Blythewood Online 691

Category: Government

  • County Candidates Face Off at Forum

    WINNSBORO – Candidates running in the Nov. 4 election for Fairfield County Council districts 3, 5, and 7 participated in a forum sponsored by the Fairfield Chamber of Commerce at the Winnsboro Women’s Club on Nov. 11. Mikel Trapp, incumbent for District 3, did not attend and current councilman for District 7, David Brown, did not participate since he is not running.

    Participants included retired Col. Walter Larry Stewart and Tangee Brice Jacobs (District 3), David Ferguson, Eugene Holmes and Marion Robinson (District 5) and David Brandenburg, Clyde Sanders and Billy Smith (District 7). Due to health issues, Brandenburg had to leave, assisted by his wife, about half way through the forum. Candidates answered prepared questions as well as questions submitted by citizens in attendance.

    The moderator, Ron Smith, first asked the candidates to share information about their background, education and training. All but Brandenburg and Holmes said they were raised in Fairfield County.

    At one time or another during the forum all of the candidates, except Ferguson, called high taxes the County’s number one problem and the biggest impediment to growth and an improved quality of life in the County. In most of her answers, Jacobs reiterated her desire that Council listen to the community.

    Asked if they thought Council did the right thing by issuing the $24 million bond and if they thought the bond should have been put to a vote by the citizens, all of the candidates, except Ferguson, agreed that the $24 million bond was a bad idea and that it should have been put before the public for a vote. Smith added that the issuance of general obligation bonds (to pay off the $24 million bond) could drive the ultimate cost of the $24 million bonds to $50 million. Sanders at first said he could see both sides of the issue, but concluded that the bond should have been voted on by the public. Ferguson defended the $24 million bond saying “it was borrowed for infrastructure. The folks who do economic development said Fairfield County lacked an industrial park and that type stuff.” But he said the industrial park had to have sewer and water to make it grow. Robinson criticized the $24 million bond, saying, “All these years we’ve been getting money from the nuclear plant and we should have been putting some money aside. The County has not been smart in spending.”

    Asked how they thought the $3.5 million in recreational funds should have been spent and distributed in the County, again, all but Ferguson objected to how Council disbursed these funds.

    Stewart said, “I went to the County Council meeting, and I heard only one (recreation) plan presented for a vote. There should have been more than one. There are many organizations out there, like the YMCA, that already have programs on the shelves that they could put in place here, probably at less cost.”

    Robinson said he was “not in favor of (the newly approved) mini parks that have no water, no restrooms and not enough parking space. Many of the mini parks we have now have no maintenance.” Robinson, Stewart and Sanders said they favor three or four nice community centers distributed throughout the county. Both Robinson and Sanders also called for better utilization of the county’s transit system in transporting residents to those centers. Robinson also noted that J. R. Green, Superintendent of Fairfield County Schools, had opened up the school gyms for youth recreation and he called on the County to better staff those recreation opportunities.

    Holmes criticized Council members for “not touching the rec center still in the box.” He also said the Council’s presentation for its new recreation plan was “a sole source presentation, not applicable to what we need in Fairfield County.”

    Asked about their long-range goals for the County, Smith said, “Simply to move it forward, to get it to a place where good businesses and good people want to come here and where they can afford to come here. We need to improve the quality of life for our citizens and assure positive opportunities. We need good paying jobs.” He said to accomplish this, the citizens will have to make changes on County Council.

    For his long-range goal, Ferguson said, “We must work together in a civil manner. Seeing everyone trust and work together is my prayer and vision for Fairfield County.”

    Jacobs called for “a sustainable water supply to attract businesses and improve quality of life for our residents. Our leadership has to be held accountable.”

    Robinson said his long-range goal is to lower property taxes. He also wants a detailed plan for how the V.C. Summer money will be used as well as a contingency plan for essential county services should the nuclear reactor revenue not materialize.

    Holmes also wants to see property taxes lowered and wants to see a better recreation plan and more input from citizens.

    Sanders said his long-term goal for Fairfield County is to establish an educated, skilled and trained workforce. “We’re working toward that but we can do better.”

    Stewart said he would like to streamline government, improve the county’s infrastructure and quality of life and create a system that produces sustainable jobs for the community. “We can do that by effectively using the resources we have now,” he said. “We have to operate more like a business, and when we offer a company incentives, those incentives need to be commensurate with what we expect to get back in return.”

    Other areas touched on: Smith said if he is elected he will call for a reduction in Council’s salaries. Both Jacobs and Stewart said it was time for members of County Council to stop playing the race card. “I went through the ‘50s and ‘60s and the civil unrest and being sprayed with a fire hose, etc.,” Stewart said. “I lived that. But it’s time to move on and start working together. It’s time to put away the race card.”

    A report on the forum held for candidates for District 1 – Dwayne Perry, Dan Ruff and Michael Squirewell – will appear in the Oct. 10 issue of The Voice.

  • How the Bond Works

    What Else We Learned from the County’s Sept. 22 Presentation

    WINNSBORO – Parker Poe bond consultant Ray Jones was the bond council who worked with the Fairfield County Council and helped draft the legal documents for the $24 million bond issuance in March 2013, and for the smaller general obligation (GO) bonds issued in February and August of this year.

