Category: Government

Days Lost to Weather Also Get Second Look

WINNSBORO – In a work session that spanned more than two hours Tuesday night, County Council weighed the pros and cons of revisiting the County’s inclement weather policy as well as an extension of the application deadline for community grants. Both items surfaced at Council’s Sept. 8 meeting, prompting Chairman David Ferguson (District 5) to call for the special session.

Grants

The grant question came to the forefront after Council doled out the funds during the Sept. 8 meeting and found that, collectively, $6,000 was left on the table. Council’s revised policy on the discretionary spending allocates $2,500 for each district and established a rigorous set of criteria for applicants. After Council’s Sept. 8 vote, four of the seven districts still had significant funds remaining ($2,000 in District 1; $1,500 in District 3; $1,500 in District 4; $1,000 in District 6).

Councilman Kamau Marcharia (District 4) suggested after the vote that the roughly one-month application window under the new policy was too brief and Tuesday night he reiterated that position and added that he felt Council members should be involved early in the application process. Under the new policy, applications are submitted to administrative staff and then recommended by the Administrator to the entire Council for a vote.

“Council member involvement is kind of what, in part, brought us to this redefining of the discretionary (spending) to ‘community enhancement grant’,” Interim Administrator Milton Pope said, addressing Marcharia’s concerns. “The process was developed to limit Council member involvement on the front end of the process where the public would see it as very transparent and not someone getting favor over someone else. . . . In some ways it was on purpose to exclude any involvement on the front end where people wouldn’t think the process was fixed.”

Councilwoman Mary Lynn Kinley (District 6) suggested extending the application window for an additional 30 days, she said, to give more organizations ample time to seek funding. Vice Chairman Dwayne Perry (District 1) suggested a 60-day extension. Pope and staff will review the process and bring the matter back to Council for a vote at Monday night’s meeting.

Snow Days

The debate over if and how to revise the County’s policy regarding inclement weather, as well as whether or not to reinstate leave days used by employees this summer when a busted air conditioner forced the County Courthouse to close up shop for three days, was far more complicated and drawn out.

The current policy, adopted in 2011, requires employees to burn vacation or sick-leave days if foul weather shuts down the County.

“It’s my opinion that if Council or the County Administrator tells somebody not to come to work or tells people to stay home, we should not dock that person for staying home,” Councilman David Brown (District 7) said. “I’m thinking that in the past 365 days our employees have been docked nine days for one reason or another that was an administrative call, and that’s like losing half a month.”

Brown’s sentiments were shared by Councilwoman Carolyn Robinson. While Perry said he could see both side of the issue, he added that “If we as a government can’t keep (the Courthouse) open, it’s not the employees’ fault.”

Council eventually elected to separate the two issues – reinstating the leave days used by Courthouse employees and revisiting the weather policy – and will bring the reinstatement of the Courthouse days to the floor on Monday evening.

The weather policy issue was clouded somewhat when Ferguson told Council that if a vote to pay employees for weather days came to the floor Monday, he would immediately follow that with a motion to give the County’s emergency workers, who have to work regardless of the weather, an additional day’s pay for working those days.

Council eventually chose to send the policy review back to another work session before bringing the matter to a regular meeting.

WINNSBORO – Mayor Roger Gaddy opened Tuesday’s Town Council meeting with an addition to the agenda, a reimbursement resolution declaring the intent of the Town of Winnsboro to reimburse itself for certain expenditures from the proceeds of debt (bond) to be incurred with the upcoming bond referendum to bring water from the Broad River. The resolution, which was approved unanimously, also allows the Town to be reimbursed for expenses the 60 days prior to Sept. 16.

Council also approved several purchases, including $95,000 to rebuild three tertiary filters at the wastewater plant and $12,000 to purchase a transformer for the Enor Corporation. Council also voted to submit applications for a pair of USDA Rural Development Community Facilities grants for an Amick garbage truck and three Ford Interceptor sedans for the Town’s Public Safety Department. Council committed to matching funds of $63,000 for the garbage truck and $48,986.10 for the three sedans.

Following executive session where Council discussed legal and contractual water issues concerning Mid-County Water Company, Blythewood, Boney Road and Red Gate, et. al., Council voted to allow the Utility Department to fill an open position. It also voted to uphold Town Manager Don Wood’s denial of water to a Boney Road property in Blythewood.

