Joint Meeting. Greenwood County Council. Greenwood City Council. Greenwood Commission of Public Works. Held on July 24, 2007

Transcription

1 State of South Carolina ) County of Greenwood ) Joint Meeting of the Greenwood County Council Greenwood City Council Greenwood Commission of Public Works Held on July 24, 2007 Greenwood, South Carolina Danette Hanks, Reporter Danette Hanks P.O. Box 2493 Anderson, South Carolina 29622

2 (864) (800)

3 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 3 Appearances: Greenwood County Council Robbie Templeton Rhett Dominick Robert Jennings Patrick Moody John D. Compton Edith Childs Gonza Bryant City of Greenwood Floyd Nicholson Niki Hutto Betty Boles Linda Edwards Herbert Vaughn Barbara Turnburke Greenwood Public Works Henry Watts Gene Hancock Mike Monaghan Steve Reeves

4 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 4 By Mr. Templeton: I want to try to do this without a microphone since everybody doesn't have one. So if you guys in the audience will cooperate so you can hear everybody, we'll try to speak loud enough for everybody to hear us. If that doesn't work, we can try to pass a mike. I just think that will be a little cumbersome, if we try to go from end to end. So I appreciate everybody's patience and understanding with moving from one place to another. And I'll just ask that you folks try to hold it down so that you can hear whatever anybody has to say. I don't want us to be too formal, so... I don't know if this meets with everybody's approval, but I thought I would just call the meeting together as a joint meeting between C.P.W., the city and the county. The city said that works for them. It may not work for y'all. And if y'all need -- Henry, if you need to do that on your own, that's fine, whatever you want to do. But I just thought -- this is a special meeting of Greenwood City, Greenwood County, Greenwood C.P.W. Notice of this meeting has been given to the local news media. Notice of this meeting has been posted on the front door of the courthouse. I called, I called this meeting at the request of members

5 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 5 of the community who wanted to see all three groups get together. And all three groups graciously agreed to come together and I appreciate that very much. While this is a public meeting between the three governing bodies, it is not a public hearing, so we won't be taking public input today. This is just a meeting for the three bodies to try to find some common ground in the issue relating to Grace Street Water Plant property and the park. Also, so everybody understands, we have the honorable mayor and the city council over here. We have the C.P.W. and their chair, Henry Watts, over here and of course county council. And since I called the meeting, I assumed I would kind of facilitate. And Mr. Mayor and Mr. Watts have graciously agreed to that. And I appreciate that. We -- the purpose for the meeting, like I said, was for the three governing bodies to get together and see if we could find some common ground on the possibility of a park at the Grace Street Water Plant property. I know there's been a lot written. Before I go there, I would also like to, just as a common courtesy to everybody, I want everybody to have an opportunity to speak. What I would like to do though is, you know, for everybody to take -- try to go between body to body so that one body doesn't speak more than

6 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 6 the other. And also that we allow each person to finish before jumping in as a common courtesy. Female: Can you get a microphone? We can't hear back here. Male: Can you talk a little louder? By Mr. Templeton: I can use the mike. Is that better? I just hate to try to pass that around, but I guess we will. By Mr. Watson: I'll do it from the front, Mr. Chairman. By Mr. Templeton: Thank you, Mr. Watson. You're always trying to be accommodating. That being said, again I appreciate the city and C.P.W. agreeing to meet today. I think it says a lot that the three groups are willing to come together and try to find common ground. A lot has been written obviously over the last week or so in the papers and Internet and letters to the editor and so forth and so on. But, you know, these three groups have -- still not loud enough? Female: Male: No. We can't hear you. Stand up and speak. By Mr. Templeton: I don't know if y'all can see me if I do stand up. I might have to stand in a chair. But anyway, there's been a lot written over the last

7 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 7 week or so, but I think the main -- all three groups have been trying to work together to make this agreement work. And I think the main sticking point -- well, I know the main sticking point up to this point has been the indemnification clause. And obviously that's there for a reason. From the county's standpoint --- By Mr. Hancock: Legal. By Mr. Templeton: Yeah, legal. Right. You know, from the county standpoint there are only two options. One of those would be for the C.P.W. to remove the indemnification which, you know, they say they can't do. And that's fair. And the other option, the only other option -- and I don't know if there's any movement on that or not. That's what we're here to find out. And the other option would be that as it relates to the indemnification that, you know, the county would agree to take the property as is, but it wouldn't revert back to the city. It would just be ours. Now, I don't know how they would feel about either one of those options. And Henry has asked --- By Mr. Watts: Yeah. Let me make a statement here. By Mr. Templeton: -- to make a statement on behalf of C.P.W. And I'm going to let him do that.

