Council Meeting Dec 9, 2024
I saw the following on Facebook and decided that it fits me:
My life got better when I realized I didn’t have to be nice.
Nice got me USED, STRESSED OUT, and DISRESPECTED.
I’m not nice.
I’m a good person.
There’s a difference.
You don’t have to be nice to be a good person.
Being good means being honest, setting boundaries, and taking care of yourself without compromising your values.
Being nice may give you temporary approval, but it rarely earns you respect or helps you build genuine connections.
Honor your truth.
You won’t regret it.
So, let me tell you why I voted as I did in the council meeting held Dec 9th. (My apologies for the length but what needs to be said will be said and I will not be nice but I will be good.)
All ordinances were passed.
Ordinance 2024-11 to amend Section §30.08 (“Compensation and expenses”) of Chapter 30 of Title III of the Easley City Code. Second reading. I voted YES for Councilmen Robinson’s amendment to add the verbiage for the process for council to review and if necessary, approve an adjustment for salaries. But on second thought, I am thinking that should have been discussed more and should have voted NO. But I did vote NO for the salary increases. I know the attorney did say we were greatly underpaid but I knew what the salary was when I signed up to run for office. My biggest concern was raising the pay for a mayor who has admitted on a podcast that she has her work days down to 3 ½ days. The explanation of the salary amount for the mayor was getting the average salary of the similar municipalities but did they even get the average amount of time the mayor’s spent doing their job? As I stated in the meeting, we should have voted on the per diem expense payment as that was in violation of state law and left the salary discussion out to be discussed next year since it cannot go into effect until 2026. WHY THE RUSH?
Ordinance 2024-12 to extend a moratorium to temporarily suspend the acceptance of, review of, and/or action upon applications for zoning approvals, development, construction permits, and other action for an additional six months. Second Reading. I voted yes as this needed to be extended until the rewrite of the zoning and land use documents has been completed and not forced to get completed due to a time constraint. When completed, there needs to be ample time to read the document and determine if this is what is best for the city and not one or a few people’s vision.
Ordinance 2024-13 to authorize the lease of certain property located at 201 N. 1st Street in the City of Easley to Greater Easley Chamber of Commerce. Second Reading. I voted NO on this ordinance. I do not agree with the city not getting a fair market value as a starting point. The law allows a reduction if it is used to benefit the community. They did increase the rent from $600 to $900 per month for the 2000+ square foot building (that was remodeled four years ago) and the term of the lease is for five years. After that period, the rent can be increased by the amount of the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) from the previous year. There are other items in the lease that states who pays for utilities, repairs, etc. This is better than the previous lease from the prior administration. The city should not be able to offer insufficient leases (ie, $1.00 per year) as this impacts the taxpayer. The lease amount should be able to cover all expenses for that property and provide some revenue for the city.
Ordinance 2024-14 to authorize the lease of certain property located at 201 S. 5th Street, Suite 212 (West End Hall) in the City of Easley to United Way of Pickens County. Second Reading. I voted NO for the same reason; a fair market value was not established. The prior administration leased this property for a yearly rate (yes, one payment a year) of $1352.69 to the United Way. This is for approximately 6500+ square feet. The new lease is for $1385.69 ($33 more) per month. Also, this lease is for five years as well with the same CPI-U stipulation. We should not forget the prior administration budgeted $800,000 to renovate the West End Hall building. I do not have the exact amount of money spent on this. I did ask how long it would take to get the return on investment but the city did not calculate that. I would imagine if they did determine the return on investment, it would not look good even considering the other tenants’ lease contributions.
Ordinance 2024-15 to rezone approximately 0.815 acres of real property located at 738 E. Main Street and the intersection of South D. Street and East Main Street from Residential (R-7.5) to General Commercial (GC). This is the first reading for this ordinance. I voted NO. General commercial would not be a good fit for this property. I do not agree with the commercial sector encroaching into residential areas. The owner did answer questions and said he did not have a buyer but stated he would like to sell the property for a lawyer’s office or some type of medical office. GC would not be the correct zoning for that type of business. I am thinking he should have requested Neighborhood Commercial (NC) for the zoning request. Hopefully this fails next month so he can reapply under NC.
Appointment of Kevin Dillard, Construction Superintendent, to Board of Zoning Appeals. Term is to expire on 12/31/2027. Voted YES
Appointment of Watson Nealey, Company Director of Public Affairs, to Planning Commission. Term is to expire on 12/31/2028. Voted NO
The Council was presented appointments to the Zoning Board of Appeals as well as the Planning Commission. Me and another council member were taken aback that the people for these appointments were already decided beforehand and the council was not involved nor provided the applications before the decision was made. I received the agendas on Thursday and then there was a change in the work session where the names were removed and an executive session was added. I requested copies of the applications when I learned we were to vote on these appointments. The council was provided copies of the applications. I also called the Municipal Association to find out what the correct process was for the appointments and was told the council was to review the applications and discuss who the best candidates were. (Remember the mayor will not allow the council to create rules and procedures per South Carolina law 5-7-250(b) “The council shall determine its own rules and order of business and shall provide for keeping minutes of its proceedings which shall be a public record”.)
The SC Code of Laws 6-29-350 (C) reads: “In the appointment of planning commission members the appointing authority shall consider their professional expertise, knowledge of the community, and concern for the future welfare of the total community and its citizens. Members shall represent a broad cross section of the interests and concern within the jurisdiction.” The appointing authority is the council and the council are the ones to choose the candidates for the vote. But since the mayor will not allow the council to set up rules and procedures, THAT POWER BESTOWED BY THE STATE HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY.
I voted YES for Mr. Dillard for the Board of Zoning Appeals. I know him and he would be good for that position. I believe he wants the best for the city and will make decisions based on the law.
Here is the part that I will not be NICE but I will be GOOD. I voted NO for r the planning commission appointee. This person does not fit the definition set forth by state law. He may know the community as he grew up here but he certainly does not have concern for the future welfare of the total community and its citizens. And most of all, I do not consider him trustworthy. Hopefully you have read the blog post from Oct 24, 2024, The Saga of Franklin Dr. If not, read it first before you continue reading this post. This person was very adamant about that road not being used and the only reason is he did not want the traffic coming down Franklin next to his house. He had no concerns with the impact to the community, only himself and his aunt that lives across the street from him. Selfish indeed and no regards for ordinances! What I did not mention in the council meeting was the fact that after a council meeting in 2021, I, and others, heard this person begging the developer to sell him one or two acres of that land and he would supply him all the beer he wanted for a year. Yes, I do consider this a bribe because it was. The person had prior opportunity for years to contact the Wyatts to see if they would sell him any of the property but he never did to my knowledge. He was relying on a city employee to prevent the usage of Frankin Dr and with whom he supplied with beer. A couple of months ago, one of the council members said “we can’t tick off Mr. XXX as he supplies us with the beer” after the work session in which the person was in attendence. Who are the “US” in that statement?
When elections come around next year, remember the ones that will be running for their seat who voted for the person to sit on the planning commission knowing full well he attempted to bribe a developer.
Add comment
Comments