Category: Government

  • Council OK’s Town Hall Barrier

    Restaurant Lease on Hold

    RIDGEWAY – At their Aug. 14 meeting, Town Council unanimously approved the expenditure of $1,200 for the construction of an earthen berm on the east side of the Century House to stop the flow of thru-traffic that has been causing damage to the lot. Council awarded the contract to M.C. Rowe, a Ridgeway company.

    Council also gave the final OK to an ordinance authorizing Mayor Charlene Herring to sing a lease agreement with a new tenant for the Old Town Hall restaurant. Herring did not, however, ink the deal.

    “We’ve agreed in principal to the terms and conditions,” Councilman Russ Brown said last week, “and we hopefully have an announcement next week.”

    The deal had not been finalized by press time.

    Rezoning Hearing

    Council will hold a rezoning hearing at Town Hall at 6:30 p.m. Monday for .82 acres situated in the fork at Highway 34 and Highway 321. The property is currently zoned as R1 (single family residential) and Brown, the property owner, is seeking to have it rezoned as commercial. Brown said he will recuse himself from discussions on the rezoning process.

  • County Bond Raises Questions

    No Answers for $1+ Million Issue

    WINNSBORO – Without a word to the public, County Council has issued another general obligation (GO) bond, this one in the amount of $1,156,000, half again as large as the one issued on Feb. 14 for $769,177.88 and almost three times as much as the County needs to make the Sept. 1 interest and principal payment on the County’s $24 million Installment Purchase Revenue Bond (IPRB) issued in the Spring of 2013. The newest bond was filed with the Fairfield County Clerk of Court on Aug. 7. Both bonds were issued for the stated purpose of making interest payments on borrowed money – the County’s $24 million IPRB. But the Aug. 7 GO bond was issued for $702,528 more than the $453,472 needed for the Sept. 1 payment. No information has been made available to The Voice by the County as to what the additional $702,528 will be used for.

    The issuance of the two GO bonds was made possible by Ordinance 614, passed by County Council on April 15, 2013. At the time, members of Council led the public to believe that Council was issuing the $24 million IPRB. But last spring, interim County Administrator Milton Pope told The Voice that the $24 million IPRB was not issued by the County, but by the Fairfield Facilities Corporation. A number of state and municipal officials have described such facilities corporations as non-profit shell corporations created as a way for local governments to borrow more money than they could otherwise legally borrow and without asking for the voter’s permission.

    A unique slight-of-hand feature of IPRB’s is that, with the passage of Ordinance 614, the County was able to create a mock revenue stream to pay off at least part of the IPRB by providing for the issuance of GO bonds that are then paid off with property taxes levied without voter approval. Ordinance 614 allows the County to continue to issue GO bonds without voter approval so long as the County’s total GO bond debt does not exceed the County’s legal debt limit, which is 8 percent of the County’s assessed property values. That amount was $4.5 million when the Feb. 14 bond was issued. The Voice has not been able to learn what the County’s current debt limit is after the issuance of the $1.156 million bond. But according to one County report acquired by The Voice, the assessed value of all taxable property of Fairfield County (as of June 30) for purposes of issuing GO bonds was $131,127,268.

    According to County records, it used the proceeds from the Feb. 14 bond to pay the March 1 interest payment ($443,472) on the $24 million bond; $40,000 in bond issuance fees, $5,000 for other fees and $285,706 to reimburse itself for general fund expenditures it made for an additional interest payment in the fall of 2013. In addition, the County will pay $69,000 in interest on that bond. But it is not known exactly what the new $1.156 million bond is to be used for or what it will cost the County in interest.

    The Voiced emailed County Administrator Milton Pope on Tuesday asking for details of how the bond would be used, but Pope had not responded by press time on Wednesday.

    Both the Feb. 14 and Aug. 7 bonds are to be paid back over seven years beginning in March 2015. The Voice learned from two sources with GO bond expertise that it is customary that GO bonds taken out to pay for debt are usually paid off within a year, and that the seven-year payout is unusual. Both sources speculated that County Council could be extending the payoff to seven years to avoid raising its millage rate. At this point, in addition to making the annual interest payments on the $24 million bond, which in 2015 will total $896,681, the County will also have to make payments of $1,195,197.68 on the new GO bonds beginning March 1, 2015.