8 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 8 By Mr. Watts: Yeah. By Mr. Templeton: And Ms. Childs -- hang on. Ms. Childs just reminded me that, because I didn't follow proper protocol, we did not have an invocation. Do y'all have a problem if Ms. Childs has an invocation? Male: No. We're going to have one. By Mr. Templeton: Ms. Childs? By Ms. Childs: Let's stand, please. Gracious Heavenly Father, we do thank you for this day and for this meeting between the three groups. We pray, Lord, that something will be done tonight that we all can agree to disagree. Lord, we love you and we praise you. Guide and go with us through now and throughout the rest of this day. These and other blessings, we ask it all. Amen. By All: Amen. By Mr. Templeton: Thank you, Ms. Childs. Mr. Watson? Mr. Mayor, would you lead us in the pledge? PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE By Mr. Templeton: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. By Mr. Watts: Good evening. I'm going to call the C.P.W. commission of meeting to order. We have met all conditions of the Freedom of Information Act by

9 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 9 notifying the local papers of the date, time and place of the meeting, as well as publishing the same information on the door. Before we get started, I have a written statement that I would like to make that may help in our decision tonight. I have received many comments over the past week and a half about the future for the Grace Street property. Many of the comments have supported the Park Commission's vision of developing a park on the site. However, I have also received many comments from people who feel C.P.W. should protect the interests of the low income sector who struggle each month to pay their utility bill, buy medicine and purchase food for their family. Others simply say they don't want a park. I have given much thought and consideration to all who have shared their opinion. It had been said that we should listen to the people. Well, I agree with that statement. But we should listen to all the people, which I have done. Knowing that we won't please everyone, I would be willing to suggest and support a compromise which would meet all opinions in the middle. If the city council would support a compromise, I would make a motion to immediately offer a quit claim deed with no contingencies to the city of Greenwood for approximately

10 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 10 twenty-seven acres of the Grace Street property for a park, retaining seventeen acres along Bypass 72 for commercial development with the restriction that the developer would make any building design and landscape park friendly. The purpose would be to closely restrict construction to avoid the big box building, instead provide a park setting designed to enhance the whole area. In addition, the C.P.W. will retain ten acres along Merriwood Drive for upscale residential condominiums with the same restriction mentioned above. The park friendly design and landscape would be closely monitored with no construction beginning without approval of C.P.W. As I had said, I have received many comments from both sides of this issue. I believe this proposal would provide the city and the county with additional revenue. It would also provide C.P.W. customers with a return on the property plus an additional revenue. And it will also provide twentyseven acres of beautiful park. More discussion has taken place and more action has taken place since my motion to sell the site a couple of weeks ago. If we can reach an agreement as a result of stirring the pot, then we have done more in the last two weeks than we have in the last seven years.

11 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 11 By Mr. Nicholson: Floyd Nicholson, mayor. I would just like to make a statement that I've always been in support of parks in our community to enhance the quality of life that we offer to the citizens of our community. I'm also aware of C.P.W. providing the best possible service at the lowest possible rate. I know the rates that C.P.W. provide is one of the lowest in the state, but yet and still there are people struggling every month to pay their utility bill. You can ask my wife. We get numerous calls all the time, can you help me with my bill? And these are working people, people that are working every day. A lot of you know what the median income is here in our community. But when you have inflation going at one rate and the salary not going at that same rate, it's hard for people to pay their bills. So I'm in agreement that we need to work something out to try to come to a solution. I want it to be where C.P.W. is still able to provide the best service at the lowest possible rate. And I know there are some things that you need to do. And if we can come to an agreement where you provide some of the property, you know, to develop a park and everything, I think we've got to come to an agreement. And I think it can be possible that it would come with some type of mixed

12 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 12 usage with the entire -- or to some acres that we have present there. And I think this would be a great thing that we need to try to work out. By Mr. Templeton: Thank you, Henry. Thank you, Floyd. I'm caught a little off guard because I wasn't expecting a mixed use proposal. I haven't seen that yet, so I assume -- sorry. Can't please everybody. I said that I'm a little caught off guard because I wasn't expecting the mixed use proposal. This is the first I've heard of it since we tried to do one about five or six years ago and it didn't work out. I don't remember the reason, but I do remember that it didn't work. I guess I would ask, is there -- Henry, if there's a plan in place? Has any work been done on it? By Mr. Watts: Well... By Mr. Templeton: And then -- and if that's -- and obviously if the C.P.W. and the city are in agreement on that, it really takes the county out of the loop because it's -- I mean, it's obviously not our property. But has there been any work on it at all? Is there a plan? Is there anything in place or is -- because, you know, we made a proposal as well, so... By Mr. Nicholson: Robbie, really I don't think it would take the county out. Because if we do that, if

