The Public Safety and Judiciary Committee of Spartanburg County Council met on Monday, April 16, 2001, in Conference Room Two of the County Administrative Office Building. In compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, notice of this meeting was provided in advance to the local news media and other interested parties. The following were in attendance: Honorable Rock Adams, Chairman; Honorable Frank Nutt, and Ken Huckaby, Committee Members; along with Karen Floyd, David Britt, Jeff Horton, and Johnnye Code-Stewart, Council members. Also attending were James K. Hartmann, County Administrator; Bill Dennis, Deputy County Administrator; Glenn Breed, Assistant County Administrator; Chris Story, Assistant County Administrator, and Roy McBee Smith, County Attorney.

1. Chairman Adams called the meeting to order.

1. In reference to discussion on animal control and nuisances, Mr. Glenn Breed advised we have been working with a couple of residents, one in Pacolet area and one in Gramling area, concerning roosters and gamecocks crowing. Mr. Don Arnold stated in March, Animal Control issued a county summons to a gentlemen in Pacolet where Ms. Nancy Thompson was complaining. The only leverage we have speaking of nuisance is the County Animal Control Ordinance that speaks to animals running at large in general and nuisance whereby the noise is so annoying it takes away from the person who owns the property reasonable expectations of quiet and peace in their home. The officer that issued the citation to the gentlemen that had approximately thirty gamecock roosters staked out in his backyard, which was in very close proximity. The gentlemen was found guilty in Court after pleading Not Guilty. The gentlemen in turn filed an appeal to the Circuit Court Level in Spartanburg County that the Magistrate Judge had erred in the interpretation of Spartanburg County Animal Control Ordinance No. 592. With the help of our County Attorneys, Judge Hayes heard the appeal today, and the Court upheld our Magistrate's ruling. However, Mr. Arnold believes the defendant's attorney will probably seek appeal to the State Supreme Court Level. We have two high profile issues to deal with in the county. One of them is the Thompsons and the other one is the Wisenburgers from the Grambling area. The purpose of the roosters is a business where someone raises gamecocks for the purpose of selling those gamecocks. There are three states where it is legal to fight gamecocks. Mr. Arnold stated we are limited with the County Animal Control Ordinance, and we have to address it as a nuisance problem. Mr. Nutt asked if this could be handled under Noise Ordinance. Mr. Arnold advised DHEC does not want to get involved, but we may be able to get them to enter this with a Waste Management Plan. Ms. Nancy Thompson appeared before Council requesting help in this matter. The noise is so bad they cannot go outside. The crowing does not stop day or night. Ms. Thompson passed out requests to Council asking for assistance, and she also passed out information on cock fighting. Her handouts are in backup. Ms. Thompson advised there is legislation out there which Attorney Smith and Ms. Thompson discussed. She requested Council support Senator Hawkins legislation for putting an end to being able to raise, train, and breed these game roosters statewide. This would take care of this issue statewide and countywide. Mr. Smith advised he has met with Ms. Thompson and looked into this matter. It is a statewide issue. There was a statewide law that governed this, and somebody put a one-sentence amendment in the State Appropriations Act that exempted Game Fowl. The State has exempted Game Fowl. Senator Hawkins has a bill that has had first reading in the Senate. It will probably be next year before it passes, if it passes. Mr. Smith feels Private Injunction is only recourse available. Mr. Smith stated he advised Ms. Thompson he would try to help her find an attorney who might take this on a contingent basis. He has talked with one attorney, and he said he would be glad to talk to Ms. Thompson for a private injunction. Ms. Thompson stated Council could also instruct the County Attorney to proceed in the name of the County Council to get an injunctive relief on her behalf. Mr. Smith advised there is a section in the Home Rule Act that allows the County to seek an injunction. Mr. Wisenburger appeared before Council and stated in regard to the State Law it referred to raising and raising for the purpose of fighting. There is not an exemption statewide for nuisance of fighting cocks. The county could take action on nuisance. Mr. Britt asked if there is anything we can do on the nuisance. Mr. Smith advised Chairman Floyd that the county could bring a suit in the name of the county for an injunction. Mr. Adams stated, but then county would assume all the responsibility and liability for the care of the birds. Mr. Smith made recommendations to recommend to