  • Toy Company to Bring 151 Jobs

    Hiring Begins for Sept. Startup

    WINNSBORO – In an announcement made at the Midlands Technical College QuickJobs campus Thursday afternoon, Enor Corp., a manufacturer of toys and games, was introduced as the latest addition to Fairfield County’s growing economic base. The New Jersey based company will operate out of the former Ruff & Tuff building at 1 Quality Lane, off Highway 321, in Winnsboro, with limited operations expected to begin next month. Enor Corp. is a major supplier of plastic toys, outdoor games and junior sports items for Walmart stores.

    “The addition of Enor Corporation is another great win for the economy and workforce of South Carolina,” Fairfield County Council Chairman David Ferguson (District 5) said. “Fairfield County is excited to be a part of the continuous re-shoring initiative with Walmart’s supply chain and the Council is honored to have had the opportunity to work closely with Enor as they were searching for the right location to grow their business. The bounty of companies continuing to locate, build and grow within the borders of this state and in the central S.C. region is a testament to the opportunities and support available here to businesses.”

    The multi-million dollar investment is expected to create 151 jobs, with 100 of those jobs coming in the first year of operation. The majority of the jobs will involve injection-molding skills. The average salary of those jobs was not available at press time. Enor Corp. will begin hiring for the new positions immediately, with readySC.org assisting with the application process. Enor said it expects to accelerate production rapidly over the next nine months, transferring the majority of its off-shore production to the new facility in Winnsboro “as quickly as practical without disrupting supply.”

    “Today’s announcement represents our life-changing commitment to manufacture exclusively in the U.S. Our relationship with Walmart began more than 15 years ago, and this is a vital next step,” said Steven Udwin, CEO of Enor Corp.

    Enor Corp. was drawn to Fairfield County by an incentives package, the details of which have not yet been made public, but which included a fee-in-lieu of taxes agreement ushered through County Council recently under the code name “Project Leprechaun.” Enor Corp. also received a $300,000 Rural Infrastructure Fund grant from the S.C. Coordinating Council for Economic Development. Those funds will be used to retrofit the 78,000-square-foot building.

    The addition of Enor Corp. brings the total number of jobs introduced into Fairfield County over the last year to 800.

  • BZA Nixes Sign Appeal

    BLYTHEWOOD – In a unanimous decision that never wavered, Blythewood’s Board of Zoning Appeals on Monday evening rejected Sandy Kahn’s appeal for an exemption to the Town’s sign ordinance.

    In June, Kahn had asked former interim Town Administrator Jim Meggs to allow her to place two new and separate ground signs on her commercial property at 152 Blythewood Road – one for her State Farm Insurance business and a second for the Chamber of Commerce and Visitor’s Center, both of which are located in a building at the back of Khan’s property. That building also houses the Blythewood Artists Guild. All three offices rent space from Kahn. In a memo to the BZA, Meggs explained that under the Town’s sign regulations, “Only one sign is permitted….There is no exemption for signs erected by or on behalf of a civic organization.” Meggs said that signs placed by civic organizations are subject to the same regulations as commercial signs.

    In her application to appeal Meggs’ decision, Kahn countered, “According to my interpretation, it is clear to me that the exemption (for multiple signs) is applicable since the building is being used for civic purposes.”

    Kahn was called out of town and could not attend the meeting Monday evening. Although Buddy Price, a member of the Bravo Blythewood board of directors, had not signed up to speak at the meeting, he asked to speak on Kahn’s behalf. Price said he was accompanied by Mike Switzer as a representative of the Chamber and Jean Bell as a representative of the Blythewood Artists Guild. He said Kahn had asked them all to speak.