13 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 13 we develop a park, that's going to come under the authority of the Parks Commission and the Parks Commission is under the authority of the county. So, you know, it would be all parties working together because the Parks Commission would be responsible for the development of the park, you know, if we tried to look at the mixed usage. So it would be really all parties involved. And we need to -- you know, we can't maybe decide now, but I think it will be a good way to start discussion and seeing if we can come to some kind of agreement, you know, where everybody, you know, win win. By Mr. Watts: Henry Watts. They have -- as you all know, we can only transfer the property to the city. We can't transfer the property to the county. But Steve Reeves has some drawings and work that has been done in the past about mixed use. And Steve, do you want to -- do you have that to share with us? These are just some of the original proposals. These are not set in stone. My proposal today was to split the property in half, C.P.W. maintaining twenty-seven acres and the Parks Commission having twenty-seven acres. Plus or minus a few acres is not going to be of great concern. By Mr. Nicholson:

14 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 14 Steve, can I have another one over here, please? Steve, are you going to explain? By Mr. Templeton: Yeah. Well, that's fine. He can explain it and then I'll ask a question. That's fine. You're going to lose some weight. By Mr. Watson: I could use that. By Mr. Templeton: No. I'm talking about Chuck running back and forth. By Mr. Reeves: My name is Steve Reeves. And what I've handed out to the elected bodies is -- are three copies of proposals that were made at different times. The first is a proposal that was made in May of 2000 with mixed use showing acreage on Bypass 72 for commercial development, acreage on Merriwood Drive for residential development and the remaining property being for apartments. In 2004 there were two additional proposals that were submitted. All of these were done by a professional design firm in Charleston who was known for their design work in the Hilton Head area. And the reason they were chosen was to make this certainly a park type setting including the commercial and residential areas. These are just some examples. Oh, no, not those, Chuck. This is only one of them. There are three up here for the elected bodies. I've

15 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 15 also worked today on actually a mix of these three that would incorporate a little bit of what I thought was the best of each one and would certainly be receptive to sharing that with the elected bodies as well. I only have twenty-five copies, but I would be willing to share that with you as well. I would be glad to try to answer questions pertaining to these drawings. By Mr. Templeton: All right. I'm going to ask that we kind of hold it down out front, if we can, please. Female: Speak up. By Mr. Templeton: I'm almost yelling in the microphone now. I'm sorry. They need to turn it up. I'm going to ask everybody to, please, quiet down. Thank you. I guess my next question for C.P.W. -- because again I wasn't expecting to see this proposal. I thought we were here basically to talk about the indemnification issue as it related to the entire property. So that would lead me to my next question. With this proposal, does that mean that the offer to relay all property from the city -- through the city to the county is off the table? By Mr. Watts: From the what now? By Mr. Templeton: The original proposal to pass

16 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 16 all fifty-four acres through, does that mean that that is off the table? By Mr. Watts: The last thing that was on the table was to sell all fifty-four acres, is the motion that I -- the commission made on the 12th of July. We came back today with a compromise. Female: You're going to have to speak up, please. By Mr. Watts: The last offer that was on the table was to sell the fifty-four acres. Today we came back with a compromise. By Mr. Moody: Patrick Moody, Greenwood County Council. Can you all hear me? Can you hear? Mr. Watts and members of C.P.W., I appreciate this, but I'm looking at this and this really to me looks a whole lot more like a development than a park. APPLAUSE By Mr. Moody: And I'm getting to a question here. In this particular drawing how much of this is actually going to be -- or could you give me a rough idea of -- and maybe exclude the reservoirs because I don't think we can walk on those. But how much space is available? Because it doesn't look like a whole lot to me. And so I'm wondering, if this proposal would

17 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 17 actually -- really I hate to say this, but if it would be worth even considering it a park because I don't know that that's what it really looks like. But could you all answer those questions? By Mr. Watts: This is just a proposal. This not a final draft of any kind of park versus commercial or residential use. Can y'all hear me? Okay. My original proposal was to split twenty-seven acres for the park and twenty-seven for C.P.W. The actual drawings and the outline can be worked out by a surveyor at a later point in time. This is not a copy of the proposal I made today, the original one that Mr. -- Steve gave out. By Mr. Templeton: Do we know what the acreage of the two ponds are? By Mr. Reeves: The top pond is five acres and the lower pond is about three and a half acres. By Mr. Nicholson: I know we're talking about mixed usage. Floyd Nicholson. Is there maybe a possibility that maybe we could get together, you know, set up a meeting and maybe say scale back the matter of commercial development and look at maybe a little more for the park? I know you said at first twenty-seven acres, plus or minus, you know. If we could maybe come

18 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 18 up with a different plan, maybe scaling back a little more of the commercial, make it a little more park. Can we look into that? By Mr. Watts: I think one of our concerns was not to have commercial right on the road, instead move commercial back from the road where it won't be so -- you know, a distraction from the park. By Mr. Compton: Mr. Watts, if I may ask, in this particular proposal is there -- are you all including an indemnification clause with this proposal? By Mr. Watts: By Mr. Compton: By Mr. Watts: No, we're not. You're not? Quit claim deed. By Mr. Compton: Okay. So you all --- By Mr. Watts: By Mr. Compton: To the city. Okay. So there's no indemnification clause in this proposal at all? By Mr. Watts: By Mr. Compton: No, there's not. And you all have not made a decision or have not changed your mind on the indemnification request from the county during previous discussions; is that correct? By Mr. Watts: We never asked the county. We asked the city.

