WINNSBORO – Fairfield County moved forward with final
reading of its $46.4 million budget, but not without drama.
On June 9, council members voted 4-3 to approve the budget
that does not include an increase in the base millage rate, but does dig into
the county’s cash reserves.
Council members Bertha Goins, Clarence Gilbert, Jimmy Ray
Douglas and Chairman Neil Robinson voted to approve. Moses Bell, Mikel Trapp
and Douglas Pauley opposed.
Trapp didn’t comment on why he opposed the budget, but Bell
and Pauley gave differing reasons for dissenting.
Both Bell and Pauley expressed reservations that the budget
increases spending, but it’s the exclusion of a $400K community center he wants
in his district (Ridgeway) that Bell bemoaned.
Bell also took issue with cutting outside agency funding by
10 percent, adding more police cars, giving the economic development director a
car allowance, raising deputy coroner pay and $40,000 in extra funding for the
Drawdy Park parking lot paving project, but continued to criticize council’s
failure to spend $400K on the community center.
Bell went on to read a prepared statement in which he
invoked Mahatma Gandhi and former President Barack Obama, and blasted The Voice
for reporting that he had pitched a fit at the last budget meeting.
“Something is extremely wrong with this budget,” Bell began,
prompting Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas to interject.
“How many times are you going to go over this?” Douglas
asked.
Unfazed, Bell continued, alluding to racial disparities he
said exist in Fairfield County.
Pauley objected to the budget on more philosophical grounds,
saying it relies too much on using the fund balance to offset increased
spending.
“This budget would be like taking 20 percent of your life
savings to spend more than you did last year for no reason except that you want
to,” Pauley said. “Sooner or later, if you keep this up you’re going to run out
of money.”
A review of the FY 2020-21 budget reveals only a 2-1/2
percent increase in this year’s budget over last year’s budget.
Taylor said the county’s budget is higher compared to other
similarly sized counties because of the Jenkinsville nuclear plant, which
generates more tax revenue.
However, the plant is expected to generate less revenue in
the coming budget year, which Taylor said is negatively impacting both the
county and school district budgets.
“We also have to suffer with the fluctuations of what goes
on out there,” Taylor said. “When they sneeze, we get a cold.”
In this year’s budget, the county is pulling $