    “We agree with Ms. Kahn’s request for an exception and that it is warranted for the reasons she gave,” Price said. “The sign we’re asking to be erected in front of the Blythewood Art Center would be a shingled sign directing people to the Visitor’s Center and that’s the argument being made, that two signs are appropriate because it is directing to an entity that’s part of the town that we think is incredibility important.

    “When you come off the interstate, there is a sign directing to the Visitor Center, but there are no other signs to show you exactly where it is located,” Price added. He also told the Board, “The other entities (Blythewood Artists Guild and Chamber of Commerce) listed on the Visitor’s Center sign, while they aren’t part of the administration, they are certainly entities that are working closely with the Town. “

    In opening remarks, BZA Board Chairwoman Sabra Mazyck concurred with Meggs’ denial of a sign exemption, saying that while the Town certainly supports activities of the Chamber, Visitors Center, Arts Center and others, that support does not deem these organizations governmental bodies.

    Mazyck continued, saying the Town holds other businesses in the Town to one sign even when places like Maggie’s Restaurant and many others have begged for a directional sign because their businesses were in out of the way locations.

    “There are many signs (on Kahn’s property) that I have seen and one more would be just be too many,” Mazyck said. “As chair, I would like to see all of the commercial businesses in the Town held to the same code of standards for the erection of signs as well as sign code enforcement.”

    While BZA Board Member Joseph Richardson suggested Kahn might remodel her existing sign to reflect all the offices located on the property or even bring the request back to the BZA as a request for a variance instead of an exemption, he also made it clear to those requesting the exemption, “the Board has no authority to misinterpret the law. The law is pretty clear.”

    Richardson, an attorney, said Mazyck did a good job summarizing the law in regard to Meggs denial. He said the Board has five criteria under the BZA statue to hear a variance request, but that this was not a variance request.

    Board Member Ray Fantone said that he likes “to see consistency. The rules are right there so that we don’t start looking like every other exit off I-77. I don’t see any extenuating circumstances to (Meggs’) ruling.”

    Although considerable controversy arose when Price wanted to continue to argue Kahn’s case to the Board, he was allowed to do so. Richardson reminded Price that if he was representing another person (Kahn), “that probably should have been expressed earlier.” Richardson suggested that, in the future, a letter from the original applicant be submitted to the Board ahead of the meeting explaining that another person would be representing the original applicant. “That would clear up who gets to speak and when,” Richardson said.

    In his second address to the Board, Price argued that while some references have been made to multiple signs that are currently on the property, he dismissed them as not pertinent to the issue, saying “this sign ordinance is addressing street signage. . . . Only one street sign is on the property.”

    The day of the meeting, The Voice counted six different and separate signs on the property advertising one or more of the four offices (Visitor’s Center, State Farm Insurance, Blythewood Art Center and the Chamber of Commerce).

    “We think the ordinance allows the Town to approve what we’re asking for,” Price said.

    “But that’s not an issue before us tonight,” Richardson said. “As a procedural matter we have to be careful this board doesn’t act in a way that will incur liability for the Town in terms of equal protection issues.”

    Prior to the vote, Richardson suggested to Price that perhaps the Town government would have the authority to place its own directional sign at the entrance to the building at the back of Kahn’s property, and that they might want to talk to the Town Administrator in that regard.

    Should BZA have its own attorney?

    In a related matter, the Board had asked Town Administrator Gary Parker about retaining an attorney for BZA meetings.

    “The reason we are concerned about this,” Mazyck told Parker, “is that we’re the only judicial board the Town has, and because of a decision we made three or four years ago, the Town government sued us.”

    Parker told the members that he had done considerable research on the matter, contacted the Municipal Association of South Carolina as well as a number of town governments in the state and concluded that most Town BZAs do not retain their own attorney or have them at their board meetings. He said that neither the state law nor the town law required it. Mazyck accepted Parker’s advice and said the board would move forward without an attorney present.

  • County Seals Land Deals

    WINNSBORO – County Council during their July 28 meeting gave final reading to an ordinance authorizing the purchase of 1.365 acres of property in Ridgeway for the relocation of the Ridgeway Fire Department and EMS station. The property, located at 350 Highway 21 S. and owned by Judy Davis, will set the County back $65,000.