19 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 19 By Mr. Compton: By Mr. Watts: By Mr. Compton: By Mr. Watts: Okay. Okay. Okay. And our most recent proposal is for the quit claim deed of twenty-seven acres to the city. By Mr. Compton: Okay. So I just wanted to be clear that there was no indemnification. Okay. By Mr. Monaghan: Good afternoon. My name is Mike Monaghan. I'm the commissioner who voted not to sell the park. APPLAUSE By Mr. Monaghan: On the other hand, on the other hand, I would like to know if the county would be willing to take that park into the park system, maintain it and mow the grass. I think this would make a big difference to the C.P.W. board. I think if C.P.W. is going to give four or five million dollars worth of property, perhaps the county would be willing to mow the grass and to take it into the park system. Then if the county owns it, they're not going to give it back to C.P.W. in case there's a liability. But they would own it. It would be a county park. They would go in and mow it. They would police it. I think that would be a

20 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 20 compromise I would like to see. APPLAUSE By Mr. Templeton: Mr. Compton would like to speak. I just want to say one thing, Mike. And I appreciate your comments. But one of my first offers right out of the chute was that the county would agree to take all property as is with no reverter and take that. Now, when I said that, I meant we would take it. It would be ours. It would never revert back to C.P.W. By Mr. Monaghan: That's good. By Mr. Templeton: When we made that offer at the beginning of the meeting, that was one of the things we offered to do. APPLAUSE By Mr. Compton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chairman has asked that we hold our applause so that the dialogue up here can continue and that everyone can hear. I think Mr. Templeton makes a very important point. We have talked extensively about this and I think a little bit of history is appropriate at this point. This proposal that has been put forward today is nothing new. It was put forward seven years ago and the Parks Commission was part of that dialogue. And it was

21 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 21 rejected. So this is not a new compromise. This is old news. The whole sticking point between now, with where we are today and where we are -- were a few days ago when the C.P.W. rejected this and wanted to sell it was the issue of liability. That was the whole sticking point. And I beg your pardon, Mr. Watts, but there was communications back and forth between the C.P.W. and the county. And that was the main sticking point, that the C.P.W. wanted indemnification. In other words, they wanted someone else to clean up its mess. We've agreed to solve that problem. And I agree with Mr. Monaghan, which is we would be happy to take the land. We would be happy to cut the grass and take care of it. And then the park can be developed incrementally. We wouldn't be under a sort of damocles or under a deadline. The park could be developed incrementally and we wouldn't have to raise taxes to do it. And that way we could preserve the green space. It could remain used as it's been used over the years. And the public could rely on that without -- with very little cost exposure over time. I think that's the appropriate thing to do. I don't think it's appropriate to use eminent domain to develop that property. Thank you. By Mr. Hancock: I'm Gene Hancock and I second

22 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 22 the motion to bring this park so I can have a park out there. The last councilman that was just talking like that, he's an attorney. I'm not an attorney. But my problems with the park is legal questions, really legal questions. The C.P.W. cannot give a valuable property completely away without some kind of matriculation or some value back for it. That's one hoop to jump over. The other, the other thing to jump over, the legality is that we're trying to bring back through the back door what we can't do through the front door. And I've got two legal opinions on this and I'm getting one from the attorney general of the state also. We can give this to the city, but we can't put it across to the county unless they accept the indemnification for it. The only thing that I think is wrong with that property out there is what's in that building. We've gone out and we've had the environmental people come in and check it. The only thing I don't know out there is what's been pumped out of the lake into those ponds if they're emptied. Those are the things that a liability would come from later on. As far as I know, there's nothing that's bad out there, anything that's buried out there, because we -- they went down and put test wells down and checked it. So those are the things. But there is two legal

23 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 23 questions to be answered. By Mr. Templeton: Okay. Go to Mr. Mayor first. By Mr. Nicholson: Floyd Nicholson, Mayor. The only involvement for the city is that C.P.W. cannot give property to the county. They would have to give it to the city, as just a pass through for the city. Whenever they do, we're going to pass it onto the Parks Commission at the county. And that's where things have to be worked out. It's just a pass through from the city because C.P.W. cannot give the property to the county. They can deed it over to the city. And whatever acreage they deed, we're going to deed it over to the Parks Commission. And that comes under the authority of the county. By Mr. Templeton: Robbie Templeton. Gene, I agree with you. I don't think there is a lot of liability out there. We had our folks walk the area and do tests in various areas as well. So I agree with you from that standpoint, which would offer me -- which would make me ask the question why the indemnification was a big deal from C.P.W.'s end to start with or from the city's end to start with. But regardless of that, we're beating a dead horse, you know. We made a -- I'll reiterate once more. At the beginning of the meeting we

