there are, um, so many more things we are doing now with the attorney and, and we'll continue to look at that and, and see what's going to be best for us moving forward. But our planning and zoning, the meetings they have, the developmental meetings for all development that goes on in, in the county, it's a staff meeting with the attorney there. And he provides valuable information to keep these projects between the ditches.

» And, and, and so there is a, I see value in that with, uh, John's ability to, uh, to look at something and forecast a potential lawsuit issue or legal issue and just not even have that come to fruition. Um, so, but the FOIA requests are, have been, um, increasing. I hope that software will dial some of that back, but all we can do now is, is go with what we have seen in the past and then adjust as, as needed, um, through the budget. Well, I, I mean, I think your point's well taken that there's a better approach and that he works for you. Um, John, you know, I have a lot of respect for you, but I don't see the necessity in, um, a $245,000 increase. Um, well, you've actually spent, uh, over $350,000 this year, despite that original $250,000 budget.

» So the first $100,000 is just to meet the exact same expenditures as the current fiscal year we're in. Um, if there are circumstances that require additional legal needs, such as, um, there's a lot of discussion on longer term issues that will require a lot of active involvement with legal teams. Uh, we need to be able to kind of account for that before we are trying to backfill. So. I, I, I agree, but maybe we should have a monthly cap. Oh. Kind of like a prepaid cell phone. When it runs out for the month, it runs out. Start again next month. So I will be making an amendment to fulfill his request or the requests, uh, of $100,000 instead of $245,000. Is that in the form of a motion? Not yet. Um, what's that line item? Attorney fees. I can't tell you a page because it's not a page.

» It's, uh, it's under 105 Attorney 10-5-105-507-01 under professional services. I'll keep it out here to the side. Um, again, data processing underneath information technology. Um, the 2026 recommended expenditure is $451,050. That's a $98,500 increase. I feel like that could be another error, Tyler. I hope. I really hope $450,000 under one, one budgets. There's no way we're spending that much money on software. So, uh, unless we bought a software company. Uh, there, there's a federal mandate to increase, uh, that amount for a security thing that Chris, or, uh, Jeremy could probably speak more to. But we've actually have to hire an entire new position as well, uh, to meet that need. It's a, it's a federal security change. Um, that... Actually, what it is, it's, it's law enforcement. Oh.

» It's data processing over there at the sheriff's office. I used to be over that. So, it is Skyvers and Nivers data going back. Um, it's what SLED pulls. It's what the FBI pulls. Um, this, this software is, it's expensive. It has to have dedicated lines. We can't just send dispatch information to and from the jail over just a regular 425 number. It's got to be, uh, almost encrypted because it's sensitive material. Um, that, and we will be adding a position at some point just to handle that data processing alone. When I was audited over at the sheriff's office on this information, it is a Herculean task to go through and go through that SLED audit. And this is just where they are bearing down and getting even more serious with, uh, the, the security requirements.

» You know, two factor authentication on laptops. Um, it, it, it's. So, does this come out of the sheriff's budget then? It's, it's IT because, uh, right now, um, it, it, we have the servers. We, we have the people. Um, and quite frankly, they don't have the talent to do any of this. So, it's, it's, I see it as fair as coming out of there. Um, it's, it's a specific IT mandate. Um, that individual, uh, and, and also Mr. Brazel. We, we do have fire EMS and nine one one. So the sheriff's office has a large part of that, but it, it, you know, we have a lot of customers and consumers of that data. So that's a, that's a yearly cost though. It's, these are going to be reoccurring.

» Um, if it wasn't a yearly call or if it wasn't a reoccurring cost, we, we tend to address those in the capital budget or one time. So can we, can we have an opportunity to look at those at a later date? Just look at those contracts. I'm just curious. Um, yeah. Yeah. So these are mandates. All right. Um, yeah, but there's gotta be some sort of contract. Yeah. Be glad to do it. All right. Sorry y'all trying to move along. Um, Mr. Brazel, you want to yield? If anybody else has any direct questions on the tip of their tongue while you're there. Yeah, sure. Any other questions, comments or discussion? I still have my amendment. All right. Mr. Brazel back to you.

» So I won't go into all of them, but every page I'm flipping, I'm, I'm finding more and more of the data processing and Danny's explained that. Um, Mr. Brazel, how about this? If we have an amendment that's ready to be proposed, you're still more than welcome to make an amendment later. Um, after this next amendment's discussed, whether it passes or fails, you want to yield to the pending amendment? I'll yield to Mr. Tucker. All right, we've had the K2 amendment passed. We have Mr. Tucker who has an amendment he wants to put before the body. Mr. Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, let me find where I'm at now. I'm flipping with Mr. Brazel here and I've gotten a little lost myself.

» So, um, into the budget that was submitted by, uh, administration, um, was a slight, I guess, forgotten object, uh, on a line item. So I would like to clear that up. The good part is that is, uh, no additional costs. It's moving money from one location to the other. So, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we transfer $547,762 from fire reserve to fire operation. I'll explain it, but get a second. I'll second. Is there a second, Mr. Shumate? We got a first and a second. Mr. Tucker, you have the floor. Thank you.

» This is for the two additional fire trucks, um, that we're trying to purchase that, uh, we've got a deal on from the folks down in Sumter where someone in North Carolina, one of the municipalities, um, and Will can explain this a lot better than I can, um, had to renege on their purchase. So we're getting it at a deal, uh, both of them. And this money is already in your fire service in the reserves. And we just want to transfer that amount out so we can purchase these two fire trucks. And, and Danny, I'll let you elaborate here in just a second. Um, knowing that these fire trucks, if you order them today, they can be years out for delivery and, um, they will cost a lot more than what we're purchasing these. Would you like to elaborate, Mr.

» Templer? I think that's about it, but you're right. Waiting is not saving. And then these are on the ground and the build times can be two to three years. And then the costs escalate. Um, we have an immediate need now, and this is just a great opportunity to save money on two apparatus. Uh, when we would probably get one if we were to wait. Um, so it's a great opportunity. And that feels like this is the best bet here. Uh, money is there. Just got to move it. Thank you, Mr. Templer. Mr. Templer, you have a second. I think they said it all. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Yes, I do. Mr. Jones. Right quickly. Um, so this money is going to be transferred. This money we already have in the fire. Yes. Correct.

» Is there any replacement money in the budget to replace that money that you spend in the new budget? We're voting on this year. It's pulling from their reserves, the fire reserves. That is a, uh, a special revenue. So it's, it's separate from our general fund. Um, but we, we're not emptying our reserves. We're just taking the opportunity to spend some of the reserves. Well, what would be the balance of the reserve? Um, for fire, um, once we move this, it will have 700,000. Okay. This is just a basic line item transfer. Yes, sir. Nothing else. Okay. No increase. For capital expenditure. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any other questions or comments? And I'm sorry, Mr.

» Jones, I did not make that clear about what was left in the budget, but this is not draining their, their budget, their reserves. Any other questions or comments on the Tucker amendment? No, I think I just bought, I just bought two forklifts because they were on the ground and it was an eight month build time. So I completely understand, um, things aren't, aren't getting any cheaper. Um, this doesn't have anything to do with the general fund budget. This is the fire budget. Correct. Correct. Just to be clear. Okay. Um, totally support the fire department in doing that. Thank you. Seeing no further comments, questions or concerns. Let's go ahead and move it to a vote. This is a vote on the Tucker amendment. All in favor, raise your hand. Ms. Hennett's unanimous. Tucker amendment passes.

» The budget is back on the floor. Are there any other discussion, comments or amendments? Um, still, still working through a few things. I apologize. Um, public defender, we've got a request for $124,000. Is this the public defender that will help move, um, people through the jail faster? That was a discussion that we had earlier in the year. Um, we feel like by adding a public defender that they can have a higher level of support. They can have a higher level of communication and, um, get people to court faster and have a fair trial and keep us from having to build a $60 million jail. That's the goal for me. Anyway, is that, is that what that $124,000 does? Perfect. Totally agree with that. Um, on the, uh, jail parts, sir, we will still need a jail at some point.

» Good luck with the $60 million jail. We're holding a bake sale tomorrow. Yeah, it's gonna be a big one. Um, so Tyler, um, answered most of my questions. I won't be able to support this tonight because there, there are several errors in here. I'd like to be able to support the budget this year. Um, but just while doing my due diligence, we, we've ran across several errors that could save us even more money. I would like to think that they could. Um, at this time, I'd like to make an amendment to fulfill the $100,000 request for the attorney, but not over fulfill it, um, to the $245,000. Is that in the form of a motion? It is. Is there a second? Second. I have a second. Mr. Russell Brownsley, you got the floor.

» So I, I feel like I've talked enough, but, um, for reasons probably beyond, um, several people's control, our attorney's budget, um, was proposed at $495,000 last year, it was $250,000. Um, the request is for an additional $100,000, um, and I find that, um, more reasonable, obviously. Um, and I don't know that we need to put a, do we need to put some kind of cap on the amount of time that is spent, um, some guidelines, some internal guidelines. And as you stated, he does work for you. So I think you can do that without us. And I would, I would highly recommend that happen. Um, I, I'm just looking, looking at a way to save a half a month. Um, but Mr. Broussel, we need to make sure that we have access to an attorney. Yeah. Council members. Yeah. Yeah. And, and, and I, I don't disagree.

» I just, I think doubling the amount of money is an egregious amount of money. Um, and not, not to say he's not worth it, probably worth that more. But when we're dealing with public dollars, um, we need to be very careful as to how we spend them. Mr. Broussel, if I may, could we ask the administrator to give an explanation as to how and why they came with that number? Yeah. And we, he kind of did earlier, but yeah, we, we could further hear more. Yeah. And I just stepped out of the room during that point. I'd like. Yeah. Yeah. Let's hear it again. I think it was, uh, in January when we were collecting requests. Uh, but as of a month ago, our spending on attorneys this year was over $350,000.

» So that estimated cost is based on increased usage of the attorney next year due to projected council actions. Um, especially when you consider things like moratorium, increased use by the planning commission, uh, all of those intended or discussed issues that we take into account for the impact they might have on that attorney budget. So, you know, we only have the knowledge we have at the time. Um, and if we've got over $350,000 of spending before the end of this fiscal year, we need to make sure that we can account for it in the future so that we aren't having to cancel other projects or initiatives, uh, that council might've felt necessary. Mr. Brazel, if I might. Um, you mentioned various areas of legal costs or expenditures that we have, but there's also lawsuits.

» And so we have some that are pending right now or had some that, uh, hopefully just got wrapped up, but we have some that are pending now, which haven't even got into discovery yet, which is one, some of the most expensive phase of discovery. Sometimes you hope these cases get resolved. Sometimes they look like they may not. And you just dig in and have to litigate to, uh, defend the county's rights and interests of the public. And all those costs are covered in that line item. And I don't agree with all those increased costs that were just quoted either. I do not think the moratorium will cost us a lot of money to do nothing. To clarify, I just, we just put the projection based on expected usage, not just that. It's just one of many factors that go into that.

» I just disagree with the use of that. We hadn't even voted on it yet. I think that, to me, that is almost like a political statement. Oh, no, sir. Uh, I apologize. We're just trying to make sure that we have money ready for anything you might. Thank you, Tyler. Um, you know, the, the AOD was a, it was very expensive. And, and from a staff standpoint, there was, there was a lot going into that. So I know John was really helping us with that, with our public. And we had eight public engagements and John was there most of those. But, um, I think that was important. A lot of people were heard. Um, they had concerns and we were able to perhaps some of their concerns into amendments that helped them ease their mind with how their property was looked at as it relates to the AOD.

» So, um, give an explanation when you say AOD. Oh, I'm sorry. Airport overlay district. Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. If I may, um, Mr. Braswell, I, I deeply respect your request and your amendment. But I also know that, um, with a lot of the, um, things that are coming up about land usage, um, we, we have been in some legal battles. We're still in some legal battle battles. Um, I have 100% confidence in Mr. Templar and staff that, um, they don't go out and frivolously spend money on Mr. John DeBose as our attorney. And I say that with confidence because he's been a good steward about putting money back into our reserves, uh, since he's been an administrator and even when he was the assistant administrator.

» So it's like all the line item budgets that's there because it's there don't mean you have to spend it. Be a good steward. And he has been. And so for those reasons, I can't support this amendment tonight. Well, the amendment would simply fulfill his request. Um, this is the additional $145,000 that he may even have a heartburn with. Um, I don't know that he's seen that. So anyway, the amendment's on the floor. We can, we can vote on it. All right. Any further discussion? Mr. Brazel who made the motions call for the vote. All in favor, raise your hand. We have Mr. Brazel in favor. All opposed. Oh, excuse me. You prefer to vote in favor. I vote with Brazel. Okay. Okay. Jimmy, Mr. Jones votes for Mr. Brazel. You have two in favor. Uh, all who are opposed. You have everyone else, Ms.

» Hanna, for the record voting in opposition. The amendment fails. Are there any other, um, motions, amendments, discussion on the budget? It's back on the floor. We've got the Cato amendment passing and the Tucker amendment passing. The only thing I would like to mention on, on the attorney, um, maybe to make up for, for some of that deficit, I think we could potentially look at having somebody in house to be able to supplement and maybe look at those numbers going forward. This isn't a budget, um, item right now that we can discuss because that's time and energy.

» Um, and it's not going to be fixed in this budget, but that could be something that if, um, if that's something that would help Crestor County and budget operations going forward, that's something that I'd be willing and potential to discuss. Yes, sir. And that's certainly something I'm looking at. I, I still think John has a tremendous value to the county with his institutional knowledge. Um, but I think there are some things that we could potentially address low hanging fruit. It's true. Contract reviews and things like that for, um, just in house things. Yep. Absolutely. All right. Thank you, Mr. Templer. Mr. Jones. Let me make myself clear. I agree with Brazels. I voted with him, but let me tell you something. The Bose firm that these guys are a wealth of knowledge.