    “We can find something cheaper than that,” District 7 resident David Brandenburg said during the public hearing for the ordinance.

    Brandenburg also said the Southeastern fire station was only about 5.5 miles away from the proposed site and questioned the need for a new station so close.

    But Milton Pope, Interim County Administrator, said the County had, along with Tony Hill, Fire Marshal, studied the site and determined it was the best choice in order for the most residents to maintain their fire insurance rates.

    “We explored using County property that was close by this particular location,” Pope said, “however, by using that County property it would have thrown a number of people out of the 5-mile radius and therefore increasing their ISO rate.”

    An existing building standing on the site will be used for storage, Pope said, with a new fire station to be erected in the near future. The original ordinance listed the property at 1.12 acres, but Monday night Pope said the purchase comprises two lots totaling 1.365 acres.

    Rufus Belton Park

    Council deferred third and final reading of an ordinance authorizing the purchase of 5.93 acres in Ridgeway known as Rufus Belton Park. The County is prepared to shell out $150,000 to Clayton Belton for the property that includes a fire and EMS station, as well as recreational facilities. Pope said there were no issues with the contract, but that Belton had requested additional time to review the deal before closing. Council will take the matter up again at its next meeting on Aug. 25.

    Center Creek Road

    Council gave the final OK to sell off 405 acres of property off Center Creek Road to Douglas L. Gamburg for $1,215,000. According to tax records, the County purchased the land in 2002 from SP Forests, LLC for $617,625 and Pope said the County had once explored the possibilities of developing the land for a retirement community.

    “That did not pan out,” Pope said. “I know firsthand from speaking to the folks who were involved with this, a retirement community in that particular area would be very challenging to have a successful one unless there was a considerable amount of public investment in order to do that.”

    Prior to the vote, Councilwoman Mary Lynn Kinley (District 6) moved that $25,000 from the proceeds of the sale be set aside for the purchase of additional property in the Center Creek area to be used for recreation purposes. The remainder of the proceeds, Kinley said, should be designated for economic development purposes and deposited in the County’s economic development fund.

  • Sagging Pants Law Gets Final OK

    WINNSBORO – Town Council Tuesday night unanimously passed final reading of an ordinance to prohibit the wearing of sagging pants in public within the town limits of Winnsboro. The ordinance cleared public hearing without comment from the public.

    The ordinance prohibits the wearing of pants more than 3 inches below the hips and exposing skin or undergarments. It also prohibits parents or legal guardians from “willfully” allowing their minor to appear in public wearing pants that violate the 3-inch rule.

    Effective July 30 and until Sept. 30, violators will be issued a warning by Public Safety officers. Beginning Oct. 1, violators will be slapped with a $25 ticket.

    The ordinance was proposed by Councilman Clyde Sanders at Council’s June 3 meeting in reaction to a fashion statement he said was an embarrassment to the community.

    “It’s embarrassing to me to go to Wal-Mart or walk down Main Street and have somebody holding their pants up just to take a step, and that’s what they’re doing,” Sanders said during the June 3 meeting. “If a female, 18 to 40 years old, walked into Wal-Mart with their pants below their butt, she would probably be arrested for indecent exposure.”

  • P.C. OK’s Zoning Changes

    BLYTHEWOOD – The Planning Commission Monday night gave their OK to a slate of zoning amendments designed to allow for recreational amenities in neighborhoods and provide consistency in residential districts.

    The Commission voted unanimously to approve the amendments for D-1 (Development District), R-12 (Single-Family Residential District) and R-8 (One and Two-Family Residential District), making them compatible with similar districts. The issue came to light, according to Michael Criss, the Town’s Planning and Zoning consultant, when Essex Homes sought to include a swimming pool in phases 8 and 9 of Ashley Oaks, which they are in the process of developing. Although the existing phases of Ashley Oaks include such amenities, Criss said, zoning in the area in which phases 8 and 9 lie does not permit them.

