Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Encroachment Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves sending updated encroachment ordinance to full council with staff to clarify penalties and insurance
Summary
The Roads, Infrastructure and Public Works Committee voted March 17 to forward a revised encroachment ordinance — updating construction and restoration standards, fees and bonding, contractor licensing and a cooperative utility agreement — and asked staff to clarify penalty-stacking language and the $2 million insurance threshold before full council consideration.
The Greenville County Roads, Infrastructure and Public Works Committee on March 17 voted to approve and forward a substantially revised encroachment ordinance to the full council, asking staff to return with clarifications on how penalties stack and whether the draft's $2 million public liability insurance threshold is appropriate.
Hunter Kley presented the draft ordinance and summarized why county staff prepared a rewrite of the 2003 code: "if you're not familiar with the encroachment ordinance, it basically governs any work done within county rightway," he said, noting the current ordinance's language is dense and the penalty structure is weak. Kley described the proposed changes as simplifying the verbiage, improving construction and restoration standards, tying restoration requirements to pavement-condition ratings, increasing application and road-cut fees, raising bonding requirements, aligning contractor licensing with the state's board, and offering a cooperative agreement option to participating utilities to encourage coordination and project planning.
Committee members pressed for specifics. One member asked whether "each day in violation" counts as a separate offense; the presenter confirmed that the draft reads that way and said staff would "clarify that for me" before the ordinance reaches the floor. Another member questioned the draft's $2 million public liability insurance requirement for contractors; staff said they would re‑examine whether that threshold is appropriate. Staff also explained that participating utilities that sign the cooperative agreement would face a $500 penalty per violation under the draft and could face cancellation of the agreement after repeated offenses.
Members raised concerns about repeated cuts to newly paved streets by multiple providers. Presenters said the draft discourages cutting new asphalt by conditioning restoration requirements on pavement condition but acknowledged state rules limit local authority; staff offered to research whether the county can place any limits on the number of providers working in a single subdivision and report back at a future meeting.
A committee member moved to approve the proposed updated encroachment ordinance "with the understanding that staff will get back to us on those two issues" (penalty stacking and insurance requirements). The motion passed by voice vote; the committee will forward the draft to the full council for further consideration and potential amendments.
