Category: Government

Councilmen Ask for Cobblestone Traffic Study

BLYTHEWOOD – Although the proposed zoning amendment to Cobblestone Park’s Planned Development District (PDD) got the green light from the Planning Commission last October, Town Council at their Dec. 22 meeting told engineers working for developer DR Horton that traffic along Blythewood Road remains a concern.

DR Horton’s plan, approved by the Planning Commission, reduces the total number of dwelling units from the previously approved 1,250 to 1,142. It also includes placing five model homes at the site of the old tennis courts at the entrance to the subdivision off Blythewood Road. But the proposal increases the number of single family homes in the Primrose section by 144 over the existing 380, by constructing them on what originally had been planned as the 9-hole golf course.

During the Dec. 22 meeting, Councilman Tom Utroska said that before Council votes on the recommendation in January, he would like to see a traffic study.

“(A traffic study) doesn’t prohibit you from doing anything; it just tells you if what you’re trying to do is feasible,” Utroska said. “I can’t speak for the Council but I am for sure concerned about it because I see the traffic backed up over there every morning and I know ya’ll do too.”

Councilman Bob Mangone agreed, but Andrew Allen with the Thomas Hutton engineering firm said such a study would likely be superfluous.

“I think we all know what a traffic study is going to say,” Allen said. “It’s going to say Blythewood Road should be widened, and that’s not a project that’s ever going to be able to be funded by DR Horton. That project is included in the Richland County penny sales tax right now, so we all know what a traffic study is going to say, it’s going to say widen Blythewood Road. We don’t have the ability, the skills and the wherewithal to require a private developer to do that.”

Utroska disagreed.

“I don’t know what a traffic study is going to say,” Utroska said. “It may say you need to have a separate entrance or you need to widen the entrance. I don’t know what it would say. That’s the reason why you do a study. If I knew that we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Maybe you know it better than I do.”

Councilman Eddie Baughman, meanwhile, asked Allen if DR Horton had secured the necessary water taps from the Town of Winnsboro to make the build-out a reality. Earlier in the meeting, Winnsboro Mayor Roger Gaddy brought Blythewood up to speed on Winnsboro’s long-term plans for securing an adequate water supply to support growth in northeastern Richland County. During his presentation, Gaddy said that until a new water line could be installed to bring water in from the Broad River, which would not become a reality until at least 2017, developers would have to phase in projects.

“The days of (developers) coming and saying we need 500 taps and we’re going to give them to you are over,” Gaddy said. “You come and tell us what your phases are. You’re not going to build it all at once. You’re not going to sell it all at once. And we’re not going to sell all the taps at once. Tell us what you need from Winnsboro for the first year or two, or for the first 180 days. And what do you need after that? We’ll look at that and we’ll guarantee you what we can.”

Allen told Council that the Cobblestone project was a 5- to 10-year plan. With 2017 as the target date for Broad River water, Allen said the proposed build-out should be in the clear.

BLYTHEWOOD – With the relationship between Blythewood and Winnsboro somewhat strained since Blythewood Town Council gave Winnsboro its two-year notice to terminate their water franchise agreement last April, Winnsboro Mayor Roger Gaddy during Council’s Dec. 22 meeting brought Blythewood up to speed on Winnsboro’s plans to secure additional water, while also explaining why Winnsboro turned down a $1.4 million offer to sell the Blythewood system to Columbia.

“By early 2017 we should have a water line from the Broad River to the water plant to help fulfill the needs of Blythewood, Fairfield County and Winnsboro long-term,” Gaddy said. Winnsboro rejected Columbia’s $1.4 million bid, Gaddy said, because, “for us to run this water line to the Broad River we’re going to have to float about a $10 million bond, and to do that northeast Richland County is important to us because it’s an area of potential growth. To be able to sell that bond to the investors it makes it more attractive for us to have that area.”

Gaddy has previously told The Voice that Columbia only made the offer to buy the Blythewood portion of the water system at the request of Blythewood, and during his Dec. 22 presentation Gaddy questioned why Columbia would want to alter the situation they have now. Winnsboro is currently committed to 1 million gallons a day from Columbia to feed into the Blythewood system, and at present is only using about one quarter of that capacity, Gaddy said.

