Category: Government

BLYTHEWOOD – During the segment of Monday night’s Town Council meeting allowing for members’ miscellaneous comments, Councilman Bob Massa said he thought it was time the Town considers a fee for yard and garage sales.

“One fee for individual garage sales and a higher fee for multi-family sales,” Massa said. “And limit them to two a year (per household.)”

Massa added, “Wilson Boulevard and Blythewood Road look like flea markets on Saturdays with all those signs posted for sales. I called the Richland County Sheriff’s office about it, but there’s nothing they can do because these (yard and garage) sales are not actually businesses (that are regulated.)”

Massa suggested that more than two sales in a year could require a business license, “and then we could shut them down for that. Besides being unattractive, the signs are distractions and create a traffic problem, and we may have somebody get hurt,” he said.

Town Attorney Jim Meggs chimed in, saying he has similar thoughts whenever he is in Blythewood on Saturdays and suggested the Town consider some kind of regulations on the signs.

Massa suggested requiring a fee for a yard or garage sale license, then requiring the license to be posted on the sign for the sale. But Meggs disagreed.

“I’m not sure that (more signage) is something you want to encourage,” Meggs said.

Mayor J. Michael Ross asked Meggs and new Town Administrator Gary Parker to look into limiting the number of signs that are popping up at the various fireworks stands in the town as well.

“They don’t look good,” Ross said.

During his comment time, Councilman Tom Utroska announced that the restrooms in the park are expected to be operational in time for the fireworks festivities in the park on July 5.

Council Pay Down, Mayor’s Pay Up

BLYTHEWOOD – Town Council unanimously approved a $1,226,000 budget for fiscal year 2014-15 with only minor changes due to scrivener’s errors. Building/construction permit revenue is expected to double from $35,000 in FY 2014 to $70,000 in FY 2015, and there are noticeable decreases in the expenditures for Town Hall personnel salaries and benefits from $546,000 in FY 2014 to $464,318 in FY 2015. Of that, staff’s collective salaries and benefits are down $70,000 to $402,398; Council’s salaries and benefits are down $22,956 for a collective total of $27,044 for the year (Councilman Tom Utroska does not take salary or benefits), and the Mayor’s salary and benefits are up $2,376 for a yearly total of $26,376.

Total office expenses for the Town Hall are down about $20,000, while total legal and professional costs are up by $6,000. Promotions and maintenance are both down slightly from last year’s budget.

Special initiatives will increase from $140,000 in FY 2014 to $212,500 in FY 2015. Of that amount, Council has set aside $59,000 for technology improvements at Town Hall, $10,000 for repairs, $30,000 for sidewalks, $18,000 for interest on the Doko restaurant loan and $95,000 for landscaping, signage and Christmas decorations. Another $20,000 is designated for Christmas decorations from the Hospitality Tax revenue.

Other expenditures from Hospitality Tax revenue include: $28,000 for the Visitors’ Center ($9,000 for the executive director of the Blythewood Chamber of Commerce and the remainder to Bravo Blythewood and the Visitor’s Center); $12,000 for events; $5,000 for wireless internet and website; $7,000 for the Christmas Parade; $15,000 for the Diamond Invitational baseball tournament; $5,000 for audit fees and $180,000 for transfers to the Blythewood Facilities Corporation for payments on the $5.5 million park bond. The cost for the Town’s audit is divided between the Hospitality Tax ($5,000) and the Accommodations Tax ($6,000). The total Hospitality Tax revenue for FY 2015 is budgeted at $272,800. Total Accommodations Tax revenue is budgeted at $128,000.

Council approved transfers to the Manor enterprise fund in the amount of $45,961 to cover the shortfall from last year.

A copy of the budget is available at Town Hall and will be on the Town’s website soon.

BLYTHEWOOD – While Town Council has shut one door on the Doko Restaurant, it has opened another, hoping to find an established restaurateur, agent or developer to construct the restaurant jointly with the Town in an area in the Town Park across from Town Hall.