The water line to the home would have had to travel across the yards of other homes. The property owner appealed Wood’s decision to the Town Council.

“We just couldn’t do that,” Gaddy said. “Don Wood looked at it and determined that, of course, we couldn’t just go across somebody’s property.”

BLYTHEWOOD – The Board of Architectural Review Monday night unanimously approved a new design concept for an amphitheater band shell in the town’s Doko Park. The raised permanent structure was recommended to Town Council for approval by the Park Committee. Jim McLean, the committee’s chairman, said the Wave band shell is a smaller, less costly design than the original design, but that it can be increased in size at a cost of about $10,000 per 5 feet in width. Built by Polygon, the shell measures 30×40 feet and features quad beams, a front concrete pad, electrical connections and lighting. The estimated cost is $125,000 – $150,000.

The next stop for the shell is Town Council, where it will be perused for color, scale, lighting and other features.

“We felt it needed to come before the BAR first for approval of the design concept, to be sure it is fitting for the park before Town Council looks at it,” McLean said.

McLean also reviewed for the board some of the town’s historical properties, suggesting that the Town develop an inventory of prospective properties and the Historical Society could help with ranking, using a point system for determining historical importance.

“I believe in an historical ordinance,” McLean said. “In 2007 we identified 58 pieces of historical properties. As the town has grown, the prospects for historical properties have also grown.”

Winnsboro’s Grand Water Plan Fails to Move Blythewood’s Needle

BLYTHEWOOD – The Town of Winnsboro’s multimillion dollar plan, made public for the first time at Town Council’s Sept. 2 meeting, to draw as much as 10 million gallons of water a day from the Broad River does not appear to have swayed the Town of Blythewood from its efforts to terminate its water franchise agreement with Winnsboro and seek service instead from the City of Columbia.

“Reconsideration would be something that our Council might would entertain as an option, but (that’s) certainly not our position now,” Blythewood Mayor J. Michael Ross told The Voice in an email dated Sept. 9, a week after Winnsboro voted to launch the project. “Probably all of this will be discussed at work session on Sept. 25.”

Sept. 25, however, may prove too little too late for Blythewood. According to the water franchise agreement, contractual disputes are subject to arbitration. Winnsboro voted on July 17 to pursue arbitration and hired Robert Bachman to serve as the Town’s mediator. At press time, however, Blythewood was still bucking arbitration and had not hired a mediator to represent them in the dispute.

“We have not (hired an arbitrator) at this time,” Ross wrote on Sept. 9, “and I have sent a letter to (Winnsboro Mayor Roger) Gaddy to request if we could forgo the arbitration process. (It is a) tremendous unnecessary expense dictated by a 20 year old agreement.”

John Fantry, Winnsboro’s legal counsel for public utility matters, told The Voice Tuesday that Blythewood’s window to hire a mediator closed on Wednesday.

Last April, Blythewood abruptly and without warning passed a resolution to terminate the agreement that transferred annually approximately $13,000 from Winnsboro to Blythewood for use of Blythewood right-of-ways necessary for Winnsboro to access, service and maintain water infrastructure. While Blythewood reads the contract as effective until 2016, Winnsboro maintains that the agreement is binding until 2020. Severance of the agreement would, according to the contract, require Winnsboro to sell off that infrastructure at fair market value to Blythewood.

The City of Columbia has since entered the picture, expressing interest in acquiring Winnsboro’s infrastructure on Blythewood’s behalf. In an Aug. 5 letter to Winnsboro, Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin said the Columbia was ready to begin negotiations pursuant to a sale.

But Winnsboro has remained steadfast in its resolve to pursue arbitration. In response to Benjamin’s letter, Gaddy wrote on Aug. 20 that Winnsboro considers any discussion regarding the sale of the Blythewood system “premature in that Winnsboro is demanding arbitration,” over the disputed termination of the franchise agreement.

“We are not interested in wasting public resources to pay lawyers to determine questions that are insignificant in the practical sense,” Ross wrote Gaddy on Sept. 4. “Whether the agreement expires in 2016 or 202 is really nor material to the public interest. What is important is that Winnsboro has been unable to provide potable water reliably and in sufficient quantities to our community.”