» You just can't replace it by, like, we have two attorneys up here right now. You guys don't know the, the, have the knowledge they have. They don't have the knowledge you have based on what you practice in law. You don't just buy 45 years of, of, of public service that, um, that the Bose firm has given us. We're driving the cost of not them. It's us. It is. It's, it's, it's administration employees. It's us who use it. Counselors, the ones who use it. So, I mean, I just want to make sure we're clear on that. Uh, they do an outstanding job. Outstanding job for this county. Thank you, Mr. Jones. And then that, Mr. Chairman, if I can, just to clarify, that wasn't, um, what I was proposing at all.

» Um, because you can't replace institutional knowledge, but there can be something to supplement if it can save us money in the long run. And just to be clear, I was thinking more supplemental in house with Mr. DuBose remaining on. And, um, one question for clarification. So the budgets we're talking about, are you pulling from there as well for outside legal counsel or, uh, legal consultants or opinions that we get on incidental matters or even direct litigation? So we do engage, uh, with outside attorneys, um, labor. But it, I'm just asking, is it lined up with that particular, um, budget item? My understanding. Yeah. Okay. That's what I thought. I just want to make sure. So it's, we've said DuBose about 50 times tonight, but there's also a lot of attorneys.

» Who, um, is waiting in the wings right now for an executive session matter tonight. We'll call them up at some point on an important, uh, legal and litigation matter. Okay. Any, uh, further comments to square? Is he sitting free for right now? I hope so. Somebody said, go get dinner. Not on our dime. Um, any other comments, questions, concerns on the budget? Any other motions? Seeing no other discussion, question, concerns, or motions. We are now voting on the budget as amended on second reading. This is after the K2 amendment has passed and after the Tucker amendment has passed. Move it to a vote. All in favor, raise your hand. We've got Mr. Shoemake, Mr. Tucker, Connell, Cato, and Tomlinson in favor. All opposed? We've got Mr. Brazel, Mr. Jones opposed. It passes second reading. Ms.

» Hanna for the record. Thank you, gentlemen. That takes us to item number 9D. This is a first reading on an ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium placed on the agenda by Mr. Jones and Mr. Brazel. Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I so move that we approve the ordinance imposing a 180-day moratorium. Okay, there's a motion. Is there a second? I'll make the second. Mr. Brazel has a second. Mr. Jones, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the county council, and thank you to all the members of the public who came out and spoke tonight. I fully support this moratorium. The planning commission was created to provide guidance and recommendations to this county council about planning and zoning matters.

» The commission reviews various development, excuse me, development proposals each month, and I believe that it knows the ZLDR better than anyone other than our staff and our legal counsel, and the commission has recommended that the county take a six-month pause on major subdivision approvals. The commission is telling us, this planning is on the commission, they are telling us that current subdivision regulations are not doing enough to protect the county's environmental resources. The planning is on the commission is telling us, which by the way we appoint, which is mandated by state law. They're telling us that current subdivision regulations are not delivering the quality of residential development that our citizens are begging for, and you heard from some of them tonight.

» The planning is on the commission is telling us that if we don't pause now, we will get more subdivisions that don't suit the current desires of the people. The commission, or this county council, subdivisions are a large part of the heartbeat of any community. They say that when someone is having a heart attack, the quicker they get treatment, the greater chance they will survive. With a heart attack, doctors say that time equals muscle. The more time you have, the more muscle you can put into saving the patient. Our planning is on commission is telling us that our heart, our subdivision communities are not keeping up with the county healthy. The planning is on commission is telling us that our left arm is tingling and that we are moments away from a heart attack with this growth.

» I say we listen to the planning zoning commission and give them the six months they have asked for to work on subdivision regulations. Time is muscle. We need to give the commission, the planning zoning commission, and ourselves time to improve our subdivision regulations so that our county can continue to thrive. And let me just say this, too, before I let someone else speak. I think there's members. This is Ned Towle, who is the chairman of the county planning zoning commission. I think he's here. Do we have any other members of the planning zoning commission that are here? Mr. Towle, you're the only one, or you've already left, too. Okay. Oh, you're here. Okay. Well, I just want to thank you and thank your commissioners, all of them that voted in favor of this.

» They showed up to your special call meeting. I want to say thank you to each and every one of them. I know Heather Dykes voted in favor. I know that Mason Wolfe voted in favor. Ned Towle, chairman, voted in favor. Chris Renfro voted in favor. Who else? Am I missing somebody? That was it? Okay. So anyway, and I want to say this. Thank you so much to each and every one of them. And also, thank you, I know that I talked to the two that voted no. The one didn't show up. He couldn't make it. But the two that voted against it, I don't think they're hard pressed against this either. They just voted no. But anyway, and I can say that with all confidence. But anyway, I want to say thank you for your time. And I'm here to support where we need to go with this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

» I yield at this moment. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Mr. Brasley, you have the second. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it. All the time earlier and I apologize to everyone who's waited patiently as we work through some of the budget, some of those line items. Regarding the moratorium, I've never loved the idea of a moratorium. As a matter of fact, it's been discussed. This is my fifth year on council. And it was discussed in a meeting five years ago. And we've discussed it along and along. Now over the course of, I think, three chairmen and a chair lady and a couple of temporary chairmen. So it's been talked about. And I'll say this. Our family's business depends on home building. We manufacture custom wood moldings and kitchen cabinet doors.

» If people aren't building houses, we're not providing jobs for the 80 plus employees that we have or our own families. So I'm definitely not against building homes. But I can tell you there's been a shift in the way homes have been built and the way that this community has grown. This is June 1st marks my 25th year that I've worked in the industry full time. In 2008, we had a terrible recession that lasted for about four and a half, five years. Things started getting better. 2012, they weren't really good until 2015 for our industry. So we heavily depended on any project local or, you know, as far away as we could ship the product. We really needed that revenue. But what's happened is imported goods have changed home building.

» A lot of what I hear people talking about regarding the types of homes that are being built, I've seen that firsthand. And now I think everybody's free to do what they like within within reason. But what's turned people against these major subdivisions are crowded roads, failing infrastructure, failing bridges, the change of community and how it impacts us in our community. So in my mind, I can separate those two things. I can separate my business and I can separate our community. So when this was brought to me, my first concern was, are you suggesting that we stop building permits? And the answer was no, no, no, absolutely not. We would continue issuing building permits in the county. That would never stop at all.

» And I said, well, how long are we are we talking? Is this a year? I can't I can't agree to a year. And no, no, we're thinking six months. And so I actually reached out to some colleagues, some people that that work for custom home builders, as well as national builders. And I had a very frank conversation with a local businessman that told me, he said, you know, Russell, we depend on home building. I said, well, I know I do, too. And I said, does a six month moratorium on major subdivisions only scare you? And after a short pause, he says, no, I think it's what's best for our community. And I'll agree with him on that point that it is best for our community to get things right. This isn't about next year, certainly in about next month.

» And in a post 2008 recession and a post COVID reality, people are moving to South Carolina in droves. And while it could be a good thing, I think we have to change the way we we think about growth and development. I think we have to think about the way our communities are built. People like walkable communities, people like communities that that are whole, that are wholesome. Right now you can walk into planning and zoning. And if you check, well, 15 boxes you can develop. Okay. National builders are now willing to develop on one acre lots because alternatively in counties like Charleston County, Greenville County, they can't they can't produce a quarter acre lot for what they can build a one acre lot here for.

» So, as we've done things together and Councilman Shumate and I worked together on lot size, lot size minimums and zoning regulations. And I think it changed the dynamic some. I think it improved the way Kershaw County will be, but I definitely think a plan development is probably the only way to move forward in a positive manner in Kershaw County. If, if we leave it status quo, you know, I think the horse is pretty much out of the barn and it's galloping and it's about to break into a full sprint. So I'm going to support the moratorium in spite of myself in my family's business. And if it hurts for a little while, I'll endure it for the good of the community. And with that being said, I'll shut up. Thank you, Mr. Brazel. Mr. Tomlinson. Yeah. Mr.

» Chairman, I have an amendment I'd like to propose. And if I can get a second on it, I'm happy to provide some additional discussion on this. Because I, I've been one who sat up here, who's been very supportive of the moratorium. Um, I put one on the airport overlay as a moratorium on everything. Um, fall through that. Even, even some of the people sitting in the audience were for the moratorium. And when we got up here and tried to restrict, um, land use in the AOD, fought against it. Um, so there has to be a means to an ends. However, I do have an amendment I'd like to make. My amendment is to include minor subdivisions, to include two lots or more. And I will give the reason behind that. The only thing that would, that would include any apartments, uh, duplexes, townhomes.

» That would be in the unincorporated areas of Kershaw County. The only thing excluded would be single family residents. So if a person wants to build a house on their property solely for the six month, 180 day moratorium, they will be able to. And then that also excludes plan purpose districts. So PDDs or PPDs. Those are the two exclusions. That's your motion. Yeah. That's my motion. All right. We've got a motion. I'll second. I'll second. I'll yield to Mr. Cato. Mr. Cato seconds. Yeah. Mr. Thomason, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, you know, tonight we heard a lot of, a lot of taglines. Smart growth. Mega development. Subdivision standards. Environmental impacts. Aging infrastructure. Six fastest growing county in the state of South Carolina.

» All those numbers are very, are, and data points are very disturbing. Um, if we look at the major impacts. So let's look at our, our ordinance right now. Minor subdivisions. What is a minor subdivision? Anything less than 10 lots. So we're going to allow 20 different things along the river in different people's property. That's going to be nine lots. Nine lots. No substandards. Decreate the creation of any new street. So if I'm creating a new street, if I'm providing infrastructure, which the large developers, even though I wish exactly, somebody said it earlier, I wish we didn't have any in Curshaw County anymore. I don't like people who don't, who aren't from here. However, they do provide streets and infrastructure. The minor subdivisions don't.

» We just changed our ordinance last meeting where we had third reading regarding if a small minor subdivision had the ability for water access within a certain jurisdiction, they will be required to put fire hydrants. We just changed that. We're way behind the time. So if we're looking at actually doing something right for Curshaw County, eliminating growth. If you want to build a single house, I feel you should have that opportunity during these 180-day period. However, if we're going to do this the right way, protect Curshaw County and really do the right thing as far as eliminating growth and taking a look, getting our comprehensive plan done. And I can also go further. Until that comprehensive plan is done, which it needs to be done, our ZLDR needs to start now.

» Talking about the AOD, the AOD, we put a six-month moratorium on all building permits. Every single one. I got calls from friends who had already had construction loans to build a single house and they weren't allowed to. But I stood up here and took that because I thought it was the right thing to do. So if we're going to go forward with this, we have to take a step back and look at ourselves wholly, who we are as a county and where we want to grow. By only eliminating major subdivisions, we cannot do that, including minor, doing it the right way. The Planning Commission getting that comprehensive plan done so we can get on the ZLDR. The AOD was scheduled to take six months. It did cost a lot of money, which is why those attorney fees are included.

» The AOD took eight and a half months of planning and prep, and that wasn't during while we were crunching budget time. That takes staff's work and efforts away. We have a lot going forward. So if we're saying the ZLDR is two years out, the AOD, which was a small portion of this county, was two and a half months over its timeline. So we have to sit here. If we're going to do things right, we all have to come together. And I really hope my council members, my colleagues, will support the voice of the community. When I say I did get an applause for the amendment, so if we're looking at applauses, then that has to say something about the support. But that is my amendment, Mr. Chairman. Could I speak to that? Mr. Cato had the second. He's got the ground. Mr.

» Chairman, I'd like to speak whenever Councilman Brazos finished. Okay. I think Mr. Cato was ahead of me. I'm sorry. I got it. Mr. Cato, you had the second. I came in here tonight with the intentions of supporting the moratorium. And I'll tell you why. Because I live in a rural area. And I live in a rural area that most people don't want to see minor nor major subdivisions come in. So, Mr. Tomlinson, I appreciate your thought into this. And I hate to say -- I appreciate you giving me the second. I hate to say that I didn't think of it myself. But I will -- I'm going to say this tonight. I was very upset with the way this was handled to begin with. I didn't know anything, not one thing, about this moratorium, the proposal, the meeting, or anything, until Tuesday of last week.

» That was my first time. And the chairman of the commission, Mr. Ned Tile, was the one that reached out to me. So that doesn't give a councilman very much time to look into anything or to think about the process. And I'm one of those that I like to think about things. But I got on the ball. I made a few phone calls. Done some talking. And I had a lot of phone calls and a lot of text messages and a lot of emails, even today. But it's very important, after Mr. Tomlinson brought this amendment, as I look at my particular district, you know, you take 10 acres of land and you put 20 homes on it. Well, that's a lot of houses.

» And if you go around and you put 20 houses in a 10-mile square radius on all these different lots of lands that people buy up and develop, you're talking about major infrastructure issues. Look at the north central area, the three schools, and how things have changed there. That's just one example. So I agree with Mr. Brazel. He has my full support tonight. And I mean, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to both of you. Mr. Tomlinson. We both took it as a compliment. We both have a little gray in our beard. But I'm in full support of Mr. Tomlinson tonight. And I thank you for your hard work. Thank you. Can I speak to that, please? You got the floor, Mr. Brazel. So, Councilman Tomlinson, I appreciate an amendment that would move the ball forward.