The Town would pay for the entire project with a low-interest $900,000 loan from Santee Cooper and a $456,000 grant from Fairfield Electric Cooperative, for a total of $1.3 million. The good deal for the purchaser is that it would only have to pay back the amount of the Santee Cooper loan, interest on that loan ($18,000 a year, estimated at a total of $48,000), legal and other loan administration fees ($32,000) and other incidental expenses (about $71,000) for fill dirt, survey and architectural and engineering work. The total estimated closing costs for the purchaser to pay the Town in full for the restaurant would come to a little over $980,000 instead of the entire $1.3 million since the $456,000 grant would not have to be repaid.

“It’s a very good deal for the person or group who purchases the restaurant,” Ed Parler, the Town’s economic development consultant, told The Voice. “They will be getting much more than they paid for.”

According to Parler, the individual or group entering into the project with the Town would be required to build the depot-like design already prepared and provided by the Town. The 4,800-square-foot restaurant with a seating capacity of 185 will be targeted, according to Parler, with a polished casual atmosphere. The only other such restaurant in the area is under construction in Cobblestone’s Golf Club and is expected to open in the fall. According to a flyer distributed by the Town, the nearest competitors would be located in The Village at Sandhills, more than a 15-20 minute drive from Blythewood. Other like venues are located in downtown Columbia in the Vista area, about 16 miles south on Interstate 77. Anyone interested in this joint project with the Town can contact Parler at 803-754-0501, 803-509-1085 or email him at Edward.parler@gmail.com.

WINNSBORO – County Council voted 6-0 Monday night to renew its contract with Columbia accounting firm Elliot Davis for auditing services. Councilman Mikel Trapp (District 3) was absent from Monday’s meeting.

Milton Pope, Interim County Administrator, said Council had, during the budgeting process, approved funding for the continued employment of Elliot Davis, but a public vote on the contract renewal had not been held.

“In our budgeting process we did approve the funding for auditing services,” Pope said, “however, what we should have done at that time is have a proviso in there approving Elliot Davis as the auditors.

“I think it’s very important we don’t have an interruption in our auditing services,” Pope continued. “They’re very familiar with our books. I would strongly encourage us not to disrupt that service, to keep those things working effectively and efficiently through the process.”

Council approved the contract extension for three years.

Council also gave the OK to $31,107 for the purchase of a new Chevrolet Caprice for the Sheriff’s Office to replace a 2008 Crown Victoria patrol car that was totaled in an accident. Council gave approval as well to a $2,700 overrun on fire service equipment. The budgeted amount for the purchase of hoses, replacement parts and other equipment was originally $25,000, Pope said.

WINNSBORO – Thursday afternoon, long after this week’s edition of The Voice had gone to press, residents of the Rockton community met at the County offices with representatives of the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) to air their concerns and seek answers to questions regarding a proposed granite mining operation intent on breaking ground near their homes off Highway 34. Monday night, the point person for those residents, Dorothy Brandenburg, previewed their concerns for County Council in a 10-minute presentation.

“Whether you’re for or against the quarry, show me the data,” Brandenburg said as she guided Council through a PowerPoint presentation. “In order to make educated decisions moving forward, we need information.”

Brandenburg said she had requested from DHEC additional information regarding the noise level at the proposed quarry, as well as a wind and air quality study and a rock modeling study to determine the effects of blasting. A request had also been sent to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for a ground water survey.

The noise survey, she said, would determine current decibel levels of the area and help set a level over which operations at the proposed quarry could not rise during preset “quiet hours.” The wind study would help determine a dust path, Brandenburg said, while the rock modeling study would give residents an idea of how explosives would affect the area.

Brandenburg said Winnsboro Crushed Stone’s plans to control dust with water spray could have a negative impact on the local water supply, and the DNR currently has no data on Fairfield County’s ground water table.

“How is (the water supply) going to be maintained if this mine comes in and they don’t have the water they thought was in the ground to use on the dust containment system?” Brandenburg said. “The water level is to the point, if we want to wash clothes and take a shower at the same time, we can’t do it. You do one and then the other.”

Brandenburg said there was also a concern about the disruption of area wetlands, as well as habitats for protected and endangered species of animals. There was also a question about the proposed positioning of certain elements of the mining operation, including the company’s rock crushing apparatus, which Brandenburg said appeared to be “economically efficient,” but not “resident-friendly.”