24 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 24 made a proposal, I guess, that if you would pass all forty-four or fifty-four, whatever it is, to the city through to the county, we'll take it as is with whatever happens to be there and deal with it. That offer is still on the table. And if we can't legally do that, somebody is going to have to explain to me why. By Mr. Monaghan: Robbie, that's refreshing to hear. But on the last thing, on the proposal that you passed before, what do you call it, a resolution, the last -- the very last paragraph was the hang-up. There would be no public funds spent on the park. That was the last paragraph of the resolution that was passed by the county council, that the county wouldn't spend any money. Isn't that true? Is that still or is that off the table? And then the hang-up on the liability was, that the county at anytime could transfer the property directly back to C.P.W. And I understand from Robbie that that's not going to be the case now. By Mr. Compton: Well, the reason that was in place was because there was insistence that there be indemnification. So the liability has to follow the property. And if we were going to have to indemnify, then we should have to, we should have the right to give the property back because the property is an asset and

25 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 25 it has value. And Mr. Hancock, I appreciate your hard work and I know you're diligent and are looking out for the best interests of your rate payers as you see it. But the thing about it is, is when you give up liability, you are giving up something of value. In return -- when you give up liability, if someone else assumes that liability, you are giving up something or getting something in return for giving that property. So if we accept the property and the liability, you haven't breached a fiduciary duty. We're taking a problem off your hands. But if we're expected to indemnify, that is to pay y'all back if there is a problem, we shouldn't have to -- we should not have the right to that property and then have to come out of pocket and raise taxes for liability that doesn't belong to us. So the liability needs to follow the property. We'll be happy to help that happen and we'll be happy to maintain it. Now, that way the park isn't under a five year deadline to happen and it gives them time to raise the money to develop in stages without there being some sort of reverter. I think that's a more elegant solution. By Mr. Monaghan: So the county won't develop the park? Is that what you're saying?

26 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 26 By Mr. Compton: From the very beginning -- that's been the understanding from the very beginning. Even when the Parks Commission was created, it was understood that grants and donations would be accepted or sought to raise those -- to raise the money to develop parks, that we will -- we are certainly happy to facilitate and make it available for the park to happen. Now, as far as the maintenance is concerned, I understand that the city park is maintained by the city and they don't want another park. By Mr. Monaghan: That's a county park by the way. That's not a city park. By Mr. Compton: It's in the county commission, but it's city property. By Mr. Monaghan: No, it's county property. By Mr. Compton: Male: Female: It's county property? And we're maintaining it. We're maintaining it a hundred percent. By Mr. Templeton: One at a time, please. By Mr. Compton: Regardless, we don't want to saddle the city with another liability, so we're perfectly willing to partner up with that so that they're not responsible for coming out of pocket to pay

27 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 27 for it. By Mr. Monaghan: Just so that we understand what the offer is -- and I appreciate the offer to actually assume ownership of the park. Are you saying you're going to assume ownership of the park? By Mr. Compton: As long as there's -- if we're going to take the liability, we'll accept ownership without reverter. By Mr. Monaghan: Okay. And you're going to mow the grass? By Mr. Compton: Correct. By Mr. Monaghan: You're going to maintain the park just like we maintain it down at --- By Mr. Compton: I think we've answered that, yes. By Mr. Monaghan: Well, I don't know. I think we've got to be very clear on that. By Mr. Compton: Mow means cut. It means cut. By Mr. Monaghan: Listen. For seven years the county wasn't going to do that, so this is a new thing. So we just want to make sure. By Mr. Templeton: I guess it's my turn to ask questions since we've established that we'll take the property, we'll mow the property, we'll cut the grass,

28 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 28 whatever you want to call it. Will C.P.W. consider passing the acreage through the -- from the city to us? Because I really think the reversion -- I really think the whole idea of indemnity was a poisoned field to keep the deal from happening. You've got a chance right now to prove otherwise tonight. By Mr. Monaghan: I am, but you've got to ask the other two. By Mr. Templeton: Well, that's fine. You know, I think that was the, I think that was the biggest holdup. We've taken that away. So now you've got an opportunity to -- if the press release -- you release that you want to have a park and that's what you support, you've got a chance to prove that right now. By Mr. Watts: That wasn't ever a big issue with me. I made my proposal and I haven't seen any reason to change my mind about my recommendation. And at our last board meeting we recommended to sell the property and I have not changed my mind about that. By Mr. Hancock: I've still got the legal problems on the property over there and we can't legally give it to you --- By Mr. Templeton: I'm asking --- By Mr. Hancock: -- with the city accepting