    After The Voice first revealed last March that the County was issuing GO bonds to make installment purchase payments on the $24 million bonds, on Sept. 22 Jones, at the County’s request, explained the bonds to the public during a County Council meeting.

    During his presentation, Jones identified meetings in which he claimed  the issuance and financing of the $24 million bonds were fully and publically explained. But digital recordings of those meetings obtained by The Voice from the County through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests do not bear out those claims.

    Not only were the bonds not fully and publicly explained, but the public was fed misinformation by then County Administrator Phil Hinely  and some Council members that may have impeded the public from taking advantage of a 60-day window in which they could have forced a referendum (vote) on Ordinance 614 which provided for the future issuance of an unlimited number of GO bonds. [Note: SC Statute 4-9-1220 provides that “Within sixty days after the enactment by the council of any ordinance authorizing the issuance of bonds, notes or other evidence of debt the repayment of which requires a pledge of the full faith and credit of the county…a petition signed by qualified electors of the county equal in number to at least fifteen percent of the qualified electors of the county…may be filed with the clerk of the county council requesting that any such ordinance be repealed.]

    Instead of explaining to the public on April 15, 2013, that Council had on that date passed Ordinance 614 which set the GO bonds in motion (and which could have been repealed through petition within 60 days), it was reported in the newspaper that both Hinely and Council members said Council had acted at that meeting (April 15, 2013) to issue the $24 million bonds. But the $24 million  (IPRBs) had actually been issued on April 7, and not by the County but by the Fairfield Facilities Corporation (FFC), a non-profit corporation created by the County with a resolution passed two weeks earlier, on March 25, 2013.

    At last week’s meeting, Jones explained to the public for the first time much of the plan behind the bond issuances, how the bonds work, what role the FFC played in the bond financing plan and what options are available to the County for paying off the bondholders.

    Jones said the first goal of issuing the $24 million IPRBs was to finance certain projects such as its industrial parks, other facilities in the county and recreation facilities. He said Council wanted to “keep the millage steady so as to protect the County’s debt capacity.” To that end, in 2013, both Hinely and Council Chairman David Ferguson insisted that the $24 million bonds would not increase the County’s ad valorem tax rates, but stopped short of explaining that, instead of letting the County’s 10.4 debt service millage decrease to zero in 2019 when the County’s 2009 $6.5 million bond is paid off, Council made provisions to issue semi-annual GO bonds that would keep the debt service up at a 10.4 millage rate for up to 22 years with decreasing millage for another five years.

    That level of millage would bring in approximately $1.3 million in property taxes per year, or about $35 million total over the life of the $24 million bonds. A chart provided by the County through a FOIA request, and which was printed in the Sept. 19 issue of The Voice, graphs this debt service tax revenue.

    In his presentation, Jones pointed out that that millage revenue produced by issuing a number of new GO bonds (up to the County’s full debt capacity under the law without voter approval), along with some cash from the general fund, would be enough to make all of the County’s installment payments (totaling approximately $43 million) to the FFC over the life of the $24 million bonds. Jones said the County could make all of its payments to the FFC without tapping any of the revenue from the V.C. Summers Nuclear Plant.

    What are IPRBs?

    Because the County did not have a stream of revenue (toll road, water company, etc.) it could not issue traditional revenue bonds to pay for its desired projects. General obligation bonds require voter approval for amounts over the County’s bonded debt limit, which is about $4.5 million. So, to borrow $24 million, the County turned to what many lawmakers call a legal but unorthodox installment plan of finance. Jones explained the four elements that made this plan of finance work for Fairfield County.

    A nonprofit entity (the Fairfield Facilities Corporation) was created by Council on March 25, 2013, to issue debt on behalf of Fairfield County to finance and construct capital projects. The FFC leases those projects from the County while it improves them over the life of the bond.

    The County then acquires from the FFC incremental interests in the projects over time through installment purchase payments, which are in the same amount as the payments the FFC makes to pay off the $24 million IPRBs.

    As provided in this kind of financing, the County may use any funds available to make the installment payments (including GO bonds). Traditional revenue bonds can not be paid for with general obligation debt.

    The FFC pledges the installment payments it receives from the County as security for the debt (bonds) issued to finance the projects.

    When the County has made all of its installment purchase payments, the projects once again become assets of the County.

    What Does Ordinance No. 614 Say?

    • It provides for the County to issue GO bonds to make the installment purchase payments to the FFC and those payments also serve to purchase (buy back), incrementally, portions of the projects during the life of the $24 million bonds.

    • It identifies the projects the County wanted improved/purchased/constructed.

    • It allows the County to use a nonprofit corporation (the FFC) to assist with the construction and financing of the projects.

    • It authorizes the County to purchase the projects back from the FFC.

    • It secures revenue received from the nuclear plant for the purpose of funding infrastructure in the County, including the projects.

    Jones insisted that the IPRBs are a sound and legal financing structure, pointing out that the Internal Revenue Service recognizes the nonprofit (FFC) as a valid corporation, worthy of exemption from federal taxation; that national bond rating agencies have consistently assigned some of their highest ratings to this method of finance and that the S.C. Supreme Court upheld the structure and it has been utilized by at least seven other counties, including Lancaster and Chester.