“If you want to operate, all right; but we were here first so we have a right to at least a little bit of accommodation,” Brandenburg said, adding that the goal of the meeting was for the company to hopefully demonstrate “a willingness to work together.”

“That’s really what we want to see at this level of the game,” she said, “what kind of neighbor can we expect to see coming into our town?”

A full report on Thursday’s meeting can be expected in the July 4 edition of The Voice.

WINNSBORO – County Council tabled a vote Monday night on adopting revisions to the County’s procurement manual after Councilwoman Carolyn Robinson (District 2) asked for additional time to review the proposed changes.

Changes to the policy include requiring Council’s approval for purchases over $25,000, as well as the definition of “close family” members related to County employees. Those members are defined as “spouse, sibling, in-laws, uncle/aunt, or cousin,” and are used to determine conflicts of interest in awarding contracts or purchases in the new manual. The previous policy placed no threshold for Council approval, provided the purchase was a budgeted item, leaving purchases at the discretion of the Procurement Director and the County Administrator, and contained no definitions of family members.

The proposed policy gives the Director of Procurement authority to make purchases up to $15,000. Change orders less than 10 percent of the original contract price, or in the amount of $10,000 must be approved by the Administrator under the new guidelines. Change orders greater than 10 percent or more than $10,000 require Council’s approval.

Language defining conflicts of interest has been amended to include County officials in addition to employees of the County and the Office of Procurement to ensure the County does not enter into any purchasing agreement that would constitute a conflict of interest. New language added to the conflicts of interest portion of the manual states, in part:

“Any purchase or contract within the purview of this manual in which the Purchasing Director or any officer or employee of the county is financially interested, directly or indirectly, or which is, in any other manner, in conflict with state ethics laws, as they may be amended from time to time, shall be void if the other party knew or should have known of the interest or conflict; provided, however, that, before the execution of a purchase or contract, the County Administrator shall have the authority to waive compliance with this section when he or she finds such interest to be so remote or indirect as to be inconsequential and not in violation of law.”

County employees, elected officials or close family members are barred from bidding on County contracts “if that individual is authorized to exercise decision making authority or responsibility with regard to that contract for the county, and any such person is declared to have a conflict of interest,” new language inserted into the manual states, and County Council members may not bid on or be a subcontractor for any County contract.

Monday night, Interim County Administrator Milton Pope told Council his staff had added new language regarding subcontractors to the revised manual, to ensure subcontractors pay any applicable inspection fees and obtain any required permits for the specialty for which they are a subcontractor.

The revised policy manual in its draft form can be viewed in its entirety on the County’s website, www.fairfieldsc.com.

Courthouse Project Recommendations go to Full Council

WINNSBORO – Fairfield County Council’s ad hoc committee for the County Courthouse voted Monday evening to recommend to the full Council a project manager for Courthouse renovations and an architect for the Courthouse’s temporary location.

The committee, composed of Council Chairman David Ferguson and Council members Carolyn Robinson and Kamau Marcharia, voted 3-0 to recommend Greenwood architectural and engineering firm Davis & Floyd to oversee the renovations and Lexington architectural firm Mead & Hunt to provide the design for the temporary quarters. Davis & Floyd will cost the County approximately $104,000, according to Milton Pope, Interim County Administrator. Pope said Council had the option of putting the work back out for bid, but since the County has already spent nearly $40,000 with the firm for preliminary work, and since the firm already has everything in place to begin work, he recommended Davis & Floyd.

Timing also played a role in Pope’s recommendation. Funds for the Courthouse renovations are coming directly from the County’s 2012 bond issue of $24.06 million, and with 36 months from the date of the issue to spend that money, Pope said even sticking with Davis & Floyd “would be cutting it close.”

“We want to make sure we fully utilize the money that we already spent for the preliminary work,” Pope told the committee.

The cost of Mead & Hunt has yet to be negotiated, Pope said later.