    “We started looking over all the residential districts and found these amenities were missing in several of the districts that were very comparable to others,” Criss told the Commission. “So why in some and not in others?”

    With the amendments, D-1 will now be consistent with RU (Rural District), R-12 will be consistent with R-40 (Low Density Residential District) as well as R-20 (Low Density Single-Family Residential District) and R-8 will be consistent with R-40 and R-20.

    The amendments still have to go before Town Council for final approval.

  • Sign Appeal Gets Review

    BLYTHEWOOD – The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) is scheduled to meet Monday evening to hear the appeal of an administrative denial for multiple signage on a commercial property on Blythewood Road. The meeting was rescheduled from July 14 when the Board could not convene for lack of a quorum.

    The appeal is being brought by Sandy Khan, owner of the State Farm Insurance office located in front of the IGA on Blythewood Road. In May, Khan asked former interim Town Administrator Jim Meggs to allow her to place two signs on her property – one for her insurance business and a second for the Chamber of Commerce and Visitors’ Center, both of which are located in a building at the back of Khan’s property. That building also houses the Blythewood Artists Guild, and all three offices rent space from Kahn. Meggs denied the request.

    There are currently four signs on the property – a large sign on the front of the property that advertises State Farm Insurance, the Blythewood Artists Guild and the Visitors’ Center; an approximately 3×4-foot free-standing sign at the back of the property advertising the Blythewood Artists Guild; a smaller sign in the side window of the Guild and an approximately 3×3-foot sign on the front porch of the Guild. An additional sign for the Chamber and Visitors’ Center would bring to five the number of separate signs on the property.

    In a memorandum dated July 11, Meggs updated the BZA on the issue, explaining that, “Only one sign is permitted.” Kahn is appealing the decision to the BZA, saying she feels that because two of her tenants (the Chamber and Visitors’ Center) are civic organizations, they should be exempt from the requirements of the sign ordinance that other businesses in the town must follow.

    The meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. Monday at the Manor.

  • P.C. Previews Cobblestone Plans

    BLYTHEWOOD – The face of Cobblestone may soon be changing, and members of the Planning Commission, viewing the proposed changes for the first time at a work session Monday night, want to be sure the community has an opportunity for input. But representatives from D.R. Horton, the developer now holding the reins at Cobblestone, told the Commission that at this stage they were only willing to present the plans in a public meeting format, and not to residents individually.

    “I think that it would be a little bit irresponsible to just put it out there, if they’re just sitting there in their living room sitting and looking at the document without having someone like us to answer their questions,” D.R. Horton’s Ben Stevens told the Commission after Commission Chairman Malcolm Gordge asked if the developer planned to make the revisions available to residents. “We prefer to do it in a controlled environment where their questions can be answered.”

    Stevens said as the project progressed “it would be a good idea” to get input from residents, but not at this stage. That prompted a word of caution from Commissioner Buddy Price as well as a stern rebuke from Bob Mangone, a Town Councilman attending the work session as a Cobblestone resident.

    “You’ve got a lot of people who live out there now who really need to be brought along in the process,” Price, also a Cobblestone resident, said, “and it’s a mistake, I think, to present anything that’s really changing the dynamic of the community. Don’t do this in a vacuum. I think it would be irresponsible for us to take a look at something and give some kind of final blessing on it if we haven’t gotten some kind of feedback from the community.”

    Mangone said he was concerned that there has been, thus far, no community input into the plans and that, at this point the plans do not, contrary to Horton’s claims otherwise, represent the residents’ vision for Cobblestone.

    “When will you come to the great unwashed and uneducated of Cobblestone and allow us some access to your wonder plan?” Mangone asked the Horton group. “I find that very insulting, by the way, that we couldn’t look at a basic plan and not have some way of commenting on it. We’re not all engineers but we’re not all dolts, either.”

    But Andrew Allen, the Horton representative who presented the majority of the plan to the Commission Monday, said the purpose of his presentation was to open the plans to the public. Horton was not, at this stage, seeking approval from the Commission, but only presenting a draft plan. A more detailed, final version of the plan will come before the Commission at a later date, he said, and would still need a final OK from Town Council.