29 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 29 it. And look. We've got the Parks Committee. They go out here. They work their rear-ends off. They've got no revenue stream whatsoever. So why can't you pass some tax and give some -- a little stream of money going into the park? And why don't we have sixty-eight thousand in the county doing the parks instead of twenty-three thousand in the city doing the parks? We gave you all the money for the civic center out there and y'all agreed to take over the parks business, but you haven't. You're not even keeping up the county park. By Mr. Templeton: All right. While the rock throwing is going on, let me just ask --- By Mr. Hancock: That's right. By Mr. Templeton: Let me ask the wrong -- let me ask the question because I've obviously asked it the wrong way the first time. Will C.P.W. pass the fiftyfour acres to the city? And if so, will the city pass it through to the county? By Mr. Hancock: Yes. By Mr. Templeton: Okay. So the city will pass it through to the county if you guys will agree to pass it through to the city. That's been established. By Mr. Moody: Mr. Hancock, you know, I know

30 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 30 we're all friends here, so I'm not --- By Mr. Hancock: All of you are friends of mine. I hope all of these are too. By Mr. Moody: Well, sure. But, you know, a couple of things, you know, that I just want to clarify that were stated. Yes, the city maybe maintained the park over there. Okay? We have, as you well know, all of the governmental entities in Greenwood County in some departments, some level, some service. We all work together. Some -- one may do one thing while the other will do something that would benefit the other agency. So, you know, in situations like that, I think that we need to keep in mind that we are working together. Secondly, on West Cambridge Park, I will point out to you, because we have done for the parks before, Greenwood County paid off almost, I think, a hundred and seventy thousand dollars or somewhere in that neighborhood that was still owed on that park. By Ms. Childs: By Mr. Moody: That's right. So, you know, for you to say that we've not given any money is a little disingenuous because I think we have on that particular case. And I think since we've had the Parks Commission over the years -- I remember when Ms. Phyllis Zuehlke and Ann

31 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 31 Drake, I know Ann is here somewhere because I saw her, and some others years ago came and asked us to set this commission up. And we did. And they told us, you make us legal, put us together and we'll go out and get the money, we'll do the work. And they've done that. There was never any from them up front. And I think if you ask those -- those are the two that come to mind, you know, that was what was happened. I was Chairman of the council at the time and signed off on it. And they were willing to do that. And they've done one heck of a job and I applaud them for it. But we have to remember that we all want to do what is best for the community and I think we all want a park. And I think right now today we have an opportunity to make that happen. This council, this council has agreed to do what we need to do, so we're waiting to hear if you all will agree. And these are your reasons, Mr. Watts, for why we need a park. By Mr. Watts: Okay. I have agreed -- Henry Watts. I have agreed -- first of all, we are the utility business providing service to our customers. That is our primary responsibility. We're not in the park business or real estate business. I thought my proposal today was more than fair. We get a park. Also

32 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 32 the city and county would get revenue as well as C.P.W. would get revenue to help support those people who cannot pay their utility bills. So I thought my proposal today was more than fair. You got your park and C.P.W. have their revenue, as well as the city and the county. By Mr. Templeton: I don't know where we go from here. The county has agreed to take it all. The city has agreed to let it pass through. The mayor just came over and --- Male: Speak up. By Mr. Templeton: The mayor just came over and asked that -- and I think it's -- Mr. Watts, would you guys consider reconsidering your position? And I'm not asking you to do it right this minute. But would you consider reconsidering your position? I know you just said you're a public utility and you have a responsibility. And I'm not, and I'm not saying that you don't. But, you know, if -- I guess my frustration here is that if there was ever any intent to do it any other -- if it was always the intent to sell some or part of the property, we've wasted a lot of time talking about building a park. We should have just come out and said that from the get-go and not tried to tease

33 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 33 everybody. So my point to you is, we're going to ask -- since the city council has already said they'll let it pass through, we've already said we'll take it, I'm going to ask respectfully that you guys go out and meet, not tonight, just go out and meet and see if you'll reconsider deeding that property to the city to let it come through to the county. That's all I've got. If nobody else has -- if the C.P.W. or the city or county has anything else... Male: I would like to hear what their response is myself. Male: I'm waiting. By Mr. Templeton: Is there not any -- well, Mr. Bryant wanted to know -- I asked if you would consider reconsidering your -- this proposal, if you would consider passing it on through. I mean, it's just a yes or no answer. By Mr. Watts: Which proposal? By Mr. Templeton: If you would reconsider, if you would reconsider -- you came in tonight with a proposal to do a mixed use, --- By Mr. Watts: Right. By Mr. Templeton: -- which was a compromise and we appreciate that, a compromised position over selling