With no arbitrator sitting on the other side of the table, Winnsboro will now have to consider its next steps. Fantry said Winnsboro could take the matter before a Circuit Court judge and ask the court to enforce the contract. Winnsboro could also seek punitive damages, could elect to stop paying the annual $13,000 franchise fee or could even cut off water service to Blythewood Town Hall and the Doko Manor.

What is absolutely clear, Fantry said, is that Winnsboro has no interest in discussing the sale of its Blythewood infrastructure before the expiration of the contract. With the arbitration process derailed, when that contract expires may be up to the courts.

Winnsboro’s plan to draw from the Broad River may cost as much as $13 million and would require Winnsboro to lay approximately 9 miles of water lines between the river and the reservoir. Sources have indicated the first water may not flow through those lines until 2017. Should the Broad River plan deliver as promised, and if Blythewood were to have a change of heart, Ross wrote Gaddy on Sept. 4 that Blythewood would seek to have any potential future agreement reworked.

“The existing Franchise Agreement is flawed in a number of respects and in no event would we wish to renew on the same terms and conditions,” Ross wrote.

RIDGEWAY – After voting at their Aug. 14 meeting to award a $1,200 contract to M.C. Rowe to construct an earthen berm on the east side of the Century House, Town Council changed gears last week, electing instead to erect a cable barrier. Council unanimously agreed on the change of course after Councilman Russ Brown volunteered to construct the barrier himself.

“I know we’ve already voted on that, but I’m not sure if it’s been approved,” Brown said during Council’s Sept. 11 meeting. “I’m going to suggest that if the Town would like to save money I would be willing to put in the wire and the posts.”

Rezoning Hearing

Brown’s attempt to have .82 acres at the junction of highways 34 and 21 failed to make it past the Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 25. The property is zoned as R1 (single-family residential) and Brown was seeking to have it rezoned as commercial to conform to surrounding lots. Brown said last week he was considering an appeal of the process.

WINNSBORO – Exercising their new protocol for discretionary spending, County Council Monday night doled out $7,000 in community enhancement grants to organizations in five districts, with an additional $2,500 in districts 2 and 7 allocated for street lighting. With $2,500 budgeted for each district, however, Monday night’s allocations left $5,500 on the table, prompting Council to consider extending the application period.

Milton Pope, interim County Administrator, told Council that 12 organizations had applied for funding for community programs in districts 1, 4, 5 and 6. The Girls Scouts of America and the Winnsboro Lions Club had also applied for funds, Pope said, but without a specific district sponsorship. Pope said Councilman Mikel Trapp (District 3) had agreed to sponsor those two organizations under his district so they could qualify for funding.

Council voted unanimously to award $500 in District 1 to the Tiger Toes Literacy Program. The grant will be used to purchase 250 books to give away at free book distributions in Ridgeway, Simpson, Longtown, Centerville and the Lake Wateree area. In District 3, the Girl Scouts and the Lions Club were each awarded $500. The Lions Club will use their portion to provide eye exams and glasses for the indigent. The Girl Scouts will use their grant to help fund their Youth Initiative Program.

Council also OK’d $500 each in District 4 for St. Luke Baptist Church and Mt. Zion AME Church. St. Luke will use the funds to restock its food pantry, while Mt. Zion AME will use the grant to purchase school supplies for its back to school bash, to provide Thanksgiving dinners for the needy and to help fund its Christmas gift bag project for the homeless.

In District 5, Council approved $500 for St. Mark Baptist Church for school supplies for its back to school bash and to restock its food pantry; $500 for the Fairfield Memorial Hospital Foundation to update the walking track around the hospital; and $500 each to Blackjack Baptist Church, New Hope AME Church and River of Life Church to purchase school supplies for their back to school bashes.

Council approved $500 each in District 6 for Fairfield Behavioral Health Services (FBHS), Fairfield Medical Associates (FMA), St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church and the Church of the Nazarene. FBHS will use their grant to fund their tobacco-free initiatives, while FMA will use their grant to help fund a health and wellness fair. St. Paul Baptist will use their grant to fund health and wellness initiatives for youth and elderly, and the Church of the Nazarene will use their grant to purchase school supplies and to help fund their Judgment House community education program.

Council approved the new discretionary spending policy last July and set a deadline to apply for the funds at Aug. 22. While Pope said the County contacted past recipients to inform them of the new deadline and advertised the grants through the local media as well as through the Chamber of Commerce’s website, Councilman Kamau Marcharia (District 4) said the window of opportunity for applicants was too narrow and suggested Council reconsider how the leftover funds are to be treated.