    He did not mention, however, that IPRBs have been in the crosshairs of the General Assembly since at least 2006 when the Greenville School District ran up $1 billion in debt by financing school facilities in this manner. The General Assembly put an end to the practice for school districts by tightening up loopholes in the law that allowed this kind of high risk financing for them. State Rep. F. Gregory Delleney Jr. (R-43), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sponsored House Bill 3105 in January 2013 to end IPRB financing, which he calls a rouse. He says the nonprofit corporation is a shell. “The people should be able to vote on a bond referendum of that magnitude,” Delleney said.

    Next, a look at why the County issued a GO bond on Aug. 7 that was larger than needed to make its installment payment.

  • Council Usurps BZA, Courts

    Sign Ordinance Bypassed

    BLYTHEWOOD – Town Council unanimously voted to approve and pay $500 for a new sign for the Chamber of Commerce, Arts Center and Visitor Center that had previously been denied by Interim Town Administrator Jim Meggs last June and again by the Town’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in July.

    The appeal was brought by Sandy Kahn, owner of the State Farm Insurance office located in front of the IGA on Blythewood Road. The Chamber, Arts Center and Visitor Center are tenants in a building located on Kahn’s State Farm office property. Kahn had asked for a new, separate sign for her three tenants even though there were already three other signs for the three tenants and three separate State Farm signs posted on the property. The tenants have said they need the additional sign to bring traffic to their location since it is difficult to find.

    When initially denying the request, Meggs explained that “Only one sign is permitted.” That sign could advertise for both the tenants and the State Farm office, but Khan wanted two new, separate signs – one for her tenants and one for her State Farm business. In her appeal to the BZA, Khan said she felt the Chamber and Visitor’s Center should be classified as civic organizations and, thus, be exempt from the requirements of the sign ordinance that other businesses in the town are required to adhere to. She did not give a reason why the Arts Center, which houses a number of individual for-profit businesses, should be exempt.

    In a memorandum to the BZA, Meggs wrote, “The exemption which (Khan) claims is not applicable because a sign advertising the Chamber and the Visitor Center is not a sign erected by or on behalf of the Town or some other government (which are exempt). There is no exemption for signs erected by or on behalf of a civic organization . . . Signs placed by civic organizations are subject to the same regulations as commercial signs.”

    The BZA , a quasi-judicial board, denied the appeal. While BZA decisions can be appealed to Circuit Court, Council circumvented the appeal process by voting on Monday evening to allow the sign.

    The Town’s new Administrator, Gary Parker, explained to The Voice after the Council meeting that he felt the sign for the Chamber, Arts Center and Visitors Center should be exempt from the Town’s sign regulations and referenced Town statute 155.430, Sec. A, which states, “Signs erected by or on behalf of the city, county, state or federal government identifying streets or public property, conveying public information and directing or regulating pedestrian or vehicular traffic, are exempt from these regulations.”

    According to the earlier decisions by Meggs and the BZA, however, none of the three offices are government entities that would qualify for an exemption from the sign regulations under this statute.

    At a workshop last week, Council members referred to the proposed sign as a directional sign which is allowed but must be no larger than 4 square feet in area. The sign approved by Council, according to Parker, is 2 feet by 4 feet, which measures 8 square feet, 4 feet larger than the directional sign regulation.

    Asked how the Arts Center, which is made up of individual for-profit businesses, qualifies as a government entity or civic organization and for a free sign from the Town, Parker said he guessed it was not looked at as a business.

  • Ordinance Vote on Hold

    BLYTHEWOOD – Town Council voted Monday night to defer second and final vote on zoning Ordinance 2014.008 because Council failed to advertise the public hearing, which is required to be held prior to the second reading (vote). The ordinance provides that all residential areas in the Town have the same restrictions and be allowed the same amenities.

    Council also deferred making appointments to Town boards and commissions because, Mayor J. Michael Ross said, “We weren’t able to contact the people who said they want to serve.”

    Cloud Technology for Town Hall

    Council approved a contract with VC3, an IT firm out of Columbia, which will provide Cloud management services to the Town.

    “With this service,” Town Administrator Gary Parker explained, “Town Hall will connect to VC3’s cloud via thin client hosted desk tops, and we’ll do away with our individual desk PC’s.”

    VC3’s service offers several advantages, Parker said. “They will have the burden of maintaining and replacing hardware and software,” he said, “and users will have access to their desktop from anywhere they can access the internet.”

    Parker said this would accommodate working from home, and that everyone in the office will be using the most updated version of MS Office. Parker said the Town’s support services would be 24 hours and would include small disaster recovery.

    “This is a step up and will take us into the technology of the future,” Ross said. He said the Town would continue to also use the services of its current IT consultant, Kevin Williamson, who had recommended VC3 to the Town.

    Final Paving Set for Park

    Council approved a motion to request bids for the paving of the final layer for all roadways in the town park. Bids were to go out on Tuesday and are due by Oct. 22. Parker said money is left in the construction budget to cover the paving which is expected to begin the first week in November and end by mid-December.

    New Park Events Funded

    Booth Chilcutt, Events Director at The Manor, asked for and received approval from Council for funding for several events to be held in the Town’s park through mid-July 2015. Council approved the following: Halloween at the Park ($3,000), Poetry Week ($1,000), Black History Month ($2,500), Fall 2014 Farmers Market ($2,700), Spring 2015 Farmer’s Market ($2,700) and Cinco de Mayo Celebration ($1,500) for a total of$13,400.