    Cobblestone operates as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), with customized zoning unique to the neighborhood. Michael Criss, the Town’s Planning and Zoning consultant, said the changes presented Monday night would require an amendment to the existing PUD. That amendment would also have to be approved by the Planning Commission, he said, before going to Council for a final OK. The original PUD for Cobblestone was approved in 2003, and Allen said it was out of date and out of step with what Horton had in mind.

    “It is our feeling that PUD no longer represents our vision for the community, the community’s vision for Cobblestone or D.R. Horton’s vision for Cobblestone,” Allen said. “So it is our desire to come up with a new PUD, get that approved, that more closely resembles what everybody’s vision for Cobblestone is.”

    The Changes

    Allen told the Commission that Horton plans to reduce the number of proposed dwellings at Cobblestone from 1,251 units to 1,100 units, converting some areas that had been slated for multi-family units into single-family unit developments. Near the front of the neighborhood, as well as in the middle, Allen said there were tracts that had been zoned for 24 units per acre and would have included apartments. Instead, he said, Horton plans for town homes at a much lower density of four to 10 units per acre.

    “Cobblestone is more of a single-family community and we feel that the new Master Plan needs to reflect that,” Allen said.

    The back gate in the Primrose area, Allen said, would be converted into a functioning gate, “to relieve some of the traffic flow for this community so a lot of the residents in the back can use the Syrup Mill Road exit.” Driveways on homes along Primrose Drive, he said, would be removed from exiting onto Primrose and would be placed on an adjacent side street.

    “That lets Primrose be kind of the main thoroughfare through the back section and you can drive down that without people backing out onto Primrose,” Allen said.

    Horton also plans for additional amenities in the back section of Cobblestone, including a swimming pool and clubhouse, along with a corresponding parking lot. Commissioner Mike Switzer, also a Cobblestone resident, asked if an additional tennis court or fitness center might also be included, especially considering the amount of green space left intact by Horton’s revised plan. But Stevenson said another tennis court or fitness center was not in the works and that the green space, while it appears open and viable on paper, was simply not so.

    “It’s a pretty topographically challenged space,” Stevenson said. “That whole section . . . there are a lot of hills and a lot of slope there. To be able to provide a large footprint of an amenity there would be a challenge, for anybody. Not saying that things like that can’t be done, but it might not be the most effective use for that space.”

    Allen said Horton hopes to come back to the Planning Commission soon for final approval, as the developer is selling homes in the neighborhood at a swift pace. An exact time frame, however, was not made public.

  • Town Taps Mediator in Water Dispute

    WINNSBORO – In a special meeting held almost entirely in executive session on July 17, Town Council voted 3-0 to pursue arbitration in its dispute with the Town of Blythewood over the termination of a water franchise agreement and to hire Robert Bachman as the Town’s arbitrator in the matter.

    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. According to the contract, disputes over the agreement are subject to arbitration in accordance with S.C. law. It will now be up to Blythewood to appoint an arbitrator, Winnsboro Mayor Roger Gaddy said, and the two arbitrators would appoint a third before negotiations could begin.

    John Fantry, Winnsboro’s legal counsel on water and utility issues, said in April that a termination of the agreement would not necessarily prevent Winnsboro from selling water to customers in the areas surrounding the Blythewood town limits, but would require Winnsboro to bypass the Blythewood right-of-ways. But a termination of the agreement would, however, require Winnsboro to sell the infrastructure lying within the town limits to Blythewood at fair market value, according to the contract.

    While Blythewood may not be in a financial position to purchase Winnsboro’s infrastructure, sources told The Voice last week that the City of Columbia may be interested in making the purchase and operating the system on Blythewood’s behalf. After last week’s special meeting, Fantry said such a proxy purchase was acceptable under state law.

    Currently, Winnsboro has approximately 750 taps in and around Blythewood. Winnsboro collects 1.5 percent on each water bill and transfers that money to Blythewood annually.