Greenwood officials are working to update the city’s rules governing development, property maintenance and code enforcement, an effort Mayor Doug Kinslow said is needed after years without some regulations being updated or in place.
The Greenwood City Council took up four related ordinances Monday covering drainage and stormwater management, property maintenance, recreational vehicles and trailers on private property, and planning and development fees.
“In order to get to the point where we need to be, all these ordinances and codes need to be revamped and updated,” Kinslow said.
Kinslow said a city codification committee has been reviewing Greenwood’s ordinances and identifying provisions that need to be repealed, replaced or otherwise updated. The four ordinances would:
• Adopt regulations governing drainage, erosion, culverts and stormwater management.
• Adopt a Greenwood property maintenance code.
• Establish regulations for recreational vehicles, trailers and vehicles on private property.
• Update the city’s planning and development fee schedule.
The ordinances received their first readings Monday. Greenwood typically considers ordinances over three readings at separate meetings before final passage.
Building Inspector Hunter Mikles said city officials want the ordinances to take effect together because of how the regulations and their administration overlap. He said officials intend to bring the ordinances back for their second readings at the next council meeting and ask the council to waive the third readings so the measures can remain on the same implementation schedule.
Kinslow said the changes would also give the city’s code enforcement staff clearer regulations to administer.
FEE SCHEDULE
Mikles said Greenwood overhauled its planning and development fee schedule around December 2025 and is supposed to review the fees annually.
The city changed the way it calculates building permit fees as part of that overhaul. Greenwood previously based building permit fees on the estimated cost of construction but moved to a square-footage system last year.
Mikles said the latest revision adds code enforcement, community compliance, abatement and other charges while making adjustments to existing fees. The proposed schedule would charge 30 cents per square foot for residential new construction and additions, with a $250 minimum. Commercial and multifamily construction would be charged 35 cents per square foot with a $300 minimum, while industrial construction would be charged 25 cents per square foot with a $300 minimum.
Separate mechanical, electrical, and plumbing permits would generally be calculated by square footage as well. Residential trade permits would cost 12 cents per square foot with a $75 minimum, while commercial and industrial trade permits would cost 6 cents per square foot with a $150 minimum.
Mikles said an adjustment intended to account for inflation was not properly reflected when the city changed its permit-pricing system last year.
“That was an oversight on my part, trying to transition from the way that we were pricing building permits,” Mikels said.
The proposed fee schedule also establishes or updates charges covering planning and zoning, stormwater reviews, inspections, signs, driveways, retaining walls, demolition and other development activities. It includes cost-recovery provisions for code enforcement work such as mowing, vegetation and debris removal, securing structures and demolishing unsafe structures.
SIDEWALK PAYMENT ISSUE
Council members also discussed changing a provision that allows developers to pay the city in lieu of constructing required sidewalks.
Under the proposed schedule, the payment is calculated using road frontage without driveways multiplied by the current construction cost per foot, plus 25%. Separate commercial sidewalk fees range from $100 to $3,000 depending on the project’s cost.
Money collected through the payment-in-lieu provision is deposited into a segregated and restricted city sidewalk fund. Under the ordinance, the money may be used for planning, design, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, maintenance or expansion of sidewalks, pedestrian crossings and related pedestrian infrastructure.
Council member A.C. Brown questioned whether the payment should be structured to make paying the city less attractive than constructing the sidewalk.
“Personally, I would prefer a payment in lieu that was structured in a way that wasn’t encouraged,” Brown said.
Council members said the payment structure could leave the city without enough money to build the sidewalks after a developer chooses the payment-in-lieu option. Mikles said he would revise the sidewalk provision ahead of the ordinance’s second reading.
The broader review is part of an effort to put Greenwood’s ordinances into a more workable and current form, Kinslow said. He praised the codification committee’s work reviewing existing city regulations and said the process has uncovered numerous provisions requiring attention.
“We’re just drilling into all this stuff,” Kinslow said, “and there’s so much stuff that needs to be repealed and replaced and/or whatever.”