GREMLINS IN THE IT DEPARTMENT?

More than a few BC taxpayers contacted GE&P today with the same really strange story. It seems each went on the BC Government website, went to GIS, and clicked on "Tax Info". On Monday, listed right under the amounts they were being charged for the Fire Fee and the Waste Disposal Fee was their new SWMP Fee of $36. When they consulted the website this morning, their SWMP Fee was listed as $12. Then, (we know you won't believe this one) when they went on the site this afternoon, the SWMP Fee had disappeared. Can you beat that?

NEWS ALERT

TONIGHT, BERKELEY COUNTY COUNCIL VOTED 6 TO 2 AGAINST THE SWMP FEE!!!!!!

GE&P WOULD LIKE TO SAY:

THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN DAVIS.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN CALLANAN.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN FISH.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN FARLEY.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PINCKNEY.

As might be expected, Supervisor Davis pitched a hissy fit when the roll call vote was taken. He announced that he was going to write a letter to DEHEC and tell them the names of the Councilmen who had voted against the Fee. Oooooooooooooooo.

ISN'T THAT SPECIAL

We thought the taxpayers of BC might be interested in a small piece of news. Your tax bills are all printed and ready for mailing. And, by the way, even though County Council has NOT voted to approve the new SWMP fee, it's included on your bill. Why bother to take a vote now; it's a done deal. We hope our illustrious members of County Council realize just how irrelevant they really are.

THAT'S ALL, FOLKS

At the Committee meeting last Monday night, there was a lively discussion between Councilman Fish and Supervisor Dan Davis. Mr. Fish had the audacity to suggest that Mr. Davis planned to use the proposed SWMP Fee for purposes other than those suggested. Mr. Davis, according to the P&C said, "You cannot take that money and use it for other purposes," Davis said. "Let's don't play politics."

OH, REALLY?

Mr. Davis, you took 29% of the LOST money designated for property tax relief and used it for other purposes.

Mr. Davis, you took the FILOT money (realized from Google) that was designated to go to the BC School District and used it for other purposes.

Mr. Davis, you took $10 MILLION from the BCW&SA Fund Balance that was supposed to only be used for BCW&SA projects (according to SC Law) and used it for other purposes.

Mr. Davis, you opted to NOT adjust millage accordingly after reassessment which resulted in higher BC property tax bills and used the additional revenue for other purposes.

Now, we are expected to believe that this leopard has changed his spots? We don't think so.

Mr. Davis, we know what your plan is. You intend to take this additional revenue and apply it to the expenses of existing departments of BC government. These departments are already addressing issues contained in the SWMP permit. This action will free up funds in the general fund for you to apply wherever you please.

Mr. Davis, we are realistic enough to know that you will be successful with this endeavor as you have already bought and paid for enough votes on County Council to do so. But, please do not insult our intelligence with this "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" approach.

SORRY 'BOUT THAT

GE&P did a boo boo with the latest post. We got the date wrong. Please scroll down and read the August 30, 2011 post. We will correct ASAP.

"HEADS UP" REPORT

If questions to GE&P of late are any example, lots of folks are curious as to what has happened to the effort to repeal the BC Ordinance which governs the distribution of the FILOT Funds. It would appear this effort has slipped from the front burner. Not so fast. GE&P would suggest you keep your eye on the recent Resolution connected to the South Carolina Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan. You might want to check into just how our FILOT Funds are connected.

We have to remember that DD can juggle more than one ball at the same time. The red flags go up when he makes a concerted effort to draw our attention to what his right hand is doing, SWMP. Caution: Watch that little bitty left hand.

GE&P Editorial Policy:

1. Never print anything as fact without documentation.

2. Always protect our sources.

3. Clearly indicate our personal opinions.

4. Rumors require at least 3 independent sources and are noted as such.

5. Don't release information prematurely.

Today, #5 is giving us a LOT of trouble. GE&P has been given a really delicious piece of information but, for a multitude of reasons, we have been asked not to release these facts at this time. We have the liberty to give you a hint, though. When this information comes to light, DD is going to have a fit that will make a three-year-old jealous.

SWMP FEE- BUSTED

In case you didn't make it to the BC Council "Special" meeting last Monday night, we thought we would give you an update. We won't bore you with a blow by blow; we'll give just the highlights in the form of a few exchanges.

1. Councilman Steve Davis pointed out (from the DEHEC Fact Sheet) that according to the new permit requirements, only 25% of the outfalls are required to be tested within the first 18 months. He pointed out that, "if you are only required to test 25% as opposed to 100%, that has to reflect a cost reduction right there". (An outfall is any place where water runs off of any area and into a 'receiving body of water'. It can range in size from a slue that drains your lawn to a 6 foot drainage pipe.)