“I had only two people apply. That means $1,500 goes back into the kitty,” Marcharia said. “I’m thinking that we should have that money there for each district to use that money. We already voted on it. Just to kill it like that, I think is not a good idea.”

Marcharia moved that Council send the policy back to committee for reconsideration. After Trapp offered a second, Council unanimously voted to do so. Chairman David Ferguson (District 5) said the matter would be discussed at an upcoming work session.

Pope said the funds must be used and receipts turned in to the County by Dec. 28. Next year, he said, the grants will be allocated prior to the 2015-2016 budgeting process.

Ambitious Project Gets Green Light

WINNSBORO – The County’s long-awaited plan for how to spend $3.5 million of the 2013 $24.06 million bond issue on recreation improvements ($500,000 per district) was finally revealed to the public Monday night and passed by County Council into its next phase of bidding out the projects. But with the entire plan more than $600,000 over budget, Council may well find itself paring down projects by the first of the year.

“You’ll see numbers today that are higher than the budget, but where we are today in the planning process, we feel like that’s appropriate and the right place to be today,” David Brandes, of Genesis Consulting, told Council during his presentation of the plan Monday night. “We’re not trying to get down to the exact budget. We want some ability for the marketplace to play a role. If prices come in better than we anticipated, we wanted to take advantage of that. If prices come in where we think they are or a little bit higher, having a strong strategy of how we get down to the budget has been considered.”

Brandes said staffing and maintenance for the facilities, as well as replacement costs and a 10 percent contingency had all been calculated into the costs. The costs also include architectural and engineering fees.

Features

Not every district has requested the inclusion of a community center in their recreation plan, but those that have will all be looking at essentially the same building, Brandes said – a 4,300-square-foot structure with one large room the size of a half-court basketball court with several smaller rooms that can be used as game rooms, offices, etc. The facilities are designed to be expanded, if necessary.

Playgrounds come in two varieties: for ages 5-12 and for ages 5 and younger. Picnic shelters also come in 40-person and 25-person sizes, featuring concrete flooring, metal roofing, tables and grills. Basketball courts will primarily be half-court, with the option to expand to full-court if necessary. Swing sets are stand-alone items, not necessarily attached to playgrounds, Brandes said.

Property

One cannot have a recreation facility, of any size or caliber, without land on which to put it. Some districts already have land patiently waiting for its new park. Others, meanwhile, will still have to go through the County’s three readings and a public hearing process to either purchase or accept the donation of property. For the districts without land already designated for recreation, Brandes said a placeholder figure of $15,000 was included in the plan for land acquisition.

District by District

District 1: $617,017 (no land). Community center near Ridgeway; outdoor basketball court. Staffing: $28,025. Operation & Maintenance (O&M): $17,294.

District 2: $573,333 (no land). Community center; combination EMS/recycling center facility. Staffing: $10,943. O&M: $12,981.

District 3: $499,337 (no land). Outdoor basketball court; swing set; two 5-12 playgrounds; two 5 and under playgrounds. Staffing: $3,836. O&M: $12,969.

District 4: $641,660 (8.12 acres off Ladd Road currently under lease). Community center; walking trails; outdoor basketball court. Staffing: $30,190. O&M: $20,015.

District 5: $641,930 (no land). Outdoor basketball court; swing set; two walking trails; two 5-12 playgrounds; two 5 and under playgrounds; three picnic shelters. Staffing: $3,836. O&M: $21,199.

District 6: $509,629 (County owned former maintenance facility). Conversion of existing facility into fitness center, to include fitness classes and equipment; lighting for existing football/soccer field; walking trails; picnic shelter. Staffing: $45,579. O&M: $24,723.

District 7: $644,440 (Genealogy building). Improvements to genealogy building; outdoor basketball court; stand-alone rest room facility; baseball/softball field; picnic shelter (larger than 40-person). Staffing: $3,836. O&M: $12,191.

The Next Step

Council voted unanimously to authorize Pope to amend the County’s contract with their consultants (Kenneth B. Simmons Associates and Genesis) to allow them to begin putting projects out for bid. Once those bids come in, Council will then take another look at the costs and consider, if necessary, which things to leave out and what to keep in in order to hit their $3.5 million budget. Brandes said building plans will have to be approved and permitted by the County, and the County engineer will have to OK grading plans and issue a storm water permit.