» You said reduce it to how many? Two? Any minor subdivisions. So if we look at the language of a minor subdivision, sorry, just put a minute in my mouth. If we look at the language of any minor subdivision, that's anything under 10 homes is included in a minor subdivision besides a single family residence, according to our ordinances. So two lots or more, anything two lots or more, only excluding single family residents and PPDs. So for me, in my viewpoint, that was probably the one thing I didn't want to do. And I'm just going to be real honest as to why. The moratorium just went from affecting a handful of major developers that are from wherever. Maybe they're from Wichita, Kansas. I don't know. They're not from South Carolina. They're not from Kershaw County.

» Now it's affecting our friends and our neighbors. Because I can't tell you how many people over the years have bought a small parcel of land. Maybe it's five acres and split it into five lots. And they would build maybe three houses this year, two houses next year. That affects small business. And that affects the real home building industry versus major development. That's the only reason I don't love it. I appreciate you coming from a point of view that is supportive. I'll be real honest. I agree more with our chairman than he would know right now as to property rights. But as soon as there was a planning and zoning and a ZLDR created, those property rights were changed. And the way land was developed was changed.

» And when I got here, you could build seven houses per acre, 7.2 or 7.4 houses per acre of developed land. So we've changed that here in Kershaw County. I think that's a good thing. I think we've taken steps in a direction. But I've never wanted to do anything that would directly harm somebody's income that's just providing for themselves, their family, their employees. And that's less today than it was 10 years ago, certainly. But there are people right here, right now. I think I can think off the top of my head, Sweet Briar Homes. They built a great house. Brett McCloud and David Dabney, they're local. We would be directly hurting their business. And I'm sorry to call names, gentlemen, if y'all hear this at some point.

» I just, I know them, I grew up with them, I went to school and college with them. They're not the problem. They're not the point of great concern. And I just use them as an example. Again, those types of builders are not the reason why we're having these conversations today. These conversations did not exist in a pre-COVID world where people from all over were moving to South Carolina. So, for those reasons, I would like to stay the course on where we were at, if it's possible. Yeah, I'd, Mr. Chairman, if I may. Or, actually, Mr. Shumak, I believe. Mr. Shumak has the floor unless I apologize. Do you want me to yield or do you want me to yield? No. You can go ahead and I'll take next. Thank you, Mr. Browns. Mr. Shumak. Yeah, so a couple of points.

» I think I want to make note, because it was brought up earlier to anyone who thinks otherwise, I am not a real estate attorney. Perhaps that's why my practice isn't as booming as I would like to be, because people don't think I do something I don't. I do business compliance and white-collar criminal defense, none of which growth really impacts unless we have some healthcare fraudsters moving into the area. So, my practice has nothing to do with real estate. In fact, I don't even have to do a real estate closing. So, that said, I do think this amendment is fair. If you're going to say we have to have a moratorium, the problem we have is density. Density doesn't distinguish between small division, small subdivision, large subdivision.

» Bluntly, I know the support isn't up here for it, so I won't waste everyone's time on the amendment. I would do a full moratorium for everything. But I know the support isn't here for that. I'm not going to put my colleagues in that position. The fact is, it doesn't matter if it's on your personal land or if it's in a major subdivision or if it's in an eight-unit small subdivision. When we add five people to the county, we add five people to the county. The problem is density. I will say this, and I went on record to anyone who's reached out to me. I agree with Councilman Cato. I abhor the way this was handled. I think that rushing this through, I personally asked for a little more time to have some meetings and talk about it.

» Not because I didn't support it, but because I thought it was being rushed and needed some more discussion. That wasn't done. That's fine. We're here where we are. I'm going to base my decision on governance, not whether I feel like this was done for a political reason or a governmental reason. But I'll say this. Some of the things that have been put out there about what's going to happen in these six months, let's have hard truths. I've always been very blunt with everybody, and here's the hard truth. We're not going to be able to do those things in six months. So everybody up here better be prepared to extend this thing for about 18 months. Because what's on that list won't happen in six months. And by the way, it's going to cost money, not just legal fees, and it will cost legal fees.

» You're going to have to bring in people to do studies. That's not free. Anyone who's told you that this can be done without spending money, they're wrong. So this is going to take some money, and it's going to take some investment of both time, human capital, and funds. A moratorium is like closing a road. If you do it with no plan to fix it and no funds to fix it, it's absolutely freaking pointless. So right now, we're closing a road with some promises of six-month turnarounds that aren't going to happen. So in six months, if this doesn't get continued, understand we'll be in a situation where nothing will get better. I fully support smart growth. Had we done this with a little more time, we could have come in with the funding and infrastructure and plans in place to do it right.

» I think we're going a little bit tail-wagging the dog here, but nonetheless, it's here. I support it. I've always said I'm supportive of it, so I'm supporting it tonight. But let's be real honest, and we're going to have to come together because all this talk about budget and fees and taxes, I guess, and we'll have more of this if we get to second reading with this as amended, but we're probably looking at $200,000, $300,000 in cost to do this the right way. And if I don't mind, I see our budget genius, Tyler, who's the smartest guy I know in the room, shaking his head, $200,000, $300,000 to do this right that doesn't exist in this current budget, by the way. So that means an amendment on third reading to find that money. That's what that means.

» Now, if you guys want an empty moratorium that says, hey, great, we get to watch new tractors building new permits for six months, fine, but that's all you're going to get. So let's be real honest about what this means. Let's not have the feel-good moment of, yay, we passed a moratorium. A moratorium is nothing. It's ethereal, right? It's ephemeral, rather. It doesn't really exist. It is simply something you do while you do something else, and we haven't even talked about the something else. So let's just be real honest. I support this, but we are at the, we're only at 2%, and unfortunately, it's the back 2%, not the first 2%. Those are my opinions. Thank you, Mr. Shoemake. Any other comments or questions? I'd like to say that I agree with a lot of what you just said. Oh, Mr.

» Jones gets a chance to speak first. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm excited about this. Let me tell you why I'm excited about it. First off, I don't want your vote. I'm not running again. I'm doing this because I believe this is the right thing for the people. They're running again. Let me tell you something about the amendment. I like the amendment. I don't like the two houses. I do agree with Russell on that, but I do like the amendment, and I'm going to support the amendment because I want something done. But to sit here and try to say this was done for political reasons? Look, I have no political ambition. I've been here 20 years. I think if it hadn't been for Ned Towle calling Derek, Derek telling him to call me, and then him calling Russell, this wouldn't even be on the table tonight.

» And not only that, they talk about surprising them. This was on the agenda last Thursday when they got it last Friday. I didn't see their amendment to tonight. So who's keeping what from who? Don't sit there and tell me that I've ambushed y'all when it was on the agenda and you had time to read it. You never, not a single person. I didn't say you ambushed me, Councilman Jones. I got the floor. Don't interrupt me while I got the floor. I didn't say you ambushed me. Just don't interrupt me while I got the floor. But Mr. Chairman, with your little smile over there, I'm going to tell you something. You know as well as I know you called every single person you could, but did not call me not one single time. So you want to talk about who got ambushed tonight? But I'm happy about the ambush.

» I mean, I am. We will get something done. But I want to tell you, we got a hard working planning and zoning commission and they don't get any credit whatsoever. And I commend them and I thank them for this. So you want to talk about political posturing or who's doing it for politics? Don't vote for Jimmy Jones, okay? He's not coming back. But I'll tell you what, they want you to vote. I'm not saying anything in here for political reasons. So that, thank you. I've given 20 years of my life and I am dedicated to the people of this county. You call my number, I'm going to answer it. I've had some issues lately that I probably haven't been able to answer as quick, but it's physical issues that I'm having to deal with. But I'm going to tell you something, folks. I love this community.

» I love these people. I love you guys. I am so happy that I've been able to be here. And I don't hate these guys up here. But I don't like it when I feel like you want to call somebody political. I'm not political. And I'm going to tell you not at this moment. I want to thank everybody in here for being here tonight and seeing what you said. And I really mean that. And I'm going to support his ambush amendment. Even though I ambushed them, but it was on the agenda last Thursday for everybody to read. But thank you guys. And I may be done. I don't know. It depends on what else is said here tonight. But thank you. I would just like to add that this is a smart growth amendment is what I'm going with. So I would take heed to this ambush amendment. You said you were ambushed.

» It's more of a no growth amendment. But I've still got the concerns about how it affects a small builder and a small operator. I'm not a fan of the amendment for that reason. To clarify, we would still issue building permits for six months, right? For building permits as far as new subdivisions? No. Homes. Yeah. I mean, anything that has already been approved before has no effect on this. Yeah. But if in three months I wanted to build a house, I can build a house. Absolutely. As long as it's not part of a minor subdivision. Yep. A minor or major subdivision. If I owned a piece of property and it was my family's property and I wanted to divide it between me and my six siblings, could I do that for estate purposes? There's a state law exemption on exempt subdivisions.

» So some divisions of property are not considered subdivisions at all. One of those are familial conveyances, especially in association with intestacy and succession. But I believe you can gift and convey property to a familial descendant. So you can still survey and subdivide land? Again, in that specific scenario where it's family transactions, I believe that would fall under state law exemption. If I had, say I had 1,500 acres in the northern part of the county and I wanted to sell half of it, could I split it in two and sell half of it? Yeah. If it had not been subdivided previously like eight or nine times where that's pushing it over a lot, count and again. Wait a minute, he just said it includes minor subdivisions, which is zero to 10. Correct.

» So if I had a track of land, it was a timber track and I had a partner and I wanted to divide that track of land and I wanted to pay a surveyor. Yes, a parcel five acres or greater is also a state law exemption. You could take a hundred acre parcel and subdivide it into parcels greater than five acres and it's exempt under state law from subdivisions. Okay, so the bottom would be five acres for six months. Correct. Now again, there's no new streets created, et cetera, et cetera. Right, right, right, right. But if you're talking out five acre parcels, it's permissible as a state law exemption broadly. Okay. Again, speaking in broad terms, not specifics. Okay. Well, yes, five acres or larger can be divided. All right. And I'll say this, I appreciate everybody's passion.

» I understand that none of us got a lot of time to understand this. I think, Danny, I got it the day before you did. I talked to Mr. Tile on Monday. So all of this was a little bit fast paced. I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree with that at all. So thanks for the clarification. Thank you, Mr. Brazel. Any further discussion? Yes, if I may. Let me say something. I think the planning is under commission. We'll be thrilled with this tonight. Jimmy, just want to mention that everyone gets a chance to speak first under Robert's rules before someone speaks second. And we had someone interested. No, I'll yield to Mr. K. No, no. You go ahead, sir. Age before beauty. No. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. If you're thinking you're prettier than me, we got a problem. It is. I'll have to.

» Go ahead, Mr. Jones. Now you made me forget what I was going to say. Let me just say this. The plan that was presented to me by the planning and zoning department, they were screaming for help. I think they're going to be probably like me because we've got planning zoning director here tonight. I mean, excuse me, the chairman here tonight. I think he'll say that something's got to change. We've got to slow things down. So we're getting that done. But anyway, thank you so much. Go ahead, Mr. Kato, with your wisdom. Mr. Kato, you're recognized, please. Thank you. First of all, I'd like to ask the timeline of the CLDR. When are we looking? When should this be complete? Because I've been on council for two years now, and it's been talked about ever since.

» So somebody needs to get on the ball and let's get this thing going. They are on the ball. Well, they're meeting four times a month. My thing, you don't have to holler at me because I'm not hollering at you. I'm just talking because I just hollered. Please, Mr. Kato, Mr. Jones. No one interrupted you. Please yield while he has the floor. So you'll get to speak again. I want to know, you know, I don't want this thing to be extended. I want us to get, I want us to get a solution. I don't want it to continue and us end up having to. And I think Mr. Brides will agree with this. We don't want this thing extended. If we can get it done in six months, let's get it done. If we, you know, we don't want to go on and on. We want a solution. We don't want to kick the can down the road anymore.

» Well, why don't you talk to the planning is the only commissioner on here. Why don't you let me finish? Mr. Jones, please. Why don't you lower your voice, please? My hearing's not that bad. You know, I'm very upset with the fact that you get up here and you holler and you shout to try and get people's attention. And I'm sitting here trying to talk while I have the floor. Okay. And then you want to say it's a political thing when our poor budget manager up there is just trying to make a solution or explain something and you claim his comment was politically motivated. I want you to relax. Mine is not politically. I want you to relax. No, I'm relaxed. Take a deep breath. Take a deep breath. Mr. Jones, please. Mine was not politically motivated. Okay.

» I'm trying to do what's wrong for this county. Breathe, breathe, breathe. And y'all, you can do is sit over there and make childish jokes. Yeah. And it don't make you look. Well, I've heard what you said. I've heard what you said behind my back as well, sir. Congratulations. All right. Anyway. Let's defer to anyone else who has not spoken before we hear from someone else again. Point of order. Can we call the vote? All right. All right. We are on the Tomlinson amendment. We'll go ahead and move it to a vote. I'm sure I'll have more to say on the actual vote. So all in favor on the Tomlinson amendment, raise your hand. We've got Shoemake, Kato, Tomlinson, and Jones in favor of the amendment. So the amendment passes. We're now back on to the original motion by Mr. Jones in first reading.

» I'm going to chime in. So each of these gentlemen up here, and I heard Mr. Jones not singling you out at all, but I heard Mr. Jones say for many years that he represents the entire county. And I'm sure some of these folks really do feel that way, but they have insular districts and tend to, I mean, that's your only votership. It's just literally people outside your district can't vote for you. I've tried to take a holistic approach to this. Mr. Kato, I'm glad you got a call. I didn't get a call at all. This is, I like to study and be very deliberate as well on these issues. And just for a little bit of a timeline, you know, I do support controlling growth. I support smart growth.