34 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 34 the whole property. What I'm asking or what I have asked, I think, is that you reconsider that and consider passing the entire tract to the city, so that the city will pass it through to us. If our lawyers need to get together and work out whatever legal questions that Gene may have... By Mr. Hancock: I'm waiting from the attorney general. I've already got two legal opinions, --- By Mr. Templeton: Then --- By Mr. Hancock: -- the municipal association and our attorney. By Mr. Templeton: But if -- and, you know, we can do that. But I guess the thing is, if the C.P.W. is not willing to reconsider their position, then we're wasting our time. So I'm asking you, would you reconsider your position? Would you go back and discuss it and reconsider? By Mr. Watts: I will not. Henry Watts. I will not. Like I stated, I thought my proposal was fair to everybody, so I'm not going to reconsider my position. By Mr. Templeton: I'm going to ask y'all to hold it down, please, out of respect for everybody else. By Billy Nicholson: Robbie, could I -- I'm not

35 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 35 asking to speak at this time, but I think all these people want to be able to know in the future they could have a chance to say something. By Mr. Templeton: Well --- By Billy Nicholson: I'm not going to make a comment at this point. But what I'm saying is, I think that in the future they should have an opportunity to be heard. Wait a minute, wait a minute. I think the Parks Commission should have a right -- I mean, we've worked on this for over ten years, on this piece of property. And I think we should have an opportunity to say what we know about it because with all due respect I don't think anybody in this room, except for, you know, maybe the people at C.P.W. know that property pretty well. The rest of you don't know what's gone into it and the plans that we've had and, you know, really the legal issues involved in this, because that really hasn't been explored in this meeting. But I think that the public should have a chance to express themselves at some point in the future. They may do it through elections. They may do it through other ways. And there may be legal ramifications to all this, but that's what the public officials need to decide, is how to deal with this and what the ramifications may be. But I would ask that --

36 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 36 you know, if this is just going to end like this, there are going to be a lot of frustrated people if they don't know that in the future they will be able to express themselves and let their opinions be known other than writing to the paper. And that's what's happened. They've written letters to you. By Mr. Monaghan: We had an agreement that only the elected representatives would talk. By Billy Nicholson: I'm just asking what the future plan is, that's what I'm asking. By Mr. Templeton: And Billy, I appreciate that. And, you know, I've had numerous conversations with you on the phone recently. When I asked for this meeting to gather us all together, because it doesn't happen very often, as you've pointed out, you know, one of the stipulations was that we not have a public hearing, that we would be able to come in here and pass -- share dialogue between each other. And we did advertise it as a public meeting because we wanted everybody to hear what we had to say. I don't know if this meeting would have taken place if we had advertised it as a public hearing. I know -- I don't disagree with you. I know there's some frustrated people out there because I can assure you there's some frustrated people up here. But

37 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 37 out of respect for the two groups, when I asked them to come together, the other two bodies, when I asked them to come together, they were -- it was pretty specific that it wasn't going to be a public hearing. Now, that's -- out of respect for them, I can't open a public hearing now. And I hope folks will understand that. I mean, you can be frustrated with me, but I hope you'll understand that because that was the way the meeting was set forth. All right. One at a time. By Mr. Jennings: Bob Jennings, Greenwood County Council. We've heard from Mr. Monaghan. I appreciate his response. And we heard from Mr. Watts. I appreciate him as well. Mr. Hancock said that there were a couple of legal issues and I can respect that. And you said you had received two opinions already and we're waiting for one from Henry McMaster, the attorney general from the state. I would like to know what those two opinions are that you have received so far and would the attorney general's opinion have a strong bearing on it. And if the legal ramifications can be cleared out, would you reconsider like to accept our proposal to pass it, all fifty-four acres through to the city to the county so that we can develop it over the long haul as a park?

38 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 38 By Mr. Hancock: Well, my biggest objection -- I've been with the C.P.W. for fifty-three years. You can vote me out anytime you want to. I've served my time. But I think I've done a good job for Greenwood. And a lot of people that are making statements here don't know what they're talking about a lot of times. And it is a legal thing. In other words, the city has to get some value back for property. You can't just give it away. Under the law, it's a state law to respect too. So I've already seen one court case on that. And Billy tells me that he can do it, but I don't know. I'm going by my legal opinions. And one legal opinion I can't give to you because that's my attorney, legal advice to us. Can't give you that one. But the municipal association gave us a legal opinion. I'm getting one from the attorney general to see about it. And was two points. One is to transfer the property without anything back for it. And we could have got over this by some -- that I even talked to you about, about swapping some county property for that property over there, which would be some value back for that. Could have got past that matriculation thing. It could have by swapping county property of like value for that property. And we're going to develop the city pond