“We’ll move as fast as we can getting those contract documents together, getting the permits secured, then bidding right on the heels of that,” Brandes said. “Depending on where the sites are available, one to two months, then hopefully by the first of the year we’re actually swinging hammers and sawing boards.”

WINNSBORO – After The Voice reported three weeks ago that the County had issued another general obligation (GO) bond on Aug. 7, little information has been forthcoming from the County about what much of the $1,156,000 bond is being used for.

More than Enough

The Payment Certificate related to the Aug. 7 bond states that it is earmarked to pay one or more installment payments to the Fairfield Facilities Corporation (FFC) (to be used toward pay off of the $24 million bond) and the costs of issuance. But the amount of the Aug. 7 GO bond far exceeds the amount of money needed for the Council’s $453,472 installment payment to the FFC that was due Sept. 1.

So far, County Administrator Milton Pope has not answered The Voice’s emailed questions as to how, specifically, the remaining $702,528 is to be used, except to say that $20,000 of it was an issuance fee paid to the County’s bond consultant, Parker Poe. When pressed further, Pope referenced the County’s ‘Projects’ that are being constructed with the $24 million bond proceeds and wrote that an “upcoming presentation will give adequate detail to all aspects of the bond and therefore at least settle the factual discussion about the matter.” He said that presentation will be made at the Sept. 22 Council meeting.

Lingering Questions

The mystery surrounding the disbursement of the new GO bond is exacerbated by a number of issues. It appears the County never explained publicly or early on the details of the role of the FFC, the intricacies of the $24 million bond’s purchase/payment process or that the new semi-annual GO bonds were even coming down the pike. To justify the issuance of the $24 million bond, there have been revelations of late by County officials that the bond ‘almost’ obligates the future revenue from the two new V. C. Summer reactor units in case there were a raid (by other communities in the state) to take away a portion of those moneys from Fairfield County. And in response to complaints that the County has not been open about the entire bond process, Pope insists that the GO bonds were discussed at several meetings when Ordinance 614 (providing for the GO bonds) was on Council’s agenda in March and April 2013. However, while the ordinance is on file, there is so far no evidence that the particulars pertaining to the issuance of GO bonds to help pay off the $24 million bond were discussed in any detail so that the public would be fully informed on the matter. The Voice has filed a Freedom of Information request with the County for the digital recording of the March 25, 2013; April 8, 2013 and April 15, 2013 Council meetings in which Ordinance 614 and a Resolution establishing the Fairfield Facilities Corporation were passed.

In an interview with The Voice on Aug. 18, County Council Chairman David Ferguson (District 5) complained that a news story about the bonds that appeared in the Aug. 15 issue of The Voice was not accurate, but he declined to clarify what in the story was inaccurate.

Ferguson said he was not sure what the proceeds of the $1,156,000 bond are to be used for.

“I’m not a mathematician,” he said. “You’d have to get that information from Michael (Kozlarek, the County’s bond consultant representing Parker Poe) . . . but he won’t talk to you. It’s not in his contract.”

When one of Columbia’s top bond attorneys, who asked not to be named, was asked to speculate on how the new GO bond proceeds are possibly being used, other than to pay for the $453,472 installment payment on Sept. 1, he replied, “I can’t figure out what they’re doing.”

While he said he would not presume there were any illegalities in the matter, he had a number of questions including why the two new GO bonds were being stretched out to a 7-year pay off instead of a standard 1-year pay off. He also said it looks like Council is trying to manage its debt millage so that it doesn’t go down or up “by staying within the tax burden that the people (property owners) already have.”

A Misunderstanding

At a special meeting between the Council and the Legislative Delegation on Aug. 18, Pope blamed what he calls a misunderstanding about the County’s bonds on the media.

But the County’s critics say some of the County’s information about the bonds has been faulty. Following Council’s meeting on March 25, 2013, then County Administrator Phil Hinely was quoted in both Fairfield County newspapers as saying that the Council passed a $24 million bond. Pope has recently clarified that it was not the County, but the Fairfield Facilities Corporation that issued the bond. Hinely was also quoted in the newspapers as saying that the $24.06 million in bonds Council voted on aren’t necessarily ‘new’ bonds, but are a ‘rolling over’ of the 2009 bonds that kick-started the County’s 10-year economic plan. Therefore, he said, they don’t come with a tax increase.