Response. Weelll. You have to remember that the boundaries are that of the watersheds. (?)

2. Councilman Callanan: "I find this to be a complete waste of money Federal mandate. All I care about is that we meet the absolute bare minimum standards. I don't want an exceptional program. I just want to meet the standards. What does DEHEC look at (to determine) the standards?"

Answer: "Weelll, we haven't even mapped the outfalls yet. Say we test 25%. Then DEHEC goes out and tests and finds that an outfall is impaired. Guess what? We're non-compliant." (?)

3. Councilman Davis: "You already have folks from Roads and Bridges out there digging ditches, can't they dip out a water sample at the same time."

Answer: "No. There are ways of digging ditches and ways of taking water samples and they're not the same thing."

4. Councilman Davis: "How are you going to put a fee on the animals that are putting illicit discharges into the run-off?"

Answer: -------------------------------

5. Councilman Davis: "Is it not true, because of existing BC Ordinances, that BC employees already address most of the requirements of the SWMP?

Answer: "I don't know anything about that document you're looking at." (DEHEC Fact Sheet)

6. Mr. Callanan: (After a long explanation as to why the start-up requirements would need the $1.4 Million) "So, this program seems to be front loaded with expenses. After the first year which includes the start-up costs, we won't need the entire amount in the out years?"

Mr. Carson: "No, that's not what I'm saying. We'll need the entire amount for several years."

7. Statement of BC "Expert": "One big problem is that BC is causing pollution of the Cooper River."

Councilman Davis: "What kind of pollution are we talking about here?"

"Expert": "We won't know 'that' until we do the testing."

Mr. Davis: (in exasperation) "Then how do we know BC's doing it?"

8. After an hour and a half of this stupidity, Councilman Callanan said, "I've been sitting here thanking God we are holding this meeting in a one story building because I have a strong impulse to jump out of a window."

9. One member of the "presentation team" was a lawyer who was touted as being an expert on SWMP. She explained that the EPA had concluded that the majority of illicit discharge was generated by urban development. EPA, and in turn DEHEC, has imposed these requirements to encourage local governments to deter development that could negatively impact water quality . She stated emphatically that the program "didn't make any sense and may never work" because entities bound under a permit have no control over unmanaged or adjoining entities. "The fact is that it doesn't make any sense and it never will". Needless to say, this lady was unceremoniously cut off, never to be heard from again.

10. Mr. Schurlknight asked Mr. Carson to provide the itemized expenses for this program for the first physical year.

At a later point in the conversation, Mr. Davis let it slip that some of the funds generated "could be used for Capital Improvements" which may forward the goals of the SWMP. Ooopps.

FACTS LEARNED FROM THE MEETING:

1. The SWMP is basically unworkable, makes no sense, and probably never will.

2. The main areas of concern in our bodies of water are dissolved oxygen deficiency and fecal chloroform. One of the main culprits in producing dissolved oxygen deficiency is the presence of natural vegetation. The main culprit in the fecal chloroform issue (99.9999% of the time) is the presence of wildlife in the area.

3. An "expert" contractor who stands to benefit a boatload of money from this program was a member of the "presentation team" tasked with convincing County Council that this mess is a great idea and necessary.

4. People who live in the non-regulated incorporated areas like Bonneau, Jamestown and St Stephens will not be subject to the new fee unless they agree to pay it. But, Mr. Carson suggested that Council may have some leverage with these areas by saying, "don't expect us to maintain your roads or drainage or something like that. There are ways to encourage (compliance)".

5. No matter how many intelligent arguments are put forward by County Council, Dan Davis is going to impose this new $1.4 MILLION tax, come hell or high water.

On the off chance that you are having difficulty understanding the new program, please allow us to clarify:

The EPA issued a NPDES through DEHEC to BC. As a result, BC has been designated to be a TMDL with SMS4s adjoining which requires BC to adopt a SWMP that uses BMP and BPJ. This is based on the CDP and will, conceivably, require the addition of a CEPSCI. The CFR, also, requires a COC. BC must send in an annual DMR complying with the ELG, issued by DEHEC. The proof of an ERP is, also, mandatory. In addition, BC must develop a LCP which must include an IDDE and a MCM to the MEP. In preparation, a NOI to request the MSGP is compulsory, and must include the PIS and the POC. The ultimate goal is for the WQS to remain within the WQBEL, complying with our WLA, by establishing WQMSs. The result is a TPOHS.