“Why would Columbia want to buy it? Right now we’re paying a retail rate to Columbia,” Gaddy said on Dec. 22. “We’re not paying a discounted rate, not a commercial rate, not a wholesale rate. We’re paying the same rate someone pays whenever they buy their water for their house. All (Columbia) has to do is turn on the tap. Winnsboro provides all the maintenance, we do all the upgrades, we do all the upkeep, we make all the collections and we pay ya’ll the franchise fee.”

Blythewood Mayor J. Michael Ross said he was concerned with putting developers on hold; developers he said, who were ready to move on projects that could bring considerable economic development to Blythewood.

“I don’t know how we just sit here and say we’re just going to wait until you get that (Broad River line) done, in 2017 or 2018,” Ross said.

But Gaddy said that with the current 1 million gallons a day commitment from Columbia, Winnsboro could have between 350 and 500 taps available for developers. Winnsboro is looking for an additional 1 million gallons a day from Columbia, which Gaddy said could free up approximately 1,000 taps. Even then, Gaddy said, developers would have to phase in their projects.

“You’re not going to build it all at once,” Gaddy said. “You’re not going to sell it all at once. And we’re not going to sell all the taps at once. Tell us what you need from Winnsboro for the first year or two, or for the first 180 days. And what do you need after that? We’ll look at that and we’ll guarantee you what we can.”

Ross noted that Blythewood could easily have all its needs met by Columbia, and met at once.

“You understand, and I know you do because you’re a smart man,” Ross told Gaddy, “that we can start getting all the water we need from Columbia tomorrow.”

“I understand that,” Gaddy said, “but Columbia (is) not going to give it all to you until you need it.”

Gaddy added that Winnsboro’s agreement with Blythewood was not an exclusive one.

“The developers can go to Columbia and get (water),” Gaddy said. “They don’t want to go to Columbia and get it. They prefer to get it from Winnsboro.”

Gaddy also said that the dispute over the franchise agreement had to be resolved. In April, Blythewood passed a resolution to terminate the agreement under the impression that the 20-year contract expired in 2016. Winnsboro has maintained that the deal doesn’t expire until 2020.

“The contract was signed in 1996 by Blythewood; it was not signed by Winnsboro until the year 2000,” Gaddy said. “Blythewood never asked for any franchise fees until the year 2000, so I think they recognized probably that’s when it would start.”

Gaddy told Blythewood Town Council that, according to the contract, any disputes over the agreement must be settled by binding arbitration. Last summer, Winnsboro retained an arbitrator to make their case. The deadline for Blythewood to also hire an arbitrator came and went in September without them doing so.

“If ya’ll are still questioning when (the franchise agreement) expires we’re going to need ya’ll to hire an arbitrator and lets go to binding arbitration,” Gaddy told Blythewood’s Council, “which I think your council and our council thinks is a big waste of money, or we need a letter that just states you acquiesce.”

Last month, Gaddy told The Voice that Winnsboro wasn’t entirely happy with the franchise agreement as written and would be willing to consider renegotiating it. On Dec. 22, he relayed that same message to Blythewood.

“You think this franchise fee is flawed, as do we,” Gaddy said. “We would certainly like to work with ya’ll about redoing the franchise agreement (in a way) that we both agree is fair and equitable.”

WINNSBORO – Fairfield County received an “unmodified opinion” from Elliot Davis, LLC on its 2013-2014 fiscal audit, presented to Council at their Dec. 15 special called meeting.

Representing the Columbia accounting firm, Brian D’Amico told Council that the opinion represented a “clean audit,” with no “material weaknesses” in this year’s audit, which D’Amico said was a tremendous improvement over the previous year’s audit where material weaknesses were uncovered in three areas, with two of those being repeat findings from the year prior. But the news wasn’t entirely good , and not only for Fairfield County. D’Amico said counties across the state are girding themselves for a numbers game being passed down from a State Legislature that has left the state retirement system as much as 40 percent underfunded.

State Retirement System

D’Amico reported to Council that the State Retirement System is only about 60-70 percent funded, leaving 30-40 percent hanging in the balance. That balance, at least for the time being, is being shifted from the state down to the counties.

“It’s really not good news, but it is something we are going to have to tackle in fiscal year 2015,” D’Amico said. “What the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is requiring us to do is that liability, that difference, that unfunded amount is going to be pushed down to all of the employers that make up the retirement system.”

