Bad blood keeps boiling as Lexington County towns question motives in new roads proposal

Lexington County leaders are agreeing to once again take care of roads in a few of the county’s cities and towns in an apparent attempt to relieve ongoing tension across the county. But some municipal leaders believe the move is meant to divide their united front, as members of the county collectively grapple with how to manage their ongoing population boom.

Since County Council’s December decision to cancel a 45-year-old agreement to maintain roads in the cities and towns within its borders, a heated public battle ensued surrounding the county’s continued growth, with leaders disagreeing on who should get to set the standards for new residential developments annexed into municipalities and who should control roads funding coming to the county from the state.

The amended agreement the county subsequently offered to the municipalities dictated that new residential developments in annexed areas must adhere to county zoning standards for those roads to be covered. Many municipalities decried this requirement as impinging on their right to govern themselves.

The municipalities and the county finally sat down to try to find common ground last week, with the town of Lexington inviting representatives from the county and the municipalities to an April 19 meeting. According to the county, County Council Chair Beth Carrigg and County Administrator Lynn Sturkie attended, alongside representatives from Irmo, West Columbia, Swansea, Chapin, Batesburg-Leesville, Cayce and Springdale.

Members of the public, including a reporter from The State, were not permitted inside that meeting.

”It was a good meeting. It was conciliatory,” Carrigg said during County Council’s Tuesday meeting. “We had good conversations, we talked about what they felt that they needed from us what they wanted from us. We talked about how they could help us in the future with some issues that we find very difficult, which is impact fees and the need to use those for roads. I felt like we left there on good terms with an understanding that there were more meetings and more discussions to be had. “

“(The municipalities) felt that it was all about traffic,” Sturkie added “They said that they’re committed to working with us and helping us address that. They also agree that one agreement for the entire county doesn’t work.”

That individualized agreements would have to be crafted for each municipality does seem to be a point of agreement. Carrigg said as much during the Tuesday council meeting, and all of the municipal leaders The State spoke with echoed the sentiment.

But while the chair and administrator acknowledged that all the municipalities present sought to temporarily return to the previous roads maintenance agreement while negotiations on permanent agreements continue, council only extended the old agreement back to four municipalities: Cayce, West Columbia, Springdale (included in a proposed urban overlay district that would loosen restrictions to the point that changes to the roads agreement wouldn’t really have an impact) and Irmo (which council noted isn’t actively looking at adding any annexed developments).

Carrigg said waiting on the other municipalities, particularly the ones in the western part of the county, hinged on wanting to discuss recommendations from the recently completed Palmetto 2040 pilot, which looked at how to safeguard the county’s farmland amid rapid redevelopment. Council will discuss that study at its next meeting, scheduled for May 14, she said. Council moved in January to expand and tighten restrictions in a western overlay district protecting agricultural uses.

“We get past the 2040 plan, and then we can reevaluate what the western overlay is going to look like,” the chairwoman said.

But some officials question the motives behind offering to temporarily reinstate the old roads agreement for some municipalities before the others.

“We went in there as a united front,” Irmo Mayor Bill Danielson said, questioning if County Council’s actions were meant to drive a wedge between the municipalities. “It just makes me wonder, what is their goal?”

What about the town of Lexington?

Notably excluded from an offer to temporarily return to the old agreement was the town of Lexington, the largest municipality contained entirely within the county. Carrigg explained that this had to do with the town’s western borders extending into the farm-heavy region council will consider during its next meeting.

But Lexington Town Councilman Gavin Smith said he doesn’t buy that argument.

“I commend our mayor for putting that meeting together last week. I truly believe that was a good step in the right direction,” he said. “But it seems that the initial pieces of the bridge that was built last Friday, it seems as though those pieces have already crumbled.”

“How can you get to the table and negotiate when the goalposts continue to move?” Smith added. “You can’t even get a level playing field.”

Lexington Mayor Hazel Livingston also took issue with the course taken by County Council, questioning the county’s consistency when it comes to dictating standards for development.

“Although the Town has not approved a new subdivision in over 18 months, the Town requires the developer to furnish a strategic roadway plan before approving any new residential subdivision.,” she said in a lengthy statement sent out to local news outlets. “Since 2020, the Town has only issued 796 Single Family Residential permits, with 69% of those being subdivisions that were pre-approved by the County. During this very same time period, the County issued 5,981 Single Family Residential permits in unincorporated areas.

“Most recently, the County approved a 68-unit townhome project with the potential to expand to 200 units in the immediate proximity of the Town limits. This is inconsistent with the Town’s comprehensive plan, which limits density in this area west of the Town of Lexington.”

The municipalities’ frustration with the county previously led them to request a meeting with the state senators and representatives who make up the county’s legislative delegation and who determine the makeup of the committee that divides up state gas tax funds received by the county. That committee is currently composed entirely of County Council members.

The county has discussed the idea of adding an advisory subcommittee with municipal representation. Smith, Livingston and Danielson remained insistent that the municipalities be given a true say in how those funds are distributed.

“Our citizens within the Town aren’t being treated equally, as they also pay property tax to the County as well as state and federal gas tax,” Lexington’s mayor said. “Currently the state portion of gas tax funds are allocated to the County Transportation Committee (CTC), which is controlled by Lexington County Council.“

But while divisions between the county and the cities and towns remain, some are optimistic that negotiations are headed in the right direction.

“I think it’s important that we’re all on the same page, you know,” said Cayce City Councilman Phil Carter, who attended last week’s meeting on behalf of the city. “We have different wants and needs, and we will certainly disagree on some things, but we all want the best thing for the county. It’s all good. I’m very positive about what’s been going on so far. But we still got a little ways to go.”