» One of the things I think we should have celebrated the most on the agenda tonight and got drowned out a little bit perhaps, but we got a business coming here that wants to invest $12 million and bring 50 jobs so that people can work here and be near their families and have good income and we don't have to experience the brain drain. I talk to these businesses regularly and a lot of them are really intrigued and interested in the workforce development program that we have that occurs at Central Carolina. You've got Woolard Tech there as well. Economic development is there. And you also have the Chamber of Commerce all on the same campus. Nobody else in the state has that.

» And so they get excited knowing that they can have graduates coming off making high-paying jobs and being trained through that program. And so I try to take a holistic approach at this and really want to celebrate that development, which is jobs, not increased residential houses. But I feel like I have to just stand up and say something about individual property rights because I have not heard that focused on very much tonight. There is a world in which I perhaps could have supported a moratorium that was narrowly tailored. And I will be asking our attorney tonight on particularly legal issues that I see with this apparently hastily done on a special called meeting that's now landed before us ordinance.

» It didn't go through the normal channels being deliberate and thought about and researched. And I'll share a few facts, I hope, in my feverish research over the last few days that will make some sense. And so if you're going to impact a private property right, it has to be narrowly tailored, in my opinion. And I think our legal counsel will concur with that, that you have to narrowly tailor it to the least restrictive means possible. So in asking around and doing research, I've discovered that the primary concern is in the West Watery area with the explosive growth that's occurring over there, particularly along the river corridor.

» Okay, I get that, that area and some of the current concerns that are literally stated in black and white on this, this draft ordinance, don't have too much to do. If you're not on sewer in East Camden or Bethune or Cassett, as an example, if you're not near the Watery River at all. And one of the stated purposes here is we need to have a scientific research study done all along the Watery River to determine stormwater. So it's very difficult for me to look at a high traffic area in West Watery and say, you have to be treated the same. Or particularly someone who's in a remote portion of the county, you have to be treated the same. We're just going to say you can't do anything with your property for, it's six months on the face here, but I'll get to why it would actually be much longer.

» I have a real issue with that. I think you have to stand up for personal property rights and respect that someone who has, if it's 5.1 acres near sewer, I think they should be able to do what they want to with their property and subdivide it or sell it. They've been paying taxes on it perhaps for a really long time and they've earned that right in my opinion. If they're 10.1 acres and they're going to do septic, I think they should be able to subdivide and do what they want to with their property if they want to sell it to. Maybe something that's not exempt you indicated, Mr. DuBose, that the children and perhaps family transfers might be okay over five acres. But I think you should really stand up and recognize personal property rights.

» The reason that a 180 day time period, which everyone is promising, you know, we would stay within that time period, it's just not possible. I was trying to find some authority I could ask about how long does it take to do this type of river corridor overlay district study. And again, there is a world in which I could say major subdivisions, I tend to agree with Mr. Brazel, major subdivisions are having the major impact. We need to focus on those. Let's not hit the small mom and pops and individuals that maybe that's their retirement. You know, that land has a lot of meaning to people and to me it's rooted in liberty what they can do with it.

» But there was a world in which if the if the moratorium had been drawn along the watery river and perhaps a highway one corridor where there's dense population high traffic counts. I probably could have gone with that. I proposed that and discussed it some and there wasn't a lot of interest there. It would make sense to allow other people in the county to do what they need to and what they want to with their property. And then address the areas of direct concern. Camden's already under a direct moratorium. And so that's a significant portion of the population that's taken up. But back to timeline. So I thankfully got a call back from Ryan Carter today.

» And so the same authority that we're looking to with the Catawba Riverkeeper Organization has been around for 27 years in making a contribution for Lingbia. That issue and fighting that issue up on Lake Watery and that trickles down into the river that same authority. When I asked him, you're you're aware of this issue that we have a moratorium proposed and coming up? And he said, yes. I said, how long would a study like this take? The draft period is proposed to be six months only not to extend. Right. And so I've confirmed that any type of securing of a consultant in this way has to follow procurement state law. We can't violate the law. You have to follow procurement.

» Just got an average from a few of the last procurement projects we went through in that bid process is a two and a half to three month process. OK, so there's half of your six months and then going back to the authorities on the matter. And I would have been glad to have them here. But this was such short notice that we're not able to actually have some of these folks who might be able to speak intelligently about it. It would have been nice to talk to experts in much more detail and maybe even have them attend. But a study of this nature has to go on for at least 12 months. And let me in my layman's way try to explain why.

» What I learned was if you include stormwater and some of those drainage concerns related to a watershed, you have to do it for a full year because you have to catch all four seasons. You can't do it just in hurricane season. If you're in hurricane season, your data will be skewed for high water table and serious drainage issues. You can't do it just in the dry season because you'll miss hurricane season. And so you have to get the dry and the wet portions of the year to have an average out to understand what the study even means. Your data will be skewed either way. And so for those reasons, and then just some practical ones like in following up with staff, one of the stated facts that we're supposed to adopt and condone is that there's 2,000 pending lots.

» Staff informed me it's 1443 is the actual number. And so I can't adopt a number that's not actually accurate. And you want to adopt a budget? Mr. Jones, I think we had an adequate explanation tonight from Mr. Tyler on that. While I still have the floor, I was completely fine with his explanation and understood it as well. And the thing that's curious to me is on process.

» If you really wanted this to have a chance at success because it's the first time it's ever happened in Kershaw County and should be treated as such, we would have had this conversation maybe a month, month and a half ago, two months ago, something like that before budget work sessions occur and say, how do we figure out, how do we pay for a moratorium? If it was, if you want to give it the least chance of success, it would happen in a special called meeting that just lands before county council, when nobody can really talk to anybody or research it or really think about it. And it would be done after first reading in the budget.

» Like the budget's already been, we've already gone through the work sessions to fund what was important and set as priorities in the budget work sessions with council. And so for those reasons, and the fact that it now includes minor subdivisions before us, I cannot support this. We're talking about impacting mom and pops and individual home builders. Mr. Brazel called some names. There's Moes Denton and several other high quality builders, Stacy, who would be impacted by this in a way in which I haven't been able to discuss with any stakeholders in a meaningful way. And then beyond that, it's going to be a lot longer than six months. You're looking at least 12 months of data gathering after three months of procurement to find the experts to do it.

» And then they would crunch the numbers, give us a report. And this council as a body would deliberate and make some decision on it. So again, I could have favored at some point a moratorium that was very narrowly tailored, narrowly drawn. Is that a fair assessment, Mr. DuBose, that you have to identify the least restrictive means to accomplish an important government interest? Yes, more or less. You identify the issue that you are trying to address, and then you should try and use the most, the least restrictive means to accomplish that goal. Okay, I may have some more comments, but that's just my thoughts. I usually speak last, but I just wanted to say that. Mr. Shoemake. Yeah, so I have a couple questions. You know, I was kind of, you know, I see Mr.

» Braz voted against, and obviously Councilman Braz and I have worked hand in hand on a lot of the growth issues up to this point. Mr. Templar, am I correct in what I said before? I mean, I want to make sure, because I've talked to staff, and as Chairman Connell mentioned, this moved extremely fast. Am I correct that it could be tens of thousands, if not likely six figures, to do the work that is required, or that is mentioned that is going to be done during the moratorium? Is that fair? We're looking at six figures? Yes, sir. And is it fair to say that money's not in the budget right now? No, sir. Is the money in the budget? No, I'm sorry. I misspoke. The money is not in the budget. This is not something we plan for.

» Councilman Brazel, what would you think about referring this to finance and pushing it for another vote? I mean, I want this to be something, you know, when I was first contacted about this, the understanding was this had unanimous support from the Planning Commission. It came from them as a split vote, and it's up here before us now with a split vote with two of the people that have worked most on growth, if I do say so myself, splitting on this issue. So I'm just curious, and if you don't feel comfortable, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm just trying to, you know, what we're going to do here tonight is a bit irrevocable if it goes forward.

» And I'm just curious what your thoughts are on sending it to finance, because if we can't pay for work during, I've heard Councilman Cato say he doesn't want to extend it past six months. I understand that. And if we're going to, if we have a moratorium that we know for a fact is really going to last a year, I just have some real concerns with that. And I was just curious, I'd like to get your input on that, Councilman Brazel. Never apologize to me for putting me on the spot. I was built for this. Well, good. So what do you do? You understand what I'm telling you? Yeah. I was built for this moment with you and/or anyone else. I want you to hear me when I say this. Every amendment that was made tonight was made to kill this. Administrator. Agreed.

» Did we get the grant from the Rural Infrastructure Authority for Pecan Orchard? That was part of my briefs. No. It was turned down. How much money did we put up to match that grant? $200,000, $230,000. It was a 25% match. I just found the money needed. Now, you hear me when I say this. Hey. I was made, I was made, I was made, I was made for doing, I was made, I was made for doing the right thing for the people. I ran my campaign for less than $5,000. You can look at my ethics reports and see who gave me money and who didn't give me money. I'm not here representing anybody. I'm not here representing anybody, and I'm not even a trained lawyer. Call the vote, Chairman, please. Well, we got to see if anybody else wants to have any discussion or comments that haven't spoken.

» I do about the cost, if I could, please. Mr. Jones. And I want to tell you something right now. I have so much respect for Russell Brazel. He's a warrior. And let me tell you something. He stands up for the people in Kershaw County. You see what you get out of that man. And I know some of my folks don't like him. Some of his folks don't like me. But he and I work well together. And let me tell you something. When he speaks, I'll listen. I'll listen to what he has to say. And he has never, ever ambushed me because I've been ambushed tonight. But I want to say something about the cost, what we're talking about, the cost with the Overly District. You know, my colleagues are saying that there isn't any funding for this in the budget. Well, we need to find some, and we can find it. And Mr.

» Brazel just found it. First, I don't think this will be as expensive as everyone is saying. Second, I think we need to look at our priorities as a council. My colleagues seem to find spending millions of dollars on public recreation projects. But now they are saying we don't have enough money to fix our subdivision regulations. I don't think this will cost as much as I am hearing. That's just my opinion. But even if it does, the cost is a small fraction of what we have spent on parks for the last two years. Third, we are a, well, we are on our second reading of the budget tonight. And you heard that. Everyone is sitting here and heard it. We heard the, the, the, the, Ms. Brazel, thank you.

» I have a hard time believing that we can't find, we can't fund efforts to improve our subdivision regulations. Okay. This deals with where our citizens live and where they raise their families. So, and I don't oppose developers, but something's got to be done. And, and let me tell you something, folks. It has been talked about for a long time tonight, but thank God, thank God that, that our planning commission sent this to us. And we got it up here for some results tonight. And I see the hands doing this. I see all that. I get it. I get it. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any further comments or discussion? Nope. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tucker. I've sat here and listened very diligently to everyone who has spoke, but I just want to give a little bit of homework out for, for all of us.

» The ones that sit up here on this dais as elected officials, as well as the people in the audience. A lot of us outside of Lexington County thought they were just plum crazy when they did the moratorium. But what we didn't realize is that they took about a year to get that in place. Then it took another 18 to 24 months to implement it and get it right. I'm not completely against the moratorium, but I do want to make sure that we take the proper steps. And Councilman Brazel, I appreciate you pointing out where some money can be found. But I still would like the estimate on costs and what that's going to look like from staff and our legal counsel. And I'm not beyond going about this moratorium in the right way.

» I don't want to be part of a lawsuit that has triggered already once because it seemed as if we target a builder or developer. That I won't do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, may I just. Mr. Jones. You had. What's your name? Shoemake. I'm sorry. Mr. Shoemake. Yes. What was the proposal you made to Russell Brazel about? I would draw that. I'm not going to work with someone who screams at me. So we're fine. We can go forward. I'm ready to support it. Again, I'll amend it to say every resident. So I was trying to find a common ground, but apparently somehow that made me evil. So I'm ready to go. Okay. Mr. Jones. We all need prayer up here. Let me see.

» Is there any interest at all in narrowing this thing to something that applies to the densely populated areas and the stated area of concern? Make amendment, Mr. Chairman. Along the watery river. It's just discussion. I don't have to make an amendment. But if you're saying what you would do, make an amendment, I may support you in that. Yeah. I would like to see if there's interest. I think rational minds... I'm interested. Just let me finish the discussion, please, Mr. Jones. I think rational minds have to come together on this issue and realize that if you're talking about minor subdivisions, this is mom and pop or small home builder for not six months. This is not blustering. For over six months, more likely over a year after three months of procurement.

» After we vote in two more readings, you go through three months of procurement and then you're looking like a year at least for the study. I'm not comfortable with that. And looking small home builders and local craftsmen in the eye, maybe a major subdivision restriction along the watery river corridor. There's been discussion of 10,000 feet linear from either side of the river on down through the river. And there's a bunch of squiggles in there. I'd let people who are engineers and measure that kind of stuff figure it out. That still is yet to say, you know, it has to, at some points, I guess, go to finance for funding appropriation under our rules. Even if someone has found money or identified funds, it still has to go through finance on rules that I didn't set.

» The prior council voted on those rules. And then I think it's a 14-day window. I just looked back at the rule after that issue was brought up, a 14-day window that it goes back to council for recommendation. So what interest, gentlemen, do we have on reaching some type of compromise where a remote non-sewer on septic, so they're not on sewer and they have a well, so they're not on water, in Cassett or East Camden or Bethune or somewhere out that way, have just one acre or two acres or three acres and they want to subdivide and do something with their property? Are we still going to impact them with this type of vote? Please, some discussion. Well, if you don't mind. Yes, sir. Please, Mr. Cato.

