Blythewood council hears strong public opposition to proposed ZIP-code annexation

Dozens of residents packed the Blythewood town hall on Feb. 23 to oppose a proposal that would annex the entire 29016 ZIP code into the town, telling council the change would threaten farms, small businesses and the area’s rural character.

Speakers including Jeff Brown, Matt Mose and Joe Trapp testified they do not want forced annexation and urged voluntary, petition-driven approaches. Matt Mose asked the council to produce the petition that spawned the conversation and requested names and addresses of signatories. Joe Trapp cited Town of Blythewood code Section 110 to describe how annexed businesses could face town business licensing and inspection requirements.

Mayor Griffin opened the discussion by stressing that the meeting was informational and that “tonight is not the night to say yes to annexation.” He said he had asked staff and the town attorney to explain the legal methods available under South Carolina law—100% petition, 75% petition, or election methods—and whether a referendum could be advisory or binding. Interim town administrator Ed Driggers and multiple council members described those methods as legally complex and potentially expensive.

Several residents warned annexation could increase costs for residents on fixed incomes and could change longstanding land uses such as hunting and farming. A resident also asked whether franchise-fee revenue (a 5% power franchise fee for in-town customers) was a motivation for annexation; staff agreed to provide current franchise-fee collection figures and a projection of anticipated revenue if annexation were pursued.

Council members said they have discussed annexation in prior strategic planning sessions but several said mass annexation of the entire ZIP code was not a current council priority. Councilman McKenrick and others urged that any decision be preceded by targeted legal research to clarify statutory deadlines, petition thresholds and potential statutory limitations involving farm-preserving legislation referenced by speakers.

The council did not take formal action on annexation at the meeting. Mayor Griffin said staff would prepare documentation and, if council chooses, the town attorney would be asked to research next steps so council can decide whether to invest in a formal annexation study or pursue petition-based approaches.

The next procedural step the mayor proposed was a staff-led information packet and legal memo explaining the three annexation methods, associated costs, and statutory deadlines; the council asked staff to return with that analysis before any vote.

Closing the item, the mayor reiterated that no annexation vote would occur that night and encouraged residents to continue to provide input and petitions if they favored voluntary annexation.

The council then recessed for 10 minutes. The annexation discussion recorded in this article began when the mayor polled the audience for annexation commenters and ran through staff and council discussion about research needs and legal methods.