    Manor Rental Update

    Chilcutt also updated Council on Manor rental dates and revenue. While paid events are down 18 percent, Chilcutt reported that rental fees are up 24 percent or almost $4,000 so far in fiscal year 2014.

    He attributed the uptick in collected rental fees to the new higher rates. He also told Council that he can see the need for another rate increase soon for Saturdays.

    “Our Saturdays are renting quickly, and raising Saturday rates might stimulate rentals on Fridays and Sundays,” Chilcutt said.

    He told Council that rates for the Manor are less than those of similar venues in the surrounding area.

    Booth added that while revenue for The Manor is still negative by $4,000 – $5,000 each month, “we’re getting closer.”

  • See You in Two Weeks . . .

    Keith Lewis
    Will Montgomery

    Sheriff’s Race Heads to Run-Off

    WINNSBORO – Voters failed to pick a clear winner in Tuesday’s primary for the special election for Fairfield County Sheriff. They did, however, narrow the field of candidates down to two.

    Keith Lewis, currently the Chief Deputy for the Fairfield County Sheriff’s Office, and Will Montgomery, a Richland County Sheriff’s deputy, will square off again in two weeks for a run-off. Lewis earned 1,595 votes in Tuesday’s primary pick-‘em, while Montgomery hauled in 1,613.

    “I’m pleased with the turnout and hopefully it will happen again,” Montgomery said Tuesday night. “I am concerned about getting people out for the run-off.”

    Looking ahead, Montgomery said his strategy was to “keep on moving like I’m moving and not slow down.”

    Lewis, meanwhile, was more philosophical about the results and the pending mano a mano showdown.

    “I want to thank all my supporters and ask them to please come back out in two weeks and do it again,” Lewis said. “My strategy moving forward is to continue doing what I’ve been doing and leave it in the Lord’s hands.”

    Lewis said he had hoped the turnout would have been more robust, but said he understands the turnout challenges of a special election. Odell Glenn, who finished a distant fifth with only 95 votes, said the low turnout was “truly a shame in such an important election.”

    Ricky Gibson finished third with 925 votes. John Seibles garnered 550 votes.

    “The people’s voice has been heard,” Gibson said. “I wish them both well.”

    Gibson and Seibles said they were not officially endorsing either of the remaining candidates at this time. Glenn, meanwhile, said he was throwing his support behind Montgomery.

    The primary run-off will be Oct. 14.

  • Public Pitches Planning Ideas

    RIDGEWAY – Led by Scott Slayton of the S.C. Municipal Association, Town Council last week hosted a public think tank to hash out ideas for the Town’s long-range strategic plan.

    A full house of citizens was on hand at the Century House on Sept. 18, and Slayton broke the crowd up into focus groups, covering public safety, economic development, utilities and quality of life. When the groups reconvened as one, Slayton culled a plethora of recommendations for Council’s future consideration.

    Public Safety

    • Add another full-time police officer, to make the Ridgeway Police Department self-reliant and to offer 24-hour service.

    • Security cameras for downtown.

    • Additional street lights downtown.

    • No Parking signs near Post Office.

    • Provide a full-time School Resource Office for Geiger Elementary.

    Utilities

    • Extend water line down Peach Road, to meet potential development near I-77.

    • Upgrade wastewater treatment plant.

    • Extend water line down Hood Road.

    • Maintain and upgrade existing water and sewer lines.

    Economic Development

    • Instate a hospitality tax to generate revenue for the Town.

    • Define the right businesses and industries for Town.

    • Resolve debate over whether or not to lease Cotton Yard lot for parking.

    Quality of Life

    • Develop the site of the former Ridgeway school to include a ball field, amphitheater and park.

    • Health and fitness program for young adults and seniors.

    • Develop a community garden.

    • Develop a beautification program.

    • Provide Wi-Fi service downtown.

    • Provide ambience music in downtown area.

    • Construct a downtown gazebo.

    • Expand the Arts on the Ridge festival.

    “Council will take all these ideas and use them to develop a vision of the Town in the long and the short term,” Slayton said as the session came to a close. “Looks like Council has a lot of work to do.”

  • Lawmen Stump for Top Cop Spot

    Candidates for Fairfield County Sheriff at a recent Chamber of Commerce forum: Will Montgomery, Ricky Gibson, Odell Glenn, Keith Lewis and John Seibles.

    WINNSBORO – All five candidates running for Fairfield County Sheriff answered questions in a forum at the Winnsboro Woman’s Club on Sept. 18. Participating were Ricky Gibson, a Fairfield County school resource officer; Odell Glenn, a Richland County investigator; Keith Lewis, the Chief Deputy of Fairfield County; Will Montgomery, a Richland County deputy; and John Seibles, a Major in the Town of Winnsboro Department of Public Safety. Although a set of questions had been sent to the candidates in advance by the event’s sponsor, the Fairfield County Chamber of Commerce, moderator Tyler Cup, after asking the candidates to introduce themselves, began with a question from a member of the audience.

    What is the one thing that will change in the Sheriff’s office if you are elected Sheriff?

    Seibles said the Sheriff’s office would better connect with the residents. “People need to trust us,” he said, and talked about ways to gain their trust, something he said he does in his job and in his neighborhood.