Fairfield County’s portion of the balance is approximately $14 million, D’Amico said, but noted that it is not something the County would be expected to pony up in real dollars next year.

“It’s really a paper adjustment,” D’Amico. “It’s going to be reflected as a restatement. Your beginning balances are going to be restated to report this, but there’s no cash transaction other than the contributions you are withholding from your employees and your employer contributions you are making to the retirement system like you’re doing now.”

The immediate impact, however, might show up in the County’s bond rating.

“The biggest impact you might see is in your bond rating and how creditors are going to react to a S.C. employer who has a much larger liability than an employer from N.C.,” D’Amico said. “We don’t know how they are going to react to this number. Are they going to look at it as just a paper number realizing that over the next five years nothing really is going to change, or are they going to discount you more than say someone in another state? I think we’ll start to get those answers probably come this time next year when local governments like you are finishing up your financial statements.”

“We won’t have to present or prepare some type of financial plan to offset the $14 million,” Milton Pope, County Administrator, clarified later. “What it is going to be is a paper or journal entry on our numbers, which could potentially make our numbers look worse and that could impact our ability when we need to issue bonds or look at our credit rating … We’re totally at the mercy of (the state retirement system) when it comes to what our actuarial liability is, and I think all local governments are probably going to receive a huge does of indigestion about this until we can work something out or hopefully get the state to accept that liability, and at this point they don’t want to accept that. … we have absolutely no choice in this. We are totally at the mercy of the state and what the state says.”

Councilman David Brown (District 7) said there is nothing new about the state fobbing its responsibilities off onto local governments, noting that a plan is currently afoot in Columbia to turn over state road maintenance to county governments.

“They’re wanting to give us back about 30 percent to 40 percent of the highways in the state of S.C. for the counties to maintain, but at the same time they’re cutting the money they’re supposed to give us to help run the counties,” Brown said. “We might be able to go out and buy a patching truck and keep our roads halfway up to date, but the first bridge that goes out and costs $20 million, that’s our budget.”

Brown, who is retiring after 32 years on Council, offered a word of warning to his successor, Billy Smith, and to incoming Council members Dan Ruff (District 1) and Marion Robinson (District 5) to be prepared for a State Legislature that “has the idea they can run a government without taxes and they aren’t adding new taxes.”

State Sen. Creighton Coleman (D-17) said he was not in favor of turning over state roads to the counties, adding that he did not think the plan would muster enough votes to pass.

“It’s a pretty radical idea,” Coleman said. “To me, it’s a state problem and the state ought to find a solution.”

Coleman was similarly optimistic about the funding of the state retirement system.

“The state will figure something out,” he said.

Council: Mayor Overstepped Boundaries

RIDGEWAY – Town Council voted 6-0 at their Dec. 11 meeting to discuss entering into a formal lease with Norfolk-Southern for the Cotton Yard Market in the center of town. Council will hold first reading of the $300 a year lease at their January meeting, but how the town came to be staring down the barrel of a lease for property that it had utilized for free for decades was the topic of some considerably heavy discussion. That discussion was prefaced by a review, offered by Councilman Russ Brown, of exactly what form of government Ridgeway operates under and how things appeared to have strayed from that format.

“We are a council form of government,” Brown said. “I want to make sure we’re all on the same page and that we understand how our form of government works.”

Referring to documents he said he acquired from the S.C. Municipal Association, Brown noted that “the mayor presides over meetings by tradition, performs ceremonial duties, calls special meetings . . . and acts and votes as a member of council. The mayor has no additional statutory authority beyond that of other council members.”

Brown said Mayor Charlene Herring had, on at least one occasion, sent out official correspondence without notifying Council. That point became paramount when talk turned to the Cotton Yard.

“This (the pending lease) all came about from contacting Norfolk-Southern,” Brown said, and while Herring countered that contact was made with the railroad company after she had received questions from members of the community, Brown added, “but there were also citizens who were against contacting Norfolk-Southern, and Council members here were against contacting Norfolk-Southern.”

Councilman Heath Cookendorfer said Council had indeed agreed to break off discussions with the railroad at Council’s last meeting.

“We were done with it,” Cookendorfer said, “but we did contact them and that’s kind of what woke the sleeping giant to where we’re at today with basically the demand to take on the lease, and I was kind of a little upset about that. That’s something we should have discussed as a council.”