» I think that we on this side of the Watery River is also concerned about growth, whether it be Bethune, Cassett, Westville, or whether it be around Red Fox Road or out around Dusty Bend. Everybody's concerned about it, so I don't think singling out one particular part of the county is going to help the overall growth. I think we're talking about overall growth and what I would like to call responsible growth. So, I would like to see responsible growth on this end of the county also, on the northern end of the county. And I say northern, I mean north of the river. So, I don't know if I could support just one particular area. I'd like to see it cover the county so that we can make sure that that growth is responsible in the future.

» Well, just in response, I mean that's the definition of an overlay district or corridor. It applies to one specific area, at least for that part, which is what I was referring to. Any other comments or discussion? One last thing. I apologize to my colleague. I did not mean to get so hot-tempered. It's just that there's been a lot of misspeak about how this came about. And a lot of it was directed towards me early on. And you all received an email from me clarifying that. I will state publicly, I did not appreciate the way I was treated. You were not one of those people. So, if I took some of that anger out on you, it was an accident, and I apologize. Well, let me say something. First off, I love you and your apology is obviously accepted. And to you too, Councilman Jones.

» I didn't apologize. I know you didn't. I do, but let me tell you. But listen, but I want to say, listen, my comments. Thank you. I made some comments about this being political, and I do not withdraw those. But let me be very clear. I was not referring to anyone on this body. Okay? I was referring to things that happened outside of this body. I believe there was a political operation at foot to try to force this down all our throats to cause this division. And maybe I'm wrong at a conspiracy theorist. I don't know. But that was what I was referring to. But I'm ready for the vote unless we have a compromise amendment on the floor. I would like, Mr. Chewbacca, I do accept your apology. Thank you. Did you apologize? I don't think so. Sure. I'm sorry. Mr.

» Chairman Connell, you were making some points out there. Mr. Jones. Could you maybe, why don't you put an amendment together? See where it goes? I'm thinking of one right now, but I also want to clarify a couple of legal issues. It's good to talk it, but let's walk it. Yes, sir. I want to clarify a couple of legal issues based on the new environment. We're in a minor subdivisions. So, I mean, this is truly our neighbors. So, Mr. DuBose, if, say between now and second reading, I know you don't want to deal with a hypothetical, and you're just smiling, but between now and second reading, say it becomes clear that a study of the type that is one of the whereases, it says we have to do it in the study, can't be done within six months. Maybe it takes 18 months.

» Would the ordinance be void on its face for failure to be able to accomplish the purpose that's stated in the moratorium? So, in enacting a moratorium, I'll answer your question with a little bit of a, I guess, 101 or 202. The, if you enact a moratorium as a local government, you have to identify an issue. You have to have a finite period of time. And once you identify the issue, you actually have to work on it. Do you necessarily have to bring it all the way to fruition in the six months? Not necessarily, but the moratorium on its face expires in six months. If that, some component of it is not completed in six months, the moratorium would lapse unless extended by council.

» So, again, I think if the lion's share of tasks within a moratorium can be accomplished, and the local government actually does what it says it intends to do, again, things come up, things take longer. I don't necessarily think it would make it facially void. And just for what it's worth, if more information were gained or that portion of it was not achievable in six months, the moratorium could expire and that work could continue on, perhaps, without a moratorium, the specific river study, I guess. So, that's a long answer, not a yes or no. But, again, it's a fairly nuanced topic. And moratoriums and their permissible scope and time is also a fairly nuanced topic. All right. So, I'd like to put forth an amendment by way of motion.

» And the chair doesn't typically make motions, but in this circumstance, it feels appropriate. So, I'll make a motion that we amend the current Tomlinson amendment that we have before us. We're back on, as amended, that within 10,000 feet of the Watery River's edge. So, this would cover 97, I believe. I was given the number and measure it. And it would cover highway five in that direction. So, you cover your river corridor and river district study for a six-month period. I'm not changing the time period. Maybe y'all can find somebody who can work miracles and get it done in less than four seasons and somehow account for the dry season and hurricane season.

» And then, within 5,000 feet of Highway 1 and I-20, we put in this temporary moratorium that accounts for the most densely populated areas in the county, allows other folks. And I just mentioned those areas because I've got a lot of friends out there. But there are remote parts of Elgin. There are remote parts of Lugolf down 601 in that area that, in my opinion, I don't think we have a real justifiable basis to impact their property rights in such a negative way to include minor subdivisions. And that's my motion. Repeat it one more time. Yeah. So, my motion is on the Tomlinson amendment. On the Tomlinson amendment. And also, I think we should exclude plan development districts because the whole purpose is you can't file by right, if I'm not incorrect there, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr.

» Templer, or I'm not sure if we have Joey here, but you can't file by right. You essentially have to come to council and indicate what you'd like to do. Correct, Mr. DuBose? Yes. And so, that's not something that can be filed by right anyway. And so, if we're trying to get to discussions with developers about smart development, I think that's one of the ones that we should exclude. And that was included in my amendment. That it was exempted? Yes. Okay. So, PDDs and single family were part of the exclusion of the amendment. Maintaining that exemption. My motion would be within 10,000 feet of the Watery River's edge and 5,000 feet of Highway 1 or I-20 where you have this moratorium put in. That's my motion. Is there a second? Don't mind or subdivision? It doesn't have definition.

» Well, if there's no second, then the motion fails. If it had more definition. If I had more time. I know. So, I'll make an amendment just as Councilman Connell did to Mr. Thomason's amendment that may be a happy median. Will we compromise to minor subdivisions being defined in the short term as five homes or less? So, if we're in discussion. I think that would require three readings and a vote to amend the explanation. There's no way to… Well, as a point of… Well, yeah. Your amendment, if it specifically supersedes… I mean, Tomlinson's amendment right now is the law of the case for lack of a better term. Correct. The vote is passed. I believe it would have to be reconsidered or… and then amended from a parliamentary standpoint.

» And the only people that could reconsider that amendment would be the prevailing parties to that amendment. Now, your motion to amend his for five is the number. Sorry, I'm working through this parliamentary process in my head. It's probably fine if… Yeah, if y'all have a majority vote, it would overrule, I think, the prior amendment. But, yeah, perhaps it can proceed. So, is that a yes or no? Make it in the form of a motion again, please. All right. I know everybody's tired of talking about this. Yeah. And you're not even talking, right? Councilman, if I may. I… So, right now, with the short time period, I've even had to think of this.

» And this is something that I crunched over the weekend while my family and I were in Buford for a ceremony, for a road being dedicated after my wife's grandfather's name, who was a World War II veteran, passed away prior to her being born. So, we were down there. We came back. We had baby showers. So, during that time, I'm sitting here looking at it and looking at kind of what I felt was right for Kershaw County. And I've talked to, actually, a lot of small builders in general. And they said that, I mean, a lot of them saying they're behind right now. They got enough work for them to handle for the next year. Majority of them do. And it's still not taking the fact away that they can build a single-family residence.

» You know, their local builders are the ones who are going to be contracted to build those single-family homes. And so, with that part, I'm not trying to hurt local builders. I completely agree. I'm pro anybody here in Kershaw County as we voted for a gentleman who tried to rezone a property. You know, I think there's things we can look at. But for right now, just kind of the timeline I'm on, I think minor subdivisions and our ordinances are anything less than 10 lots. And I want to stick with that for right now. You know, you make a good point. And the point you just made is the small builder, you don't want to hurt them. They are in direct competition with the national builders. And every small builder I've talked to as well says they are working me out of a job.

» So, I will support it with your amendment. Thank you. Any further discussion or comments? All right. Well, gentlemen, before we call it to a vote, I'll just close with, I really think this is going to take longer than six months based on the study information. We might be educated. I might be educated. And with such a short period of time to do some research, I might learn something new between now and the next reading. I hope you all will have open dialogue and communications with that. But with minor subdivisions being included, I just can't vote in favor of this because I think it will impact people's property rights too much, too substantially. And I don't think, as I said before, that it's the least restrictive way to accomplish this goal. Now we have three readings.

» We do have three readings. All right. Just to make sure we're clear on the amendment, including minor subdivisions, exempting PDDs, and single family. And single family. Okay. Yes. All right. With no further discussion, we'll move it to a vote. All in favor of the moratorium on the Tomlinson Amendment, which is the one on the floor. We've got Shoemake in favor, Brazel in favor, Mr. Cato, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Jones in favor. All against, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Connell against. Thank you, gentlemen. Is that a 5-2 vote now? I couldn't hear it. 5-2. It takes us to the next agenda item, which is, let me grab this again. Oh, goodness gracious. All right. 10-A, next agenda item, 10-A, Lugoff Fire Department budget. Can you give them just a minute, Mr. Chair? Yeah, let's let everybody clear out.

» And by the way, anybody on council needs a quick break? Yes. Yeah, this is a particularly long meeting. We're going to take a quick, let's take a three-minute recess. Thank you. We're in recess. And we're back. Thank you. Thank you for having the mics on. This brings us to item 10-A, Lugoff Fire Department budget. Fire Chief, Chris Spitzer. This would involve two potential motions. One will be to bring up Chief Spitzer so we can hear from him on the presentation. And the second one would be in relation to any budget that is presented. Do we have a motion? I make a motion that we hear from Mr. Spitzer on his 25-26 budget. Thank you, ma'am. All right. All right. We've got a first. Is there a second? I'll second the time. Okay. I'll second.

» Chief Spitzer, please come up for your presentation. Thank you, sir. Chief, they're fighting over you this time. They're fighting over you for the motion and second this time. I was waiting on you, actually. I was just glad y'all got some energy left. I thought we was going to need a fire hose a little bit. What you got? We may have a few out there in the parking lot. I just got a couple pieces of paper here. I'm getting here together. The packet was sent over on Tuesday. Now, I know Ms. Hanna took care of that for me. Thank you for doing that for me, Ms. Hanna. You're always so great. So, members of council and chairman, it's unfortunate. But we have, I have struggled with this since January. The budget has been really tough this year. We're no different from anybody else.

» And I made this on May 19th. Lugol Fire Department Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the new tax increase. And, of course, we had a public hearing with no opposition. No one showed up for opposition. I didn't receive the first phone call. Of course, we ran everything in the paper like we were supposed to and advertised in the manner we were supposed to. So, in the past, and I spoke with this in depth with my board of commissioners, is I've taken great pride in the last 13 years of not having to raise taxes. And when you sit down and think about that, that is absolutely unbelievable that a government agency has not raised taxes in 13 years. And I took great pride in that. And I, you know, I stand up here every year and I haven't been chief for 13 years. I became chief in 2017.

» And, but the research shows that it's been back since 2012 that we asked for a tax increase. Now, we did get the fire fee increase in 2022 when the Kershaw County Fire Service received that fire fee increase. So, I really kind of lay that blame on me because over time, instead of taking so much pride in balancing the budget, I should have been more focused on trying to equal this thing out over time. And I did not do that, which brought me to, of course, having to get in touch with our, what our fire department attorney, Lawrence Flynn from Pope and Flynn, one of the best special purpose district attorneys in the, in the state and getting with him.

» So, we, since we have not gone and, and, and, and sought, um, a tax increase, we were able to go back, of course, the previous three years, which brought us to 2022. And what we saw was we've had, um, of course, growth. Growth has been, um, one of the biggest issues that we've seen. Um, we've outgrown the fire department. We've outgrown staffing. 2022, um, we had a CPI of 1.23%, a population growth of 1.08%. In 2023, CPI of 8%, population growth of 2.47%. 2024, we saw a CPI of 4.12% with a population growth of 4.87%. And as of the time that these numbers were run, uh, approximately two months ago in 2025, um, CPI was at 2.95% with a, uh, population growth of 2.21%. And of course, we aren't finished growing. Um, that's still going to continue. And that has been a very hot topic tonight.

» So what has happened is one of the reasons why we have not sought increases is because we've been so successful with getting grants. And the grants have dried up. We just don't have access to them anymore. And it's unfortunate because in the last 10 years, we received $1.1 million in grants. And I, uh, contribute that to, uh, Battalion Chief Chris Jones, who works his butt off to write these grants for us. And I want to thank every member that has showed up here tonight and sat through, uh, roughly three and a half hours of county council with some very important topics that was taken care of tonight. What we've seen is, of course, we had federal grants, state grants, local grants, but here's what's happened. All of our vendors have not changed their pricing.

» Their pricing still remains the same as if we're still getting handed millions of dollars when we're not. The average firefighter stepping off of a fire truck equipped from head to toe is wearing $26,000 worth of equipment that is made to survive one thermal event. Meaning exceeding a certain temperature level. Friday night, we lost a set of gear to a structure fire because we exceeded the certain temperature level. Now, did we lose the full $26,000? No. The SCBA made it through. The radio made it through. The helmet did not make it through. The pants, the coat did not make it through. The boots made it through, but the gloves and the helmet included did not make it through. That's going to be roughly $6,000 or $7,000.

» We had a wreck, not a wreck, we had a fire on the interstate approximately two years ago. And I spoke in depth about this with our chairman, Connell. That one fire alone on a packaging truck cost my fire department $19,000 to put out. That's $19,000 that we don't recoup, that we don't see. We just can't afford to keep doing this. The average firefighter who I care for deeply within my organization, the average firefighter is making $15.43 within our organization. Putting their life on the line every single day. And let me tell you something. If you think they're not, you're sadly mistaken.

» You know, I hear all the time when I'm out and about, and I'm listening to folks that say, "Hey man, did you see what happened on Live PD last night?" And I'm sitting there thinking, "You have no idea what's going on in your own county." It's the same thing. The same things are happening. What these firefighters are exposed to is unbelievable. If you go back and look at firefighter deaths, firefighter issues, firefighter fatalities, it's not happening in the big cities. It's happening in the small towns, in the cities like we reside in. And it's unfortunate. I will tell you this. If I do not get this budget increase, I have prepared a budget that is balanced. And with that balanced budget, I will have to cut 11 line items in half.