    Lewis agreed that communication “is one of the biggest issues in every sheriff’s office in the country. If I do become Sheriff,” Lewis said, “I plan to meet at least every quarter with residents in one of the seven county districts and ask that district’s Council representative to go with me. We need to work together with the community.”

    Glenn said he would fully invest in the community and families and put programs in place to assist families. He said that when kids get in trouble, families don’t always know what to look for or how to deal with their kids’ problems.

    Gibson said resource allocation would change. “Management of our manpower is insufficient.” He suggested split shifts, “so there is a minimum of four people covering an area at all times.”

    Montgomery said he would put more manpower on the roads by cutting the county into three areas (east, middle and west) and assign deputies to each of those districts and hold them accountable to each district.

    Asked their thoughts on spousal abuse and what they could do about it, Lewis said his department currently works closely with Sistercare to give victims of domestic abuse a way out. “It often gets back to economics,” Lewis said. “They are locked in and don’t have any place to go. We need to open up the doors to help them.” Lewis also said that while his deputies make domestic violence arrests every day, about 75 percent of the cases are dropped to a simple assault charge or end up in a lower court where nothing is done.

    Glenn agreed that victims of domestic abuse are often trapped and don’t have the financial ability to get out. He called for more victim services outlets and a better way to report domestic abuse.

    Gibson, a pastor, called for better education for women and, “We need to tap into the church with this issue,” he said. He also said business and industry are sometimes reluctant to come in when the crime rate is high.

    Montgomery said he would train deputies to know how to handle a domestic abuse case. “You must have the evidence to make a case.” He said it is also important to educate the public to report domestic abuse.

    Seibles said South Carolina is No. 2 in domestic violence and that, if elected Sheriff, he would connect with pastors in the community. “That would make our job a lot easier. We need community leaders with a spiritual side.”

    Fairfield County has been open and transparent with the public in the past. If you become Sheriff, will you continue this openness?

    Glenn stressed the importance of transparency in the Sheriff’s office. “There is no reason for (the public) to not know what we’re doing. Transparency will be my Job No. 1,” Glenn said.

    Gibson, too, said transparency would be the order of the day if he is elected Sheriff. “I believe there are times, such as an ongoing investigation, when we cannot be open about something,” Gibson said. “But after it’s over, we must open up. Transparency is better served when we realize we should be held to a higher level.”

    Seibles agreed with Glenn and Gibson on the importance of transparency in the Sheriff’s office and said, “If the citizens trust you enough, I think they will know that we will let every bit of information out that we can.”

    Lewis also championed transparency, saying, “When you’re using taxpayers’ money, they have a right to know what’s going on.” He also said when (law enforcement) makes a mistake, they must admit it openly. “A Sheriff’s only as good as his Indians,” Lewis said, adding that the Sheriff must lead by example. “If the Sheriff treats the public right, his men are going to see that and treat the public right.”

    Montgomery said he thought transparency was important, but side-stepped the transparency question, and instead referenced his boss, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott, saying he had watched Lott gain the trust of the community and was part of that. “We have to have unity in the community. Without that we don’t have nothing.”

    Why do you think you are the best man for the job of Fairfield County Sheriff?

    Gibson said he would bring common sense to the job. “I will be open, no hidden agendas. I can motivate the workers to do better. I will come out and talk to the people and address their concerns. We must hold ourselves above reproach. I want this job because I know what I can do,” Gibson said.

    Montgomery said this is his third time to run for the office. “I really want it,” he said. “It’s my life-long goal. I’m a proven leader. My education speaks for itself. I was there for my people (in Richland County) and I’ll be there for you. I’m a hard worker.”

    Seibles said he is not looking for a job or a career. “I have a heart to serve and this is a way of life for me.” He referenced his spiritual faith, his closeness to the community and his ability to build trust. He expressed confidence in his ability to carry out the duties of the office of Sheriff and rested his trust in God. “It’s truly an honor to serve the community. I’m very thankful for that opportunity.”

    Glenn said he was the best choice for Sheriff because of his 20 years of leadership experience, management skills, being in charge of large organizations and making decisions that can mean life or death. “Being a crime victim myself made me want to go into law enforcement,” Glenn said. “I will be the Sheriff you can depend on to be in your community and in your neighborhood. I will bring energy and advanced skills. I know how to make the tough decisions.”

    Lewis said, “It’s hard for me to stand up here and say I’m a better candidate than these men. They are all good people. But let me tell you what I can about me.” He said there’s more to being Sheriff than the duties of the office. “It’s the responsibility of the Sheriff to help assure that the County is a productive, healthy, safe place to live,” and he said Fairfield County is on the doorstep of economic growth and that the crime rate plays a big role in economic development. “Our crime rate is 34 percent, one of the lowest in the state and better than some of the surrounding counties. In the next two years we could become one of the best law enforcement agencies in the state.”

    A second forum for the Sheriff candidates was held last evening in Ridgeway. The special election for Sheriff will be held this Tuesday, Sept. 30.

  • What Did We Learn from County Bond Session?

