Here’s a recap of Greer City Council’s May 12 meeting.
Approved: Funding for pavement preservation program
Council approved spending a total of $440,598 this year as part of a pavement preservation program begun in 2022.
The funding will cover treatment with two separate products designed to prolong the life of asphalt on city streets. About 7.6 miles of streets will be treated with a product called Reclamite by Westlake, Ohio-based Pavement Technology Inc., the only company licensed in South Carolina to apply the product. The cost for this will be $125,218.
The second product is a pavement sealer called HA5 and will be applied to streets in the Country Club Crossing, Heather Hills, Highland Parc, Creekside Landing, Orchard Crest, Woodgrove and Maplewood subdivisions, and one street in Hampton Ridge subdivision. The work will be done by Floraida-based Holbrook Asphalt and cost $315,380.
In describing the work and the logic behind using the specific products, Assistant City Engineer Nathan Jackson said the treatments can extend the life of pavement by between four and seven years by replenishing the oils in the asphalt and sealing the pavement so those oils are retained longer. The process is significantly cheaper than repaving a street, he said.
“Our dollars are going a lot farther with this process,” Jackson said.
Approved: Utility revenue bonds for CPW
Council voted 4-3 to approve second and final reading of an ordinance authorizing the Commission of Public Works to issue up to $33 million in utility revenue bonds for maintenance and capacity upgrades to CPW’s water and wastewater systems.
Due to the nature of CPW’s creation, council’s approval is required for such measures although the city and its taxpayers will not be legally or financially responsible for the debt. City Administrator Andy Merriman explained this to council prior to first reading and reiterated the point prior to the final vote.
Council members Jay Arrowood, Karuiam Booker and Wryley Bettis again voted against the measure and expressed disgruntlement at the necessity of council taking action on a process they had no involvement in or control over.