Asked to explain the ‘rolling over’ of the 2009 bonds, two of The Voice’s sources for bond information said that explanation did not make sense.

The FFC has been described to The Voice by various government officials as a non-profit, shell corporation created by Council to borrow more money than it could otherwise legally borrow within its constitutional debt limit, which is equal to 8 percent of the assessed value of taxable property in the County. For Fairfield County, that limit as of March 2, 2013 was $4.5 million. That will decrease with each new GO bond issued unless the previous GO bond(s) are paid off.

Bond Mechanics 101

The purchase/payment process set up through the FFC is convoluted on every level. According to the bond document, after the FFC issued the $24 million bond, it will use the proceeds to construct or renovate the ‘Projects’ (See box at right) for the County. The FFC retires the $24 million bond debt with the semi-annual installment payments it receives on March 1 and Sept. 1 each year from the County. Each of the County’s payments are equal to the amount the FFC pays to retire the $24 million bond.

The Council has agreed to make those semi-annual payments with a portion of the fee-in-lieu-of-taxes (FILOT) it expects to receive from two new reactor units under construction at the V.C. Summers nuclear facility. At the time of the agreement, those units were scheduled to be placed into service in 2017 and 2018, respectively, with the first revenue from the units expected to materialize in 2019 according to the bond document. Since the County had to find an additional source to make payments until the FILOT revenue materialized, the installment payments from 2013 through Sept. 1, 2020 were kept low, at about $450,000 semi-annually or about $900,000 annually. On April 15, 2013, Council passed Ordinance 614 that would allow it to issue as many GO bonds as it needed (without voter approval) to provide for those installment payments so long as the amount of the GO bonds did not exceed the County’s bonded debt limit.

In 2021 the annual installment payments jump to $1,670,106. Adding to the County’s financial burden, in 2019 it will be taking on other large bond related expenses including a payment of $1,670,106 to the $24 million bond’s Secondary Reserve Fund. And that same year it will owe the last payment ($102,919.41 plus interest) on the $769,177.88 GO bond issued Feb. 14, 2014 and the last payment ($139,305.05 plus interest) on the recently issued $1,156,000 GO bond.

Many questions remain, like how is the County paying for the new GO bonds since Pope has said no new taxes will be levied to pay for them?

While the County is counting on the FILOT revenue to start coming in before the larger installment payments on the $24 million bond are scheduled to begin March 1, 2021, there are no guarantees. It was recently announced that, because of construction delays, the first revenue from Units II and III has now been backed up to late 2020 or possibly early 2021.

RIDGEWAY – The Old Town Hall restaurant, vacant since July when Vesha Sanders closed up shop and moved on, will soon have a new tenant, a new menu and a new full-service bar.

According to documents obtained last week by The Voice, a group of business investors from Lugoff, headed up by Mike Phelps, have inked a deal to open the new restaurant at its location on 140 S. Palmer St. Phelps told The Voice last week that he plans to open the restaurant for business the first weekend in November to coincide with the Pig on the Ridge festival under the name The Olde Town Hall Restaurant and Pub.

“We still have a couple of things to do,” Phelps said. “There are a few minor repairs that need to be made before everything is 100 percent concrete. We’ve got a lot of equipment to buy.”

Phelps said the menu would be simple, yet diverse, ranging from filet mignon to chicken wings, prepared by a chef he said was “locally known,” but whose identity he wished to keep under wraps, for now. Phelps operates a loan company in Lugoff and has never run a restaurant before; but his chef, he said, has 12 years of restaurant experience and will be the driving force behind the new venture.

Phelps said he plans to be open Tuesdays through Sundays for lunch and dinner, with brunch offered on Sundays.

According to the lease, signed Aug. 18, the restaurant will operate lease-free for six months, after which they will pay the Town $500 a month for the first year. If renewed, the rent goes to $600 a month for the following two years, and $700 a month for the following three years if renewed again. If renewed a fourth time, the lease would be $800 for years seven and eight, with an option to renew for a ninth and 10th year at $850 a month. Years 11-15 would be $875 a month. The lease also required a $1,000 security deposit.