    Records Don’t Back County Claims

    PARKER POE REP DODGES MEDIA QUESTIONS

    WINNSBORO – A year and a half after $24 million worth of bonds were issued to finance an economic development plan for Fairfield County, County Council brought in Parker Poe bond consultant Ray Jones Monday night to explain for the first time to the public the two kinds of bonds that were issued, how they were issued and how they were financed.

    Left unanswered, however, were pertinent questions from the audience, including one from The Independent Voice regarding clarification of how much it will cost the taxpayers of the County if Council pays off the $24 million bonds by issuing a number of general obligation bonds over a 20-year period as Jones suggested is the plan. Jones cut the question short and said he would be happy to explain it after the meeting.

    Jones left the meeting early, but was tracked down by The Voice and again asked to explain the question. He refused, saying he would answer it later.

    The explanation of the bonds and how they are financed was largely straightforward as Jones walked the Council and audience through what he called a very complicated financing process. In a power point presentation, however, he displayed quotes from The Voice that he labeled as “myths.” Those quotes criticized Council for not having explained the financing process to the public before the bonds were issued in March and April of 2013. Jones insisted there were nine instances during January, February, March and April of 2013 when the bonds were discussed thoroughly and in public.

    “I draw your attention to the meetings that were held on March 25, 2013; April 8 and April 15, 2013,” Jones said. “It was at those meetings that the documents associated with the installment purchase revenue bond financing plan were both discussed and approved by the Council.”

    While the bonds were indeed approved over the course of those meetings, digital recordings of those meetings offered no explanation or discussion by Council or then County Administrator Phil Hinely about the resolution passed that night, that it was establishing the non-profit Fairfield Facilities Corporation, the role of the Corporation or anything about how the bonds would be financed.

    While Jones said the information was included in the document Council passed, that information was not discussed by Council in open session. Instead, before the vote, Ferguson read only the title of the resolution: “To provide authorization for an installment purchase plan of finance for certain capital projects in the county and other related matters.” There was no discussion about the resolution.

    The County’s two newspapers did not print any information about any discussion by Council members regarding the contents of the resolution. Much of the discussions in those meetings that were referred to as “discussions of the bond” were actually presentations of the County’s economic development plan for projects.

    On Monday evening, Jones gave much emphasis to the fact that the meetings, votes and “public hearing (were) lawfully advertised and held regarding this financing and regarding the documents then before Council,” and that “in open session on April 15, 2013, a third reading of Ordinance 614, which authorized Council’s pursuit of this financing plan (was held).”

    Jones read from the documents that Council passed, but there is no record that the documents, the particulars of the issuance of the bonds or the plan for financing the bonds were discussed in open session at any of the meetings Jones listed.

    Jones shed new light on the financing of the $24 million bonds, saying that the County was not dependent on the revenue from the nuclear plant to pay off the $24 million bonds. Rather, he said, the County could continue to issue general obligation bonds over the life of the $24 million bond without going over the County’s current 10.4 debt millage. When asked by Tom Connor of Ridgeway if there was the possibility that there would ever be tax relief from the 10.4 debt millage over the duration of the payoff of the $24 million bond, Jones said, “This model says we will not go over 10.4 mills. That’s all I can tell you.”

    When asked by an unidentified woman in the audience, “How are we supposed to pay for this bond?” Jones replied, “The County is already levying a 10.4 millage debt service. As the (2009 $6.5 million) bond is paid down (in 2019), these new (general obligation bonds) will help the millage rate remain at 10.4 mills and that is sufficient for the County to repay the bonds in this model.”

    In his presentation Monday evening, Jones discussed five key points: the County’s goals, why the County pursued installment purchase revenue bond financing, whether it was explained to the public, whether it was a legal, sound financing structure and if it had accomplished the County’s goals. The document is on the County’s website. Read more on Jones’ presentation in the Oct. 3 issue of The Independent Voice.

  • Council Reinstates Leave Days

    WINNSBORO – In response to entreaties from County employees to reinstate leave days used this summer when a broken air conditioner forced the County Courthouse to close for three days, Council heard their pleas and on Monday evening voted unanimously to reinstate those three days. Council has scheduled a work session on Monday at 7 p.m. to discuss changing the County’s policy on inclement weather.

    Council also voted to immediately re-advertise the Community Enhancement Grant program and extend the deadline for submitting paperwork for grants until Dec. 30, 2014. The question about extending the application period came up earlier this month after Council awarded grant funds to find that about $6,000 had not been applied for.

    Council also OK’d second reading on Ordinance 641, which conveys a small piece of property owned by Fairfield County and located at 205 Means St. in Ridgeway to the Town of Ridgeway. The property originally was owned by Ridgeway and conveyed to Fairfield County for public use, but is no longer used by the County. In the past, Ridgeway Mayor Charlene Herring had asked for use of the property for a community garden.

    Council passed first reading of an ordinance to amend the master agreement governing the I-77 corridor regional industrial park to include property located in Richland County.

  • County Tackles Bond Questions

    County to Review $24.06M Mechanics

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County Administrator Milton Pope plans to make good Monday evening on his promise to explain the County’s newest general obligation (GO) bond, issued by Council on Aug. 7 for $1,156,000. That explanation is expected to also include a GO bond issued on Feb. 14 for $769,177.88, the $24 million bonds ($3,710 SeriesA & $20,980,000 Series 2013B) issued in April 2013 and clarification as to how many more GO bonds Council plans to issue over the next 30 or so years to finance the semi-annual installment payments due to the Fairfield Facilities Corporation (FFC) to pay off the 2013 $24 million bonds.

