My apologies for the delay in sharing this information. Unfortunately, this special meeting was problematic before it even began. Several agenda items were leaked prior to the official agenda being released, and inaccurate information circulated on Facebook. This misinformation caused unnecessary concern and frustration among the public.
Ordinance 2026-08
I voted YES to table Ordinance 2026-08, which would rescind Ordinance 2025-12 authorizing the purchase of IT equipment for the police department due to duplication of services. This matter should be removed from the table at the next meeting and discussed in greater detail.
It is my belief that the proposed $300,000 IT equipment purchase for the police department is an expense the city should not be responsible for and should instead be handled by the county, thereby placing all associated liability with the county. The city and county should work collaboratively, not in opposition. This purchase would also result in an ongoing cost to taxpayers of approximately $123,000 per year, with no guarantee that the city would receive any revenue from the 911 fees paid by residents through their phone bills. Neither the IT representative nor the police chief was able to provide an estimate of potential revenue.
In a conversation with the Pickens County Chief of Emergency Services, I was informed that the Easley IT Director previously had access to the system and the ability to resolve issues. However, following a security breach, Pickens County restricted access to county personnel only. He also expressed the hope that all dispatch services would ultimately be based in Pickens County, with Easley serving as a backup. This raises additional questions that warrant further discussion.
Ordinance 2026-09
I also voted YES to amend Ordinance 2026-09 back to the work session at the next meeting, which would repeal the approval of a $130,000 capital expenditure for a parking lot previously approved under line item 73-000-710-000.
I believe allocating these funds from the Impact Fee Transportation account does not comply with state law. The Impact Fee Act (Section 6-1-920, Definitions, #18 Public Facilities) defines transportation facilities as roads, streets, and bridges, including rights-of-way and traffic signals. After the meeting, I reviewed the 2021 council discussions on impact fees, which specifically define transportation as roads. While I and other council members support the parking lot, contrary to claims made on Facebook, I feel it must be funded using the appropriate bucket of money.
I have since gained a deeper understanding of the history of impact fees and will continue researching this issue. During discussions, one council member suggested ignoring state law and addressing the issue only if it became a problem. I strongly disagree with this approach and believe laws should be followed.
Social Media Policy Discussion
The council also briefly discussed a proposed social media policy drafted by the city attorney. He explained that the policy governs how citizens may post on the city’s and council’s social media pages. There was minimal discussion during this meeting, so it is likely the topic will be revisited at a future meeting.