Mead & Hunt will redesign the HON Building, located on Highway 321 N. near the Midlands Tech campus, into which the Courthouse offices will move prior to renovations getting under way. Mead & Hunt’s design has to be approved by Council, Clerk of Court Betty Jo Beckham and Chief Justice Jean Toal of the S.C. State Supreme Court before a contract with HON’s current occupants, the S.C. State Emergency Preparedness Office, can be finalized. Mead & Hunt is the same firm with which the County contracted last year to provide a study and recommendation for the Courthouse relocation for $15,575.

The committee said renovations may not even begin on the Courthouse for another year. The full Council will take up the committee’s recommendations at their July 14 meeting.

BLYTHEWOOD – A proposed Landscape and Tree Preservation ordinance that has been in the works for more than a year is one final vote away from becoming law. If passed in its proposed form, the ordinance would require not only all new residential and commercial development in Blythewood’s Town Center District (TCD) to conform to stricter rules and regulations for landscaping and tree preservation, but, after five years, all established commercial and residential properties in the TCD would have to conform with the ordinance as well.

Conformity will mean that owners of these properties must establish landscape buffers and achieve a minimum tree density on their properties. Tree density will be based on a Density Factor Unit (DFU) that takes into consideration the number, size and sometimes specimen of trees in relation to the size of the property. It is a point system for tree protection, explained the Town’s planning and zoning consultant, Michael Criss.

What if a property has no trees? Criss said the property owner would have to either plant the required DFU or contribute to the Town government’s fee-in-lieu Tree Fund established to fund the planting, maintenance and replacement of trees on public rights-of-way and public property within Blythewood town limits.

For properties that will not bear the required density of trees for whatever reason (perhaps they are already paved with impervious surfaces or have underground or overhead utility lines), the Town/Zoning Administrator will have the authority to allow/require property owners to achieve alternative compliance by making a financial contribution to the Tree Fund in equivalent monetary value of the trees not planted. Such decisions by the Town/Zoning Administrator are subject to appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals and then Circuit Court. The equivalent monetary value of a tree includes the total costs of the tree, professional planting, maintenance and guarantee.

Criss said the proposed ordinance would be more demanding on commercial properties than on residential properties, requiring tree density for commercial properties to be 50 percent greater than for residential properties. For example, under the point system, a treeless half-acre single-family residential property will be required to be planted with a DFU of 20 units per acre, equivalent to 10 2-inch-caliper trees. A half-acre commercial property would require a DFU of 30 units per acre, equal to 15 2-inch-caliper trees.

Compared to the current landscape and tree preservation code, the proposed ordinance adds a five-year conformity provision in the TCD, bases tree replacement on overall tree density rather than inch for inch tree diameter, gives more protection to the largest trees, adds commercial building foundation planting and has more specific planting areas and plant numbers for parking lot islands.

For existing single-family residential properties, Criss said the proposed ordinance increases the tree diameter that can be removed without a tree removal permit, from 6 inches up to 8 inches. Landscape plans for ground cover, flower beds, or shrubbery would still not be required.

The ordinance specifies the kinds of trees to be planted on properties in the town limits unless they are otherwise approved by the Town/Zoning Administrator. The Administrator will also have the authority to require landscape plans to be prepared by qualified designers.

“The primary goal of the tree protection ordinance,” Criss said, “is to maintain and protect the large healthy trees in the town. The proposed ordinance is biased in favor of saving large healthy trees rather than removing and replacing them, and replacement trees are preferred over contributions to the Tree Fund.”

While new builds on commercial and residential properties outside the TCD will be required to adhere to the ordinance, established land uses outside the TCD will not be required to conform to the ordinance after the five year period. However, commercial properties inside and outside the TCD would be required to conform if major improvements are made to the structures on the properties through renovations or expansions.

Mayor J. Michael Ross told The Voice that the final vote would not be taken on the landscape and tree preservation ordinance at the Monday evening regular Town Council meeting. The proposed ordinance is available for review at the Town Hall during regular hours, and a public hearing is required to be held prior to that vote. The next Town Council meeting is Monday, June 30, at 7 p.m., at the Manor. For questions about the ordinance contact Michael Criss, the Town’s zoning and planning consultant, at 754-0501.