    Council’s critics say Council has not provided an honest and thorough explanation of the bonds except to say (1) the bonds will not increase residents’ property taxes, (2) the 2013 plan set in motion by the Council to finance a $24 million economic development plan with bonds was intended (by Council) to obligate the new revenue from V.C. Summer’s Units II and III reactors so as to possibly protect the County from other governments in the state that might threaten to raid that revenue in the future and (3) that the media has stirred up misconceptions about the bonds.

    Council Chairman David Ferguson further propagated the perception of secrecy on the part of Council when he told The Voice at an Aug. 18 meeting with the Legislative Delegation that he didn’t know how the County plans to spend the proceeds from the $1,156,000 bond. This, combined with false and misleading information provided by the former County Administrator to the public and local newspapers as to which bonds, exactly, the County did or did not issue in 2013 as well as the repercussion of those bonds on the issuance of future GO bonds, has raised questions and suspicion from the county’s citizenry.

    Why are the GO Bonds Being Issued?

    According to the $24 million bond documents, Council’s initial plan, in 2013, though it was not explained to the public at that time, was to begin issuing GO bonds in early 2014 to make the semi-annual installment payments on the $24 million bonds from 2013 until 2020 (part of the bond issued on Feb. 14 was to reimburse the County’s general fund for the Sept. 1, 2013 installment payment). According to the bond documents, the County planned to begin making the larger installment payments from surplus revenue in 2021. Surplus revenue is a term in the $24 million bond documents that refers specifically to that revenue that will be produced by the two new V.C. Summer nuclear reactors, which are currently under construction.

    When the $24 million bond was issued in 2013, Council expected the surplus revenue to materialize in 2019. Because of delays in construction of units II and III, that revenue is now not expected to start rolling in until late 2020 or early 2021.

    In recent weeks, several conflicting documents have surfaced indicating that the County may have changed some aspects of its payment schedule to the FFC. In one document (See Document B), the numbers line up so perfectly as to indicate the proceeds from the $1,156,000 bond would be used to pay off the principal of that same bond and for nothing else. Pope has not yet responded to inquiries by The Voice asking him to confirm or deny this possibility.

    Another newly released flow chart (see Document C) appears to forecast a 10 mills debt service for the County from 2020 through 2043 to make installment payments on the $24 million bonds. That debt service millage continues in decreasing amounts until 2047. This would indicate that the County’s taxpayers could be paying as much as $1.3 million in debt service millage (already being collected) on the semi-annual GO bonds each year for 22 years and lesser amounts the following four years for a total of about $30 million.

    How did the County get so Deeply in Debt?

    In 2013, Council members wanted, but could not afford, to finance a $24 million economic development program that would construct, renovate, etc., “certain projects (2013 Projects) to be used by the County on real property (2013 Real Property) owned or to be acquired by the County.” Pope, who was not employed with the County when the bonds were issued, now says that plan was an effort to possibly protect the new V.C. Summer revenues from being raided in the future by other governments in the state.

    Without discussion or explanation to the public as to how the bonds were going to be issued or paid for, however, Council passed a resolution on March 25, 2013, that legally allowed it to create the Fairfield Facilities Corporation, a non-profit shell corporation that could issue an unorthodox Installment Purchase Revenue Bond (IPRB) in the amount of $24 million without being constrained by standard legal regulations and safeguards designed to keep county and municipal governments from over-borrowing.

    One thing that makes the IPRB bonds unorthodox is the source of revenue with which they can be repaid. While standard revenue bonds are to be paid from a revenue stream such as a government owned toll road, water plant or other legitimate revenue stream (which Fairfield County does not have), the IPRB’s can be paid off with virtually any revenue source available to the County. While GO bonds do not qualify as a revenue stream for standard revenue bonds, they are an approved revenue stream for paying off IPRB’s.

    Details, Details

    While the resolution that created the FFC appeared on Council’s agenda on March 25, 2013 (resolutions require only one reading), and was passed by Council in a public meeting that night, there was no explanation by Council or then Administrator Phil Hinely as to any ramifications of the resolution. A digital recording of that meeting confirms that the resolution was neither discussed nor explained in public. Instead, Ferguson read only the title of the resolution: “To provide authorization for an installment purchase plan of finance for certain capital projects in the county and other related matters.” And with that, the FFC and the subsequent $24 million bond were launched so discretely that not even the newspaper reporters in the room noticed or reported it to the public.

    On April 12, 2013, three men in the County who had been asked by Hinely to serve as volunteer members of the FFC board of directors signed a resolution to issue the $24 million IPRB bonds. One of those members, Bob Drake, told The Voice that the board never met, that the bond was never explained to him nor was he made aware that a multiple number of GO bonds would follow to help pay off the $24 million bonds.

    “Signing that resolution was our one and only job,” Drake, a local banker, said.