» I will have to lay off or fire approximately seven part-time firefighters who make up a very large portion of our fire department. I will not be able to give any firefighter any increase, cost of living, any promotions, any money related to promotions. Not just the simplest 3% cost of living raise that I think everybody deserves. Again, we proposed in speaking with our attorney, we were eligible for 7.62 mils, which equates to $400,000. That's $400,000 that's going to make the difference between life or death for us.

» When I have to go back and look at my budget and figure out that I got to cut fire equipment in half, when I figure out that I have to cut training in half, when I figure out how I have to cut my professional fees in half to afford our attorney, but what it does is it also affects our ISO rating. If we're not meeting the standards, whether it comes to equipment, whether it comes to equipment, whether it comes to manpower, whether it comes to training, then our ISO rating goes up. We are a proud fire department with an ISO rating of 2. The best you can possibly get is a 1. We are a 2 in Lugov. We are saving taxpayers' money on homeowners insurance. We worked extremely hard to achieve that. And we've got to ensure that we can keep that up. It broke my heart. I lost so much sleep.

» My staff noticed that I was acting different. My staff noticed that I was not the same guy. Of course, my wife obviously noticed. But I lost sleep over having to ask for a tax increase. And I'm still losing sleep because this ain't done yet. It broke my heart because I was always so proud of balancing the budget without asking for a tax increase. But I can no longer ask for that. I can no longer settle for that. And I think I gave y'all a little hint last year when I gave my budget to County Council. And I remember you, Mr. Tucker, looking at me and saying, "After I said, don't forget, I'll be coming for you next year." And you in turn said, "We'll just have your numbers ready." Well, my numbers are ready. And our Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to increase our taxes.

» 7.62 mils, which will bring us from 25.8 to 33.4, brings an additional $400,000 in to the Lugov Fire Department. That's guesstimated. That's an estimate. I don't want us to focus on the millage increase because we're just only 53.8 square miles. That 7.62 mils in the county would just be astronomical. But we're only talking about tiny little Lugov, but we're talking about Lugov Fire Department where we are wore out. We are tired. Our guys are just working to the bone. They're running so many calls. April, according to our stats, was the busiest month we've ever had in the history of Lugov Fire Department since 1968. When I first came with Lugov Fire Department in 2013, we were running approximately 500 calls a year. We're over 2,100 calls this year. And we haven't completed the year yet.

» We're running $1,000,000 fire trucks up and down the road for medical calls. But let me tell you something, I wouldn't change that a bit because our pre-hospital intervention is unbelievable. We have saved so many lives. And I will not change that. With the additional $400,000 that allows me to hire four additional firefighters, bring my staffing up, put a little bit in our contingency fund, and keep us level and exactly in line where we currently are on the 24-25 budget. I'm not getting any big, huge increases. Health insurance is going up 9 to 11% every single year. I don't have human resources. I have Miss Rhonda who helps me. I don't have a finance committee. I don't have anybody to help me with those things. All those things I do myself.

» I have to shop around every year for insurance. Retirement's up 21.24% for employer contribution. Everything is rising. Workman's comp is up. We've had a lot of workman's comp claims. We've had a lot of firefighters heard. And when I go back and say, I want this council to understand when I say I have to lay off seven part-time firefighters, that is part of our family, that it makes up the fabric of Lugol Fire Department. Without those folks, we cannot meet our minimum staffing requirements. Without those folks, we cannot meet the staffing requirements set forth by ISO. And that breaks my heart to know that I've got to cut seven positions loose if I cannot get an increase in taxes.

» I'm here tonight to propose that my board of commissioners and it's in your packet adopted our budget with additional 7.62 mills, which would bring our current millage rate up from 25.8 to 33.4. And again, it will bring roughly in $400,000 in revenue to Lugol Fire Department. That's my presentations and I am open to any questions. Thank you, Chief. Any questions or comments before? Yes, sir. Mr. Tucker? Yes, sir. A couple quick questions, Chief Spencer. One being, is there any fees at all increased in this? No, sir. We're keeping the fee exactly where we're at right now. The only thing we're asking for is the millage increase. All right. And do you know on the millage what is that looking like per household? It is roughly $3.10 per $10,000.

» So a $100,000 home is going to cost you an additional $30 a year. Okay. $200,000 home, $60 a year. $300,000 home, $90 a year. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Any other comments, questions? I was right, but it's okay. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Tucker. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Gee, Spencer, I'm going to say this to you because I've been here a long time approving this budget and the old saying from the Bible, you have not because you ask not. And I'm glad you've swallowed that pride and then you call a thing called your tongue to come before us because what I do know is the cost of living, the cost of things are not going to go down. And sometimes you have to come and ask when you probably know the answer already, but you still have to come and ask.

» And I say that because you never know no until someone tells you. You got that answer. That's what my parents used to say. You know your answer is no if you don't ask. But if you ask, you might get a yes. And what I can say, what I've realized about the citizens, they want an A-1 fire department. They want those calls to be answered when they call in a fashion that is going to be of service to save lives and save injuries and structure and things of that nature. So people don't mind giving a little bit more when they've got A-1 service, but you have to ask. And putting it on millage versus fees, it grows with your population versus the fees. Fees. Fees like buying a vehicle. I tell people this all the time. What happens to a vehicle when you drive it off the lot? It depreciates. Yes.

» That's what your fees do. Yes. Yeah. And the longer you go on them, the less their value are. I agree. So keep that in mind and share that with your folks and your citizens. And the main thing you can do is just keep educating your folks that you represent and that you serve and let them know this is why you have to do things, not because you're greedy, not because you're not a good steward, none of that. But we'll appreciate all that you do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Any other questions, comments? Yeah, Chief, if I may. Go ahead, Mr. Russell. You didn't necessarily ask to be in the hottest spot in Kershaw County, did you? The hottest growing area. I mean, that's who you're serving.

» You're covering a lot of homes that are built side by side on small lots prior to zoning regulations. You didn't ask for that. So I hear where you're coming from. And I want Lugol Fire to know that I support them and their mission. And you and I both know that I'm a very conservative, fiscally minded individual. But I've seen you in action. I passed a Lugol Fire truck on 601 the other day. And there was a horrendous wreck where a tractor trailer had turned over in front of the pilot station. And there was a minivan and I was a fear for the lives of the people involved. And you guys were there in moments. And we want to see you be able to continue to respond like that. No different than we want to be able to see the county's fire service be able to continue to respond like that.

» So we appreciate you being here tonight. And we really value you and our community. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. And on behalf of my staff, I know they do as well. Yes, sir. Not my staff. They're my co-workers. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Brazel. Any other questions or discussion? Chief, I just want to say thank you. Thank you for your professionalism, how you bring this to us each year. And I appreciate that. You know, Mr. Jones has said this many times. I represent District 6, but I represent the whole county. And I have a daughter, son-in-law and a grandson that live right there in Lugol. Yes, sir. And I feel very comfortable with the services y'all provide. And I thank you for that.

» And you know, it's just the day and time we live in, we're going to have to face it that things are going up. So I thank you. I thank you for what you do. I thank you, Mr. Cato. Thank you for always being there for me and listening to me. I really appreciate that. Thank you so much. Any other questions or discussion, council members? Chief, I'll just say thanks for covering my business. That ISO rating being low. And you've actually controlled every variable you can. Some of it relates to hydrant locations and those kinds of things, but you don't have any control over. So for every variable that Lugol Fire can control, they have got the max training, they got the max or best equipment. They've got really everything they need to keep your insurance rates relatively low and respond quickly.

» So I appreciate that. Gentlemen, if there's no further discussion as he's been called up, we need to. Yeah, I tried to get your attention. You just didn't see me. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief, one thing I will say, to hear Mr. Brazos sit down there and say what he said about you is pretty good because he is a very conservative type person. Of course, so am I. I live in Lugol, and I've watched your fire department grow. I was here, along with Mr. Tucker, all the years that you came in here. How many years have you been Chief? Eight. Eight years now. 2017. Is this the first time you've come in here? Second. I think it's the first. Asking for a tax increase? Yes. Yes, sir. The first time. You know, in eight years, that's remarkable. Remarkable.

» What I don't want to see is you have to lay any of those young, healthy guys off back there. And girls. And ladies. Ladies. But I think you've done a fine job. You know, I've always supported you guys. And I know we have put money and put money into our system. But I know one thing about it. The money we put into you is going straight to Lugol Fire Department. Yes, sir. It's going for every penny you say it's going to. Yes, sir. And if you tell me, sit there, and you're telling me that you would have to lay off X amount of people, no way I can't not support you. And I know now I'm not your favorite anymore. But the bottom line is I'm still here. And listen to me. I appreciate what y'all do. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Jones. I really appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

» Any other comments or discussion? All right. If not, we need a motion in the form of approval of the unanimous recommendation that came from Chief Spitzer's board for the, what's that? We did a motion for the presentation. Oh, I got you. Yeah, we did a motion for the presentation. We definitely have to have another motion to confirm the budget request you have, which was, if you clarify for us, the mill number I have at 7.62? That's correct. And that equates to? 400,000. Approximately $400,000? That is correct. Is that the exact number? Or do you have? That's not the exact number. That's based upon what the auditor and Mr. Arledge has given us. We're kind of conservative on it. We try not to go too high or too low.

» We try to meet in the middle to make sure we're pretty comfortable about what we're bringing in. Yeah, and before we get the motion, 7.62 is an exact number we can work off of. That is correct. This would be not us directly spending money as a council, but acknowledging the budget that Lugol Fire Department and its own board wants to set for itself. Correct. Approving it. Is there a motion? Mr. Jones? Don't call me out like that. I support you, Chief. I made the motion. We support the Chief's request. Mr. Jones has a motion. Is there a second? Second. We have a second for Mr. Tucker. Any further discussion needed? We kind of covered it all. Any other discussion? Seeing none, we'll put it to a vote. All those in favor of the motion? Ms. Hanna, it passes unanimously.

» Thank you, Chief Spitzer, for coming out tonight and waiting so long. No, thank you. And I do appreciate it, along with my coworkers that are sitting behind me. Again, thank you so much for being who you are, and we really appreciate everything you do and working with you in the future. I know you have a couple of the best grant writers in the state. I hope that those grants -- We do. Hopefully we can start to get them back. We can use them. All right. Thank you so much, Chief. Thank you. Thank you all. All right. All the employees. Yeah. Thank you. All right, gentlemen, that takes us to -- we already had item 10B earlier in the meeting. That takes us to item 10C, request for a one-time donation of $30,000 placed on the agenda by Vice Chairman Russell Razzle.

» So I just wanted for a point of clarification that we had sent this to finance. I did not see it. I probably overlooked it in the budget. Okay. So it's in there, but maybe -- I'm going to just ask our Chairman of Finance to explain to me where it is in the budget, and I'd like to just ratify this tonight with a vote. Okay. You said Chairman of Finance. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Go ahead. So the 30 -- up to $30,000 was put into the budget that we just passed on second reading. It is for the administrator to spin up to that. He is trying to figure out what other folks are doing that has a part in this watery basin that we're trying to clear from algae. And so -- yeah, it could be 10 that we contribute. That could be the 30.

» But that's going to be up to the discretion of the administrator as he communicates back with counsel and finance. Also, that money is in our A-tax money, Mr. Russell. So I would like to formally make the motion that we solidify $30,000 as a one-time donation to the Catawba Watery Water Management Group. And that changes the dynamic just a little bit. But I'd like to make that in the form of a motion. I second with some clarification. I have a question, but I'll wait until -- yeah, it's already in the budget. So -- but you have the floor. You have a second. So -- so the way Councilman Tucker just explained it was that it was up to the discretion of the administrator and -- respectfully, Danny, everything that we voted on tonight is up to the discretion of counsel.

» And the one thing that -- that I promised the citizens of Lake Watery is we would return them some of their money. There was one gentleman in here tonight that called me earlier. He lives in Columbia. But he said, "You know, my taxes are $5,500 a year because it's a second home." He said, "And everybody on my road's probably that or more." He said, "This has gotten to be a major issue for Lake Watery." And the sad news is -- is Duke is not doing what Santee Cooper would do. I worked for Santee Cooper for 10 weeks. In two of those 10 weeks, it was a college internship. We were on airboats, and they were -- they were treating hydrilla. They had a complete management team to treat the lake. I mean, I don't know how much money it cost them, but it was their cost. It was their burden to bear.

» It's very unfortunate Duke has only contributed $5,000. I think it's egregious, and I think it's -- it's a very sad situation that Lake Watery is treated so poorly by the entity that creates power from it. I reached out and tried to have -- have a positive conversation and got nowhere, and I was told someone would reach back out to me. So to Duke, I say this -- do better. But to the citizens of Kershaw County that enjoy the lake, whether you live on it or not, we shall do our part. And I would like to solidify that tonight with a $30,000 commitment to the Catawba -- let me make sure I don't misspeak. It's been a long night -- Catawba Watery Water Management Group. They have gone above and beyond. They've -- they've gotten Professor from Clemson. He's a nice gentleman.

» He's -- he's retired. I think he was an aquatics professor. He's -- he's donating his time. They're doing this -- I mean, we've got people in the audience still. It's 10 o'clock at night. He's not getting paid to do this. They're doing this because they're protecting the lake. And they're paying a high tax. If -- if you collectively look at the amount of money and revenue that comes from the homes on Lake Watery, it's astounding. So I'd like to do better than our friends. I will say that -- that Duke Energy has provided some assistance. So not in the way of a cash donation, but in the way of some training and that sort of thing. I think he spoke to that earlier. But in my mind, it should be completely their responsibility. And unfortunately, this hasn't been taken care of.