Herring said she made initial contact with Norfolk-Southern several months ago after citizens had come to her with concerns about cars for sale being parked on the property for as long as six months at a time, while other citizens had questions about a company parking trucks on the lot.

“If citizens contacted you, under protocol you should have brought that to the Council and Council would say if we were going to contact Norfolk-Southern,” Councilman Donald Prioleau said.

Herring said that in the future, she would adhere to protocol, but followed that by asking, “As a right of a citizen or a mayor, why can’t you contact the railroad? This is in the heart of our town.”

“September it was brought up and in this room we said ‘do not bother Norfolk-Southern anymore, because they will put up a fence’,” Brown said. “They’ve threatened to do it before, and they’ll still do it if you bother them. Don’t toy with the railroad.”

Herring said she told Council at the September meeting that she would be pursuing questions about leasing the property from the railroad and no one objected.

“In September you didn’t have the lease,” Brown said. “The lease was presented in October. In October . . . but that had already got to the point where Norfolk-Southern sent a lease because there was communications back and forth.”

Herring said the Town had to have a copy of the proposed lease in order for the document to be reviewed by an attorney.

“Again, in the capacity of mayor you went to an attorney without Council (knowing about it),” Brown said.

But Herring said she also informed Council that an attorney would be reviewing the lease, and no one had objected to that either.

“But this conversation came from you, in the capacity of mayor, (talking) to Norfolk-Southern, which led to them providing a lease,” Brown said. “We, at every single meeting when Norfolk-Southern was brought up, we all said don’t bother Norfolk-Southern.”

Brown said the proposed lease had sat idle with the Town for a month. Then, during Council’s October meeting, Council reviewed the document and opted to let it stay that way. The day after the meeting, Brown said, Herring contacted Norfolk-Southern via email.

“Telling them we were not going to pursue a lease,” she said.

“After we said not to communicate,” Brown said. “And then they sent their email back, basically giving the Town the ultimatum that if we do not lease the property, accept responsibility for the lot, accept liability for the property, then they will have the lot fenced off and the buildings removed.”

Herring said Norfolk-Southern is currently reviewing all of their properties, and eventually Ridgeway would have been forced into an official lease. Several buildings, including the world’s smallest police station and the fire station, had been constructed on the property without permission from the railroad, and Herring said it simply was not right for the Town to continue to use the property without the blessing of Norfolk-Southern.

“Eventually this would have happened,” Herring said. “And this came sooner because I did ask some questions. But eventually it would have happened.”

Herring said the railroad company needed an answer as to the Town’s choice of direction on the lease, and she was only doing the courteous thing by letting them know Ridgeway was not interested in signing a lease.

“Again, back to the form of government discussion we just had,” Brown said, “we’re not a strong mayor form of government, and as a council we chose to let it lie.”

Cookendorfer said it would have been preferable to let the railroad force the issue, instead of the Town taking the lead.

“I think ya’ll are making the issue at the wrong point,” Herring said. “You made an issue about the form of government and I understand that, and I will tell you sometimes Charlene Herring errs because she is very compassionate about this town and wants to get things done. And I agree, we are a council and we will act as council. I think you’re pulling at straws now and you’re trying to blame (me) instead of doing the right thing. I’ve got the point and I think we need to move on. If you don’t want to sign the lease, don’t sign the lease.”

“You call it compassion, I call it total disregard for Council,” Brown said. “It’s not the end of the world that we’re going to have to lease the lot, but how it was handled. . . .”

Herring reiterated her point that had she not received questions from citizens about the lot she never would have contacted Norfolk-Southern in the first place. But Brown once more pointed out that an entirely different group of citizens had urged the Town to keep mum on its use of the property. At that point, Roger Herring had heard as much as he could stand from his seat in the audience.

“The Rufus Joneses of the community!” Roger Herring, a former Council member and husband of the mayor, erupted. Brown told Roger he was speaking out of order, but Herring continued his defense of the mayor.

“You don’t do the community organization she does,” Roger Herring said, even as the mayor brought down the gavel. “You (Council) don’t do what you’ve already agreed to do!”

As the mayor attempted to restore order to the small Council chambers, Roger Herring stormed out, slamming the door of the Century House behind him.

“Now, do we need any further discussion on it?” the mayor asked.