Senator Hawkins support of legislation. Also, instruct County Attorney to review our ordinances to see if there is any way we could put more beef in there. The other recommendation is to allow Mr. Smith to try to get an Attorney to bring a private nuisance suit. He would be glad to go with them. Mr. Huckaby made motion we do all three recommendations. Motion seconded by Mr. Adams. Mr. Britt and Mr. Nutt recommended looking at Noise Ordinance. Mr. Smith advised you would just have to keep making cases. Ms. Thompson advised Sheriff's Department would not act because it does not involve a person. Mr. Arnold advised one of the most immediate things we could do would be to instruct the County Attorney to contact DHEC. Mr. Arnold has met with Ken Tuck. He told Mr. Arnold last week they did not want to get involved with this issue, but they will if it is a county problem to the magnitude they need to help. Chairman Floyd stated someone needs to empower the County Attorney to make this a priority. Mr. Huckaby stated he has made motion. Motion seconded by Mr. Adams. Chairman Floyd advised Ms. Thompson that the County Attorney is going to help explore practical regulation by Ordinance. He is going to help with private nuisance cases. He is going to review all Ordinances, including Noise Ordinance, to see where they can be tightened up, so it is not specific. He is going to contact the Sheriff's Department to help bring a free flow of information about what exactly the code covers. He is also going to contact DHEC.
2. David Jones appeared to provide information in reference to Wireless E 9-1-1. Mr. Jones advised when a person dials 9-1-1 from a cellular or wireless device they do not have the same level of service as you can expect on a wired telephone. On a wired phoned, when a person dials 9-1-1, the person's name or business name, address, and telephone number is immediately displayed at the 9-1-1 Center upon answering the phone. We do not have the capability of tracking the location of wireless calls. Currently over a third of all the calls made to 9-1-1 in Spartanburg County are wireless based. The FCC has attempted to deal with this in a two-phase program. Phase One began in 1999 in Spartanburg County. It is a partial tracking of wireless 9-1-1 calls. When a person calls 9-1-1 from a wireless phone, we get the address of the tower that person's call is transmitting from and a call back number. Phase Two is a more accurate tracking of the location of the 9-1-1 call. FCC mandates Phase Two has to be deployed by October, 2001, assuming there are some conditions that have been meet by the 9-1-1 jurisdiction. There has to be a formal request made for the Phase Two Location Technology to be deployed, and they have six months after a request is made. Secondly, the 9-1-1 Center must have technology to translate that data. In Spartanburg County, we completed that technology upgrade in December of 2000. Our mapping system and our computerized dispatch system are capable of translating data and plotting on map. We have made the request and the deadline is set for October. The FCC mandated Phase One be deployed by October of 1998. We were the first to deploy Phase One, and we deployed in 1999. Currently, about 25 to 30 percent of 9-1-1 Centers across the country have deployed Phase One. There is question about whether the Phase Two requirement will be enforced in October. A professional organization has formed a nationwide initiative to assist the Phase Two deployment of 9-1-1 Centers and other public safety interests around the country. They selected one 9-1-1 Center from each state to act as a model for Phase Two Deployment throughout the 9-1-1 Industry. Spartanburg County has been selected as that model center for the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, our formal request has been made of all of the carriers that provide service here. We believe we have met the requirement of the FCC. Mr. Jones does not believe we will be able to meet the October deadline. Phase Two is significantly more difficult to acquire, both technically, logistically and financially, than Phase One, but it is still an issue that we are moving forward on. The wireless carriers are predicting a cost of about 150 million dollars per state for Phase Two deployment. South Carolina has in place a wireless 9-1-1 surcharge of $.58 per month. The state covers the cost associated with the county. There is still considerable litigation as to who is going to pay the 150 million dollars per state.
3. Motion made by Mr. Huckaby to grant request from Arcadia Fire Department to have a boot drive to raise money for Training Equipment on Blackstock, Spring Street, Pickney, and Morning Drive on Saturday, June 2, 2001, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Motion seconded by Mr. Nutt and carried.
4. Updated information regarding activities of Building Codes Department was received as information only.

Meeting adjourned.