39 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 39 property out there. You own land out there beside it, which y'all had never ever come to us and said that you would accept it for a park and maintain it. You never have. You tell us you did, but you didn't because I asked three of you the other day at the economic alliance, have you ever been offered that or said you would take it as a park or have you been promised at one point one billion dollars to put toward that in a bond issue? Three of you said you hadn't never heard that before. That's what I heard. So we could get over some of the legal questions by swapping of some property. And you get over the liability thing by the city saying that they would share liability. So those could overcome the thing. The law says we can't come in the back door what we can't do through the front door. So this is a back door, what the mayor said. That's the only legal opinion I've got. By Mr. Dominick: Can I say something, Mr. Templeton? By Mr. Templeton: Sure. Hang on. Coming to you, Rhett. Male: Could I respond back to Mr. Hancock? By Mr. Templeton: Yes. Go ahead.

40 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 40 Male: By Mr. Bryant: I yield to the councilman. Hi, I'm Gonza Bryant. I only have one comment this afternoon. I think this, that here we are elected officials playing games with each other. I think that we have a time, we have an opportunity for the three bodies to get together and make a decision. To me it is very simple. If you're talking about swapping value of land, do the right thing. Give it to the city and then don't worry about it anymore. The city will do what they have to do legally to give it to the county. That's my opinion of it. I support this park issue and that's where I stand this afternoon. I do not think it takes all day and all night with this kind of decision. If we can't make one, then don't hold people's time up. Let's go home. By Mr. Templeton: I'm trying to get to Rhett. Let me just ask one question. And it's coming back to Bob. I just want to ask one question of Gene. It's the first I've heard about a property swap. Okay? By Mr. Hancock: Well, that was just a proposition for getting out of matriculation. By Mr. Templeton: But, you know, we obviously would entertain that. That's the thing. But that gets me -- I just want to ask one question. You know, Mr.

41 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 41 Monaghan, I think, he didn't say it, I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but he didn't vote to sell the property to start with. So obviously he's still open to some other ideas. Mr. Watts has said that he's not open to renegotiating. However, you just said if there was some way, maybe through a property swap or some other type of whatever, if we could get that answered. What you didn't say is would you be -- would you reconsider the position? So I'm asking you, if we can jump through all the legal hurdles, if we can look at swapping property or do whatever it is, because that's the first I've heard of that tonight, would that help you -- would that make it so that you would reconsider your vote? I'll let you think about that. By Mr. Hancock: The two legal things are the ones that would have to --- By Mr. Templeton: But if we could clear those, would you reconsider your vote? --- Male: If those are out of the way? By Mr. Templeton: If you take those out, if we got those cleared, would you reconsider your vote? By Mr. Hancock: I'm not going to make that commitment. By Mr. Templeton: Okay.

42 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 42 By Mr. Dominick: My name is Rhett Dominick and as most of you know I'm the new member on county council. And I'm learning a lot that this is being done. But I would just like to say this. It bothers me -- well, let me first say this. I am very proud of the C.P.W. for having some of the lowest rates in Greenwood or in the state. I think that's great. You're talking about giving something -- that you have to receive something for the land. If you make it into a park, you are receiving something because the people of Greenwood will be using it. It will be -- you will be receiving something. It's not a dollar issue like everything that I see is done. Every dealing that I've had -- and I hope I'm not stepping on any toes. But if I am, then so be it. I've talked with Mr. Monaghan about this. I did not realize the C.P.W. was in the real estate development business and I'm new. I thought you were a utility company. I thought that you were here to provide utilities. You're talking about developing this, developing land at the airport, but yet you and I've spoken for over a year, Mr. Hancock. We cannot get water for fire protection in the lower part of Greenwood County because it's a dollar issue. Everything has to be a dollar issue. You can't -- you won't give us that.

43 Joint Meeting - Greenwood County Council/City of Greenwood/Greenwood Public Works 43 By Mr. Templeton: Let's try and stay --- By Mr. Dominick: Okay. We're getting off -- I'm getting off subject. By Mr. Templeton: Stay on the park. By Mr. Dominick: But the park issue, the park issue, you're getting something in return. The community is getting something in return. I honestly feel like -- and let's just play the -- lay the cards where they lay. I don't know what you were talking about the three members that you were talking about Thursday evening. I know you and I spoke very briefly, but I never mentioned any of that. But you did mention to me that we would get together just to talk, that everything was done. It was a done deal and that we were going to just get together to talk. Well, we can talk on the street if we're not going to do anything. But C.P.W. is getting something in return. I would really like to see the commission work towards helping -- you know, we supply water or gas, whatever the case may be, outside of Greenwood County. You're doing good. You're doing an excellent job as far as keeping the rates lower. We need to do something for the community and this would be doing something for the community. You would be receiving something.