Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects RFP for Cheltenham fire gate after residents and some council members oppose plan
Summary
The council voted 6-1 to deny authorization for the city manager to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to build a fire gate on Cheltenham, following extensive public comment about neighborhood access, traffic safety and precedent for gated neighborhood access.
The Greenville City Council voted 6-1 to deny authorization for the city manager to issue an RFP to construct a fire gate at Cheltenham Lane, reversing an earlier decision to pursue a gate in that location.
Jimmy Hamilton, a Hunters Run-area resident, told the council the Cheltenham connection provides a safer alternate route to State Highway 1570 and said he relies on that route during heavy weather. "If I'm out and about over the next couple of days... I will use Cheltenham provided there is no gate keeping me," Hamilton said during public comment.
Howard Winans, another nearby resident, described the Cheltenham connection as safer than Old Mill Road and said he had changed his view since earlier debates. "Going out and going by Cheltenham and then out that way is so much safer for the people in that neighborhood than going over and trying to hit Old Mill Road," Winans said.
Councilman Philip Spencer, who had supported placing a gate earlier in the process, told colleagues he now believed he had voted in error on that prior action: "I made a mistake, and it shouldn't be no gate up there," Spencer said.
City Attorney Daniel Ray cautioned council members about litigation risks either way and described the limits of municipal authority on property-rights claims: "If you substantially... alter a right, a property right, like ingress or egress, then that sets up a potential action," Ray said, explaining that a lawsuit—s outcome would depend on a judge or jury.
After debate, Councilmember Cruz moved to deny authorization for the city manager to issue the RFP; the motion passed 6-1. The tally was recorded in the meeting minutes as 6 in favor, 1 opposed.
Why it matters: supporters of keeping the gate point to earlier council commitments; opponents cited public safety created by an alternate route and said placing a gate sets an unwanted precedent of gating neighborhood connections. The council decision halts the procurement step for the gate; staff said the RFP would have been required because initial cost estimates exceeded the city manager—s purchasing authority.
The council recorded the vote in open session and closed the item; no contract was issued.