    Shortly thereafter, on or about April 29, 2013, the newly created FFC quietly issued two bonds totaling $24 million to fund the Council’s economic development projects. Pope recently clarified in an email to The Voice that it was the FFC, not the County, that actually borrowed the $24 million, making it the FFC’s debt, not the County’s. The debt itself is unique as well. While the debt belongs to the FFC and not the County, the FFC is a shell corporation with, according to the bond document, no operating history and no assets except for the interest it acquired in the County’s projects when they were conveyed to the FFC to be constructed/renovated. While the County is not obligated to use GO bonds to make the semi-annual installment payments to the FFC, it is obligated to use a portion of the surplus revenue to make those payments that are then used by the FFC to pay off the $24 million bond debt.

    What if the County defaulted on those payments? A surety deposit and an insurance policy paid for with the bond proceeds offer temporary assistance. A Columbia bond attorney, who asked not to be identified, said the Council would have a couple of other options to raise funds for the installment payments in the event of default. It could either ask voters to pony up with a GO bond that would increase property taxes on those properties in Fairfield County that do not pay a fee in lieu of taxes or it could do nothing and lose its bond rating. There would be few other repercussions except that the County could also lose some of the projects that were funded by the $24 million bonds in the first place.

    Raising Funds to Pay Off Debt

    According to the bond document, Council’s $24 million IPRB was enabled by the County signing an agreement with the FFC that set up a convoluted, circuitous payment/leasing plan that would have been difficult for the Council members to explain to the public had they even tried, although there is no evidence that they did try.

    The agreement between the County and the FFC involves 2013 Projects (those projects of construction/renovation to be paid for with the $24 million bonds) and 2013 Real Property (those facilities that already exist on the properties where construction/renovation will occur). In the agreement between the County and the FFC, Council, in exchange for a small fee from the FFC, leased to the FCC “the land on which the 2013 Projects are or will be located (which consists of sites presently owned by the County) and the 2013 Real Properties.” The FFC will then use the proceeds from the $24 million bonds to construct/renovate, etc., the 2013 Projects for the County and, for its part, the County, incrementally purchases the 2013 Real Property and the 2013 Projects back from the FCC over the life of the bond by making semi-annual installment payments to the FFC “in amounts calculated to be sufficient to enable the FFC to pay the principal and interest,” as stated in the bond, on the $24 million bonds as well as any other payments agreed to by the parties.

    The only clue that Council planned to unleash years of semi-annual GO bonds on the county was an unheralded listing on the County Council’s agenda in the first paragraph of Ordinance 614 that provided for the bonds and that was voted on at three council meetings: March 25, April 8 and April 15, 2013. The first paragraph was read aloud at a brief public hearing on April 8, 2013: “Providing for the issuance of, not exceeding, in the aggregate, the County’s constitutional bonded debt limit in general obligation bonds, in one or more series, tax-exempt or taxable, to be used to fund one or more capital projects; authorizing the County Administrator to prescribe the form and details of the bonds; providing for the payment of the bonds; providing for the borrowing in anticipation of the issuance of the bonds; providing for the disposition of property related to the bonds; providing for the distribution and pledge of certain revenues related to certain capital projects in the county; and other related matters.”

    There is no indication that copies of Ordinance 614 were provided to reporters and other members of the public at the meeting and it was not posted on the County’s website.

    Both county newspapers reported that Council voted 4-1 in favor of the ordinance (councilmen Kamau Marcharia and David Brown were absent) with Councilwoman Carolyn Robinson being the lone nay vote. Robinson complained that there were things in the bond that the whole Council had never discussed. She complained further that the ordinance had been dictated to the Council by a few members.

    The passing of Ordinance 614 paved the way for Council to issue any number of GO bonds in any amount in the future without voter approval so long as it did not exceed the County’s bonded debt limit, which is 8 percent of the assessed value of County property. That amount as of March 1, 2013 was approximately $4.5 million. The County would make semi-annual installment payments to the FFC from 2013 through 2043 for a total amount, including interest, of $43 million. The FFC, in turn, agreed to use those installment payments to pay off the $24 million bonds. To make these payments to the FFC, the County agreed to use two sources of revenue: (1) proceeds from GO bonds issued by Council and (2) a portion of the special revenue (when it materialized) from units II and III.

    Citizens’ Committee

    At Council’s Sept. 8 meeting, Councilwoman Mary Lynn Kinley staunchly refuted complaints from the audience that citizens had not had input into the $24 million bond process, saying, “We had a citizen committee to sit in and listen to that before anything was decided. We have never done anything up here without public input.”

    The Voice sent Kinley an email the following day asking for names of the members of that citizens’ committee as well as when they met, how, when and by whom they were appointed, what their role was in the bond process and any documentation regarding their input. Kinley replied, asking that The Voice request that information directly from the County (Pope).

    “From what I recall,” Kinley added, “there were no minutes required by law for this group when they met. It was actually not a ‘committee.’ They were a group selected to do a specific job with the bond.”

    In a follow up email, Pope wrote that, after a conversation with Kinley, he believed that she was referring to the ‘citizens’ on the FFC board of directors. The Voice contacted Drake, who confirmed that, as a board member, he never met or had any input whatsoever into the bond or the bond process other than to sign a few pieces of paperwork on April 12, 2013, that were emailed to him and picked up by a courier.

    “The signing of those papers was really a formality,” Drake said, “I was not involved with the bond process at all and never had any conversations with the Council about it.”

    County Administrator Milton Pope is scheduled to make a presentation about the bonds at the regular Council meeting on Monday, Sept. 22 in Council chambers.