“I just wanted to bring it up now,” Brown said, “so the people who are going to be paying for that insurance and paying for that lease when they pay their taxes and their water bills, they know where their money is going and why.”

BLYTHEWOOD – After adding a couple of items to the agenda at the beginning of the meeting, including a discussion of the proposed designation of the interior of the Blythewood Academy (the former Blythewood High School) gym as an historic property in the town, the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) considered a request by Mayor J. Michael Ross for a recommendation on the hotly debated sign ordinance.

BAR Chairman Michael Langston said Ross had asked the Board to make a recommendation to Town Council about the sign ordinance, which calls for all signs in the town, except the high-rise signs on the interstate, to conform to the code by January 2016. Langston told the board he was unsure exactly what the mayor was expecting of the Board in the way of a recommendation since the Board is charged primarily with the review of new construction and major renovations to signs.

“We’ve had at least four years of warning that the new (sign regulations) are coming (in 2016),” Langston said. “And, so, here we are and Gary (Parker, Town Administrator) wants to let these folks know (in a letter) a year out.”

Jim McLean, Chairman of the park committee and a member of the BAR, said that while there is a movement in the government to relax the sign ordinance restrictions, some of the signs are only slightly out of conformity. He said he didn’t understand how some signs in the town are out of conformity when they were reviewed by the BAR. In previous discussions at town meetings concerning non-conformity of signs, there was criticism that the town hall had allowed non-conforming signs to be erected after they had been denied by the Board of Zoning Appeal.

McLean reviewed for the Board that the mayor had called a public meeting to address whether the sign ordinance is too restrictive. At the meeting, two or three members from each of the town’s boards, commissions and the Chamber of Commerce were asked to sit on the panel. While virtually all of the hand-picked members of the mayor’s panel favored relaxing the sign ordinance or extended the deadline for up to several years, McLean said those members, including himself, were not speaking for the boards they sat on, but were giving their personal opinions, and suggested it would be a good idea for the boards to make recommendations.

“We got the cart before the horse there in terms of what this board ends up doing,” McLean said.

Langston said some businesses in the town have spent money and effort on newly erected signs to comply with the ordinance.

“I think we want to look very hard at where we want to be five to 10 years from now in terms of our master plan and what we we’re trying to accomplish with our signage,” Langston said. “Now we have an opportunity to address it and at least make a recommendation to the people who are going to make the decisions.”

After a power point presentation by Michael Criss, the Town’s Planner, showing some of the non-conforming signs in the town, BAR member Cynthia Nord suggested the Board’s input could bolster the aesthetics of the town’s signs, some of which she said were “really awful.” Nord praised the new things going on with the town and said she felt the maintenance of the signs is important, too.

“I think it’s really important that while we have this opportunity, we do make some recommendations,” Nord said. “There are towns where this is really important to them and they really stick with it. How our town looks is how people feel about us, how they feel coming here and how we feel living here.”

McLean added that making the community attractive, “is the single most important thing we can do to bring people to the town.”

Langston said he feels the town has been making tremendous strides and has done a good job to improve its appearance, and hopes the board members will come to the Jan. 20 meeting with some suggestions to be discussed regarding the sign code.

Band Shell

Earlier in the meeting, the Board reviewed and approved the appropriateness of the scale and aesthetics of an amphitheater band shell the park committee has been considering for the last year or so. The BAR recommended forwarding the proposal to an architect for a full scale drawing that would come back to the BAR along with lighting and sound suggestions before the package is eventually sent to Town Council for approval.

McLean said the shell measures approximately 48×40-feet and will be supported by three columns on each side, as opposed to the four corner posts as shown in the initial photo presented to the board. The concrete stage will rise a couple of feet above ground level across the front. A set of moveable screening walls are suggested as a backdrop for concerts and that can be removed for an open view of the pond and Manor, which sits directly behind the proposed shell. Mclean said the BAR’s approval virtually sets the design in stone, though there might be minor changes made during the final drawings.

“The shell itself will cost about $100,000,” McLean said. “Everything, including lighting and sound, should be completed for less than $200,000.”

McLean said the Park Committee will look to the Park Foundation to raise the funds to pay for the shell.

Election of Officers

Since only four of the seven board members were in attendance at the meeting, those members voted to delay the election of new officers until the Jan. 20 meeting.