Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Pecan Orchard residents press Kershaw County over stalled stormwater fixes
Loading...
Summary
Residents told the council they were promised a full stormwater fix years ago; a resident said engineering work and reserve balances mean the county could fund the project but has only budgeted $350,000 for phase 1. County staff said property acquisition and outfall access must be resolved before broader construction.
Mark Wood, a Pecan Orchard resident, told the Kershaw County Council on April 14 that neighbors feel “disappointed” and “lied to” about a long‑promised stormwater project for their neighborhood. Wood said the county has spent “somewhere between 120 to 150,000 on an engineering study” and that the county told residents it would use emergency reserves if a grant failed. He added that the currently proposed $350,000 allocation would address phase 1 only and “includes purchasing a vacant lot,” and asked, “What happens if that vacant lot is not able to be purchased?”
County Administrator Templer told council the administration was authorized to negotiate for the key vacant lot that would serve as an outfall and that an appraisal was pending. Templer described the engineering constraints and utility conflicts staff uncovered and warned that county responsibility covers road drainage and right‑of‑way discharges, not private backyards: “my responsibility is to drain the county roads out there, not the private property.” He said the $350,000 could “do the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people on this particular street” but cautioned that right‑of‑way, property acquisition and possible utility relocations remain blocking issues.
Council discussion reflected tension between political urgency and legal/technical caution. Councilman Jimmy Jones pressed for a firm timeline and earlier assurances that the county would prioritize the project; Vice Chairman Russell Bridal and others asked staff for a schedule with goal dates and clearer public communications. Council members repeatedly asked for detailed, actionable timelines from administration and the county attorney and requested the administrator provide progress updates “in my briefs” or at the next council meeting; Templer said he hoped to have more to share in two to three weeks depending on negotiations and appraisal processes.
There was no motion or vote on funding during the meeting. The council did not adopt additional appropriations that evening; council members asked staff to return with (1) a clear schedule of next steps, (2) status of property negotiations and appraisal, and (3) clarification on what work can be done without creating downstream impacts on neighboring lots.
The county and neighborhood remain at an impasse over scope and funding. Residents called for council to revisit reserve or ARPA interest allocations; administration warned that legal clearance and right‑of‑way acquisition are prerequisites to avoid creating new problems for adjacent homeowners.