» And I don't want this -- just as Chief Spitzer spoke about things getting out of hand -- this thing can really get out of hand. Then we're going to have a mess. So if they can stay on top of it with this amount of money, I'd like to approve that tonight. You got a second, Mr. Jordan? No, I just -- I want to let you explain why you put it in the budget the way you did. Okay. I got a -- I got a point on it if you -- Yes, sir. So just a point of clarification, I don't think the administrator has any discretion except for recommending the initial budget. It's over $25,000, which is a discretionary limit. It caps out at $25,000. We're talking about a $30,000 line item in the budget that we just approved on second reading. And so it's as locked in as locked in can get.

» This would be a redundant expenditure. It's actually not an amendment to the budget. And so I think it's already covered. I asked for it to be included in the budget. And it was. And then we just approved it on second reading. And it's above the threshold that the administrator can alter it. So I don't -- I don't want to do it twice. And I don't want to get into a confusing situation because the chairman of finance just told me that it was at his discretion. So I'm -- now I'm -- for initial recommendation. Right, right. So the reason why we're doing that is for some of the stated reasons you just thought about. Duke's putting in $5,000. You got Fairfield. We don't know what they're doing. City of Camden. You got Lancaster County. You got Rock Hill, York County up there.

» So we can put in $30,000 and do all we can for $30,000 here in Kershaw, South Carolina. And they do nothing above us. And I don't like using this word, but I'm going to say it. We just pitched away $30,000 because it's coming right back downstream to us. Because that's the way the river flows. So we've got to get all parties involved and make sure they're doing their equal share. So that's why we just didn't say, here's a check for $30,000, run and do what you want to do. Because we don't govern like that. Well, and I hear your point. But there's also a saying that I only control me and we only control us. And believe you me, I have been -- I have been bending ears.

» And we need more ears because what they do above stream is definitely going to affect all our work, our due diligence we do below stream. And so that's why we're trying to make sure that we are fully funded on what they requested, but we're going to be very careful to release what is needed because we need all parties on board. That was the tactic. That was the mission behind our decision. I get that. But this body can't vote on what somebody else does. So we can control what we do. And again, as much money as it comes off that lake, I'd like to solidify it with a vote because there's too much gray right this minute for me. I'm sorry you feel that way. Well, I mean, I'm not -- I'm not sad over it. I'm not angry either. I have to agree with him, Sammy. I'm going to have to vote for this.

» So anyway, if -- Well, if it's in the budget and it's approved in the budget, I mean, if we've already got it in the budget, I mean, I kind of agree with you, Russell. I mean, if we -- if the budget passes and it's in the budget, then let's give it to them. It's in the budget. Well, he just said that it was at the administrator's discretion to spend -- Yeah, but I'm agreeing with you. -- up to them. Okay. So you don't mind if we can take it to a vote? I mean, I don't -- I don't mind just giving the -- you know, go ahead and saying they get $30,000. Now, my question is, do we do this all in one lump sum or do we give it to them kind of like a draw, so to speak, as to when they're -- We could have him come up here and talk if y'all like.

» Well, I'd like to -- I'd like to do a point of order, if I can. Sure. Point of order takes precedence. Mr. Shoemake. I just -- the one concern I have is, if this isn't an amendment to the budget, which has already passed, and the -- this matter has already come to the Finance Committee where the recommendation had been voted on for the budget. So, I mean, I guess my issue is, is this even an appropriate form for this to go forward in? Because we're voting on something we've literally already put money into. I didn't -- I didn't see it in the budget. So where is it at? Show it to me. Show it to me in the budget. I've got the budget here. And I've got all nine. It is in the line item for contracted services for administration.

» So it's -- it's -- it's -- again, it's -- again, it's very gray, and it could be used -- it could be 5,000, it could be 2,000, it could be 30,000. What -- what I'm asking is that we solidify it, and Mr. DuBose, am I fair in this request? I understand your request and what's been discussed. It is budgeted up to $30,000, but the exact amount would be at the discretion of the administrator. Considering other people's buy-in, what I understand you're saying is you want it to be 30,000 to them, period. Correct, sir.

» And I think that distinction, and also it's within a larger line item, I think, yes, if you want to get granular and say 30,000 is going to this entity specifically, I don't know that it's improper for a vote, given the context in which it was explained, that it's not definitively $30,000 as it stands in second reading, and that is what you were asking it to be, definitively $30,000. So, yeah, I think it would be appropriate for your motion. Thank you.

» Now, let me ask one question, and I don't mean to throw sand in nobody's eyes, but how -- what do we have to protect us to make sure that that $30,000 is being spent to treat the shores of Kershaw County, and it's not going to the Fairfield County side, or it's not going to Lancaster County side? How do we make sure -- we make sure that it's being -- it's treating the issues that's on the Kershaw County shoreline? I've got a -- hang on just a second. Good question. Councilman. That is a very valid point. Somewhere in this atrocity of paperwork I have is a map. This -- that's a 2021 map. Is the 2021 the newest, or is there a newer map? All right. Here we are. The spots that are highlighted in red are -- they go around and spot treat it just like you're spraying Roundup.

» I have a question for clarification. So, Mr. Templer, in our discussions, I've asked you about whether these funds are in the budget and was told unequivocally they're in the budget. They are. And so, do you have that in the form of some confirmed writing with a third party, or how do you -- how can we confirm that they're in the budget beyond what you've told me? I've never had to produce definitive receipts for -- I'm just -- I mean, do you have e-mails going backwards? Is there something there, or -- No, I mean, I -- I mean, as y'all's administrator, I'm telling you this money's in there. Okay. That's the response I got from you that -- If we need $30,000 for this, sir, I will get it. My -- And then source from Atax? Sir. Source from Atax? No, I have -- I did not use Atax.

» I had thought about three different pots, Atax. I thought about sewer as a utility. And my tension came from we have utility water providers on both sides of the river that are only given $10,000. So I just wanted to have an equitable contribution. Fairfield County is at 5K. They may go up to 10. 10K seems to be the going rate. But at this point, I can tell you, on record, there is $30,000 in this budget for that. And if y'all want to spend it all there, let me know. I would be happy to accommodate. Okay. If I may. Mr. Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand what Russell's trying to do. But I have full faith into the administrator and staff. He's reaching out to these other entities as well. Some of them has not been apprised of any money being asked.

» And this is just as recently as last week, where he's reached out and tried to make communications to these folks. So, Danny's really trying to play a team leader here on getting more people to contribute to the pot. And I appreciate that because we need more than just our 30,000 to do the job appropriately. So, Russell, as much as I love you tonight and we're about to spend the night together, I'm going to have to not support this amendment tonight. Okay. Well, I got no problem with that. I'll never fault anybody for how they vote, but I don't think you can compare a water provider's net revenue or gross revenue to the gross revenue of Kershaw County as a tax collector. No, and that's not what I'm trying to do. So, if you were participant parties. Well, I do too. Yeah.

» Like, I will use a term that I hadn't heard since Julian Burns was the chairman. We viciously agree. Viciously agree. Violently. Violently agree. It was violently. It was the word. So, we are violently in agreement and I would like to ask the chairman to call the vote, please. There's no further discussion, no other comments. It's not an amendment. We just have a motion on the floor. Mm-hmm. All right. So, all in favor of the motion, raise your hand. We got Mr. Brazel, Mr. Cato, and Mr. Jones in favor. All opposed? Mr. Shoemake, Mr. Tucker, Connell, and Tomlinson for the record, Ms. Hanna. The motion fails. All right. That takes us to the next. Well, let's be clear. If the budget passes, the third is still there. Absolutely. Okay. Unless somebody amends it on the third reading.

» I just wanted to make sure that's clear. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. That takes us to the next item, which is item D. My motion, and this is regarding the summer meeting schedule. This is 10-D. My motion is that we amend our meeting schedule to delete the June 24 meeting due to summer travel of various council members and have that meeting on July 17th. That's my motion. Is there a second? Second. Got a second for Mr. Tucker. All right. And so for discussion, various council members are on travel, summer family vacations. I announced this over, I think it was about a month ago, talking about this already, trying to coordinate everybody's schedules, moving the June 24th meeting to June 17th. And we do intend to have third reading of the budget on that date so that we have additional time.

» Instead of doing it on the June 10th meeting, it gives us another bit of time to work on the budget. And I feel like it's complete and adequate notice for the public because we've been talking about this for a month and a half or so. Mr. Tucker. If I could just add just a slight correction. So it's actually moving up a week because third reading was actually the 24th. It's a special call meeting. Yes, sir. It will be. So we'll get that notification out. But the biggest thing I think we need to do is make sure we notify the public that third reading will be on the 17th, not the 24th. We've been talking about that. And then Mr. DuBose also has, with the local publication being the Chronicle, he's already worked out the schedule where that complies with all notice requirements. So, Mr.

» Chair, June 10th, June 17th will be the next two meetings. Correct. Do you want to cancel on the 10th? We're just doing two. Okay. That's what I was making clear. I want to be clear on that. We're not canceling. Two meetings in June. June 17th. June 17th replaces June 24th due to travel schedules. And we're going to read the budget on the 17th? That would be third reading. Okay. Just want to make sure. Yes, sir. And that's my motion. Any further discussion? Any other comments, questions? All right. Move to a vote. All in favor. Did you get a second? Yes, I seconded it. Well, I have a comment. Go ahead. Here's where I'm at. I'm going to support it.

» But I think we need to be careful when we start moving third reading to a special call meeting because there's not as many people that come to a special call meeting or they don't know about the special call meeting. And I know this council would not do that, but there could be the intent that we're trying to keep low volume for third reading. And I know I'm not, I'm not accusing anybody of that, but that could be perception. So I would like to ask my colleagues for the future if we could really plan to make sure we schedule third reading, you know, properly so we don't have to do a special call meeting for third reading. But I am going to support y'all. And I do know this is in good faith, but I had to say that. That's the way I feel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Yes.

» Like I said, we started talking about this over a month and a half ago openly and in part it's due to local publication run less frequently than they used to. That's just the schedule. A lot of stuff's online now, but we actually have to put it out in publication. And so that lined up best with summer travel schedules. Seeing no further discussion, we'll move it to a vote. All in favor. The Senate's unanimous. Summer schedule is changed as voted on. All right. We've got item number 10 E, approval to live stream planning commission meetings by Mr. Jones. Is this for discussion or is there a motion? I got a new business done. Yeah. It's under new business. I won't take a vote.

» I make the motion that we approve funding for the, not funding, but that we approve for live streaming with the planning zoning department. I think, well, I'll talk about when we get there. I want to see. The zoning, zoning board of appeals will be different. Do you mean planning commission is stated on the agenda? The planning and zoning commission. Okay. I want to see them live streamed the same way county council is. Okay. All right. That's the motion. Is there a second? I'll make a second. Thank you. But I've got a question. Absolutely. I mean, is this something they've asked for? Something I've asked for. They would want it. I can assure you of that. But think about what we've been going through with planning zoning guys.

» Other than county council, that's probably the hottest body that meets. That really, really affects a lot of people in this county, everybody in this county. And some folks would like to attend, but they can't because they can't get there in time or whatever. And I think it's good transparency, good sunshine, and the more meetings that we put out there in the open. But that's just my opinion. Well, they've got a six-month shot clock to make something happen, so it suits me. But I mean, any time we can put a meeting into public side, I think that's a good thing. You have a second. Any further discussion, Mr. Brazel? Nope. Any other comments, questions, discussion? It speaks for itself. So, I just asked about any associated costs. I didn't know if it costs anything to livestream something.

» Apparently, it does. The cost for a year, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Templer, would be roughly $3,000 for any one of our commissions to go livestream as opposed to recorded, which I understand the meeting is already recorded and gets put out. I think you said the last time it was like within 14 minutes the entire meeting was published on the web as opposed to having to livestream and incur some cost? Well, they had an issue with the -- so that was kind of a one-off. I think it was not quite 14 minutes, but it was like 40 minutes or something like that where they had it finished. And then -- but they typically -- they record, they're out the next day on planning and zoning sites. Okay, so it's either out within -- shortly thereafter or within 24 hours? Yes.

» And depending on -- and so if we run into something, you know, we've had our meetings get dinged for copyright issues. And I don't know what could be a copyright issue in this form, but I think it's maybe some of the scanning software that YouTube or whoever else has. It just glitched and picked up something, so we had to resolve that. So you'll have these one-offs, but we -- staff does a really good job at getting them out and getting them up, and it's reflective of what goes on. Well, I'd like to see them live streamed, and I think it speaks for itself.

» And if we don't do that, at least we are recording it, and it'll be out there hopefully very quickly after the -- Danny, what's the average time of putting that meeting out? So they are up with -- normally within the next day -- I'll refer back to my text if you'll give me a minute -- ready to be published the morning after the meetings. PNZ staff will usually post it within a day or two, so -- and we can modify that to make sure that it is the next morning. So barring any unforeseen issues like copyright, things like that, that randomly comes up. All right, I'm going to remove my motion. Okay, the motion is withdrawn. I'm just doing that because I know you guys have the best intent, and I don't make you vote against something that's really good like that. Thank you. Thank you.

» All right, motion is withdrawn. We move on to the next agenda item. No vote. 11A. Mr. Chairman. We don't really have anything on the agenda. This is just as a reminder. Yes, that's what I was about to say. I think we need more time to research out some candidates. Correct. So can we continue this for another date? This is -- this is continued, and I don't see a motion to actually have active discussion on it, but it was a reminder in place. So I don't know a couple of council members are working on identifying the right person to fill particular positions. All right. That takes us to council member briefings. Mr. Cato. You love starting with me, don't you? Well, you did say you're the prettiest. You love starting with me. Well, I'm going to be brief because I'm ready to go home.

» But -- No. I just want to say tonight, I think the spiritedness of this council shows the love and care that each one of us has for Kershaw County. And so I don't think the public needs to take anything to heart that was said or done in here tonight because I think it's kind of like a football team. When you get to sparring against one another, you go at it as hard as you can, and then when you get done, you're still a team. And you're going back to the locker room, and you go home, and you get ready for the next game. But I thank each and every one of my colleagues for their input, and I hope that we're going to be able to move forward in a positive direction on some of these issues to include this budget. I just want to have a reminder of a general public meeting at the Mt.

» Physical Resource Center. That'll be next Monday, June 2 at 6:00 p.m. And we'd love to have people come up there and attend that meeting. It's very informative, and you can see some of the stuff that they've done up there. They have done an outstanding job. Other than that, I wish everybody -- just kids are out of school -- wish everybody a happy and safe summer. And that ends my report. Mr. Tomlinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In honor of Memorial Day yesterday, one day behind, you know, we sit up here and have heated conversations and doing what we believe is right for Kershaw County. But real heroes, both men and women, lost their lives while fighting for the freedoms that we're allowed to sit here.

» And yesterday was that day, and it shouldn't be every single day because that is something that is a sacrifice that lives on for generations, not only through families, but that's the reason we're allowed to sit here right now. So if you've had family members or loved ones, friends that have been lost at a time of war while serving our country, I'm with you. Thank you -- thank them for their service because that's why we're here. I really appreciate all of my colleagues, and I've enjoyed the discussion tonight. I don't -- you know, I think there's going to be many more discussions going forward, but thank everybody for the time and the audience for the time of being here. That concludes my comments. Thank you, Mr. Tomlinson, as well. Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

» I want to start with -- No report. No. Listen, I am -- Mr. Tucker, please. I am -- first off, let me say this. You're making it -- I appreciate the good spirit of debate tonight. I do. And Mr. Cato, I think you do a fine job for your community, by the way. I want to be the bigger man and say it first. Anyway, guys, on a serious note, Pecan Orchard needs help. I find out tonight we -- I didn't get a call. I didn't know that we had been turned down on the grant, but we have been. But the problem is still there. And these people pay their taxes they live in, and it is probably the worst drainage of any subdivision. They probably had the worst drainage of any subdivision in Kershaw County.

» And I'd like to ask you all to think about it, and let's figure out what we can't do to help those people out there. And if somebody can get back with me in a week or so, or call me, got some ideas, let's just try to do something for them. I would do it no matter where it was in the county, I would do it. So anyway, that concludes my report. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Mr. Shoemake. Yeah, three things, pretty briefly. Mr. Thomas, I already mentioned Memorial Day. Corporal William Thomas Perkins Jr. is the only combat photographer to ever win a Medal of Honor. Did so by jumping on a grenade while covering the Vietnam War. And as a former combat correspondent myself in the Marine Corps, it's always something I like to remember because he was, you know, right there in the thick of things.

» So, but again, thinking about all those veterans that we lost on Memorial Day. I want to talk briefly about the moratorium. I think we've still got a lot of work to do. I said as much in my briefing, I do not think we can do what is proposed to be done in six months. So I look forward to working with some of the other council members. I thought Chairman Connell's idea about limiting maybe the geographic scope was a really good one. It was first reading. So I just want to make that very clear that I absolutely support this moratorium or a moratorium if we'll be able to get things done. But I think that my research over the next week or so is going to show me that getting a countywide assessment done at the scale that planning commission proposed isn't feasible.

» And I don't think there's an appetite here to extend this moratorium in 18 months. So I'd rather have something that works than something that sounds good and doesn't work. So I'll continue to work with Councilman Brazel, Chairman Connell and others to find something. And I think we all expressed some concern about Councilman Jones, some concern about, you know, this not really being the right type of moratorium for what we need. So I look forward to working with all my council members to figure out, you know, how to refine this as we go to second and third reading and appreciate all the spirit of discussion. And last, Councilman Brazel, congratulations to your son and to your son as well, Councilman Jones for graduations.

» You know, we've and my own son graduated Lugolf Elgin this past week. So obviously, you know, that's why I think we get so spirited up here, because we have kids that we would like to see in theory return to this county. Your son's going to be a super musician somewhere. We don't have the Philharmonica Kershaw County yet, but maybe when we do, he can come back, too. But I think we all want our kids to have a place to live and to grow old and have their own families. And that's really what this is about. No matter what we agree or disagree with on here, fundamentally, every single one of us wants that. So that's all I have. And I heard you did a good job at the graduation. I tried. I tried. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shoemake. Mr. Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

» Very briefly, I want to ditto what Councilman Shoemake said about all the grants, whether it was high school or college. Congratulations. These are two big moves you'll be making in life. One of them will welcome you to adulthood if you're graduating college. One of them will welcome you. Keep working, because I hope to retire one day and someone needs to keep paying in. And the other one is I hope that you get the college of your choice. Live the next four years like you've never lived before, because it'll be all business when you leave there. So do enjoy. I want to say to my two colleagues, Thomason and Shoemake, I can't thank you enough. I know we're not finished until June 17th when we adjourn on this finance committee, but this could not be done without you.

» Thank you for the time that you put in. Thank you, Danny and staff, Lauren and Gerald, Tyler, to the fifth power man. I can't say thank you enough. This has been a year that I have never experienced before in a way that I don't want to have experienced again. So keep that in mind as we move forward. But I think that it's a solid budget and we have a few more things to take care of. And on that note, Mr. Chairman, I want to remind everyone, you've got to have your stuff in writing. You've got to identify where the funds are coming from and where they're going to be expended to for third reading. So you've got about two weeks to make sure that's in to Miss Hannah by that Thursday before the review of the agenda.

» So know that the meeting is going to be on the 17th, but your amendments need to be in before then. So I just want to make that clear to everyone. I say to all of us, let's do say a nice, healthy prayer for one another tonight and ask God to continue to guide us and support us. And there should be no ill feelings, no malice, no none of that from our hearts when we leave this place. We have done the people's business, probably not in the best way that I see fit, but I do understand spirits. And I'm going to ask that we move forward and we learn and do better. That concludes my report. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Mr. Brazel. Thank you, Chairman. Coach Kato. He coached now, right? Coach, what are you doing? Coach Kato was talking about football. I think I got a concussion tonight, Coach.

» Nothing a good stiff, right, Kate? Concussion protocol is you have to miss the next four meetings, I think. Don't tempt me with a good time. Right, right. I would like to, I'd like to thank, I'd like to thank everybody for the debate. We hadn't had, we hadn't had a good one in a while. And, you know, Sammy, you're right. And Danny, what you said earlier, even if we get a little hot headed up here, it's all because we care so much about what we're doing. Absolutely. And we care. And Derek said it many times. Sometimes the path to correct decisions is sloppy. And I can assure you people ahead of us probably gotten much worse tiffs and riffs than we have. No, no, but I mean, there were duels. South Carolina guy went to Washington to beat someone to death of the king. Yeah. Yeah.

» So we hadn't had any of that happen. So I'm thankful for that. And I'd like to say thank you to Danny. Danny, I wasn't trying to say the 30,000 wasn't in the budget. I just didn't see it. So I just wanted to, as a representative for Lake Watery, it was my duty to solidify it. But you did that by stating on the record that $30,000 is in the budget for them. And I thank you for that. And I thank you for that. So even though the vote failed, we know the money's there. We know they're going to receive it. And thank you for that. And with that, I want to say one positive thing. My wife was texting me, telling me to shut up earlier. And right after she told me to shut up, she told me that her mother's cancer has shrunk.

» And her mother's Kathy Merritt, if anybody would want to pray for her, we will take the prayer. She's been fighting cancer for about 15 months now. And it has not been easy on my wife and all of us and all of my kids. It's been a very tough situation. So anything good that can come out of a little spark fight, I'd do it again if that was the end result. So anyway, God bless y'all. Y'all have a good night. She's a fighter. Thank you, Russell. Thank you, Mr. Brazel. Just a few things. Mr. Administrator, I was checking my timeline and it was back on February 22nd, 2022, when we had the initial vote on the impact fee to approve and move forward towards the study. And so on the next agenda, I'd like impact fee placed on the agenda again, voted in favor of that and supported it.

» I think we had a study. I hope the study hasn't aged out in the meantime since I left for the State House and have come back. But that's something I think we also have to look at as a comprehensive part of this discussion we're going through on growth, how to pay for it, how to address it and do it smartly in Kershaw County. Update for council members in case you hadn't heard yet. There's I think $167,000 that's allocated via ARPA funds to complete in the comp plan and the ZLDR. That money has to be spent by October 2026. And that means the comp plan has to be completed. I mean, just ASAP, you know, immediately. It has to get done. We can't have any more delays. We're looking at $167,000 getting clawed back from one of our budget line items. And that's just unacceptable.

» So the comp plan has to get done. It's been three years in the making. And I think it's a project that would typically take 8 to 12 months, sometimes two years in much more in larger jurisdictions that have, you know, ports and various other issues that are very complex. And so we've got to get it done or we're looking at losing over $150,000. You said October 2026? October 2026. Okay. And so we've got to get on top of our ZLDR work immediately and, you know, not have to say we need a fee or some other type of increase or cut services somewhere else because we lost $167,000 that we could have spent towards completing a smart growth plan.

» I wanted to mention tonight that the council's work and economic development's work and staff's work related to business development has been outstanding for us over the last year. A year and a half plus. And I think in part that resulted in no millage increase requests from the school district this year. Of course, the school district receives a significant portion of their budget from fee low monies. But that's really, I still think and believe guys, that's where we've got to focus is bringing jobs to Kershaw County, generating fee low revenue doesn't require any additional residential development, but it brings jobs back. It helps pay for school items and county items, and we don't have to increase taxes.

» And so I'm going to continue to focus on the economic development front in Kershaw County, and I thank you for your support in that. Regarding the moratorium, like I said, there is a world in which I could be supportive of it. But I hope that between now and second or third reading, we can identify greater protections for liberty and individual freedom and narrowly tailor this thing to address the concerns that are stated in dense population areas or suspected dense population areas. That's just something I believe at my core. Obviously, it's not real politically popular right now, at least not, it wasn't in this room. But it's something I believe, and I'm willing to state the things I believe and stand for them. And so I think there is a path forward there.

» And then lastly, we've talked about your sons, and I appreciate good fathers. I'm glad we did have that presentation tonight. Ms. Hanna, thank you for putting that on there. These three young men, Farrell, Taylor, and Davis, are outstanding young men. I've known some of them since they're much younger. I actually got to wrestle with Taylor at one point in your yard, Jimmy. I tried to teach him some moves to throw on you. I was going to jump on you, but I changed my mind. Yeah, you should have changed your mind. Believe me, there's a couple times tonight I wish I would have gone on each other so I could employ my true skill set, which is manually manipulating people to do things they don't want to as a wrestler.

» And anyway, these are outstanding young men, and that's a reflection of good dads who care and are in their lives. I'm impressed with them. They're going back. They're going to college in outstanding universities. And I just hope, I just hope, I hope that they'll have the opportunity to come back, if they want to, and work in Kershaw County. I hope that. I eventually got to do it after being gone for 15 years, and it's been one of the biggest blessings in my life. And I just hope we'll have an environment where there are jobs here. There's the type of growth, smart growth, that we'll have here where those guys will have opportunities to come back and be here, because it will heighten the community. It really will. We agree on that, sir. All right. Thank you. That concludes my report.

» Administrator's briefing, item number 13. Anything for us, Danny? Just a few items real quick. Yes, the pecan orchard grant was turned down, but we do have grant match money there. So I'll be looking for more direction from council as to what y'all want to do with that. It's there in the budget. But I certainly intend to continue looking for any kind of revenue sources out there. We've reached out to the COG, and we've also reached out to our engineering firm to start looking for alternative sources to hopefully fund that. So I'll keep y'all posted, but we'll certainly be looking for some direction on what that grant match does that is already in the budget. Projects, just real quick, it's been raining a lot, so I would expect some rain delays in some of these, namely the boat ramp.

» But it's, you know, just everything's still going on. It's just weather. And with that, that's it. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Templer. Mr. DuBose, any legal briefing beyond executive session? No. All right, gentlemen, that takes us to two items for executive session. We've got executive session item A and B, both falling under SC Code 30-4-70A2 regarding legal advice for potential claims, threatened or actual. Do we have a motion to enter executive session? Make a motion to enter an executive session for two contractual matters with our attorneys. What's the guest attorney? I'll clarify. They're not contractual matters. They're legal advice for depending, threatened or potential claim. Legal advice or potential. Okay. Okay. Second. We have a second. I wanted to include the attorney.

» What was his name? Mr. Krabs. Mr. Krabs. Okay. There we go. Thank you. Any further discussion? All right, let's move to a vote. Executive session. All who are present except for Mr. Browse will vote in favor. Ms. Hanna, for the record. Oh, is she Kato on a second? Yep. Okay. Thank you. We are in executive session. Motion to come out of executive session, Mr. Chair. Second. Got a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor. It's unanimous. Ms. Hanna for the record. Thank you. We are adjourned. And you have the names. It's unanimous. We're out of executive session. Is there a motion to adjourn? I'll make a motion. We're adjourned. Second. Mr. Cato. Mr. Tucker has a second. Seeing no discussion, all in favor? It's unanimous, Ms. Hannah, for the record. Thank you. We are adjourned. And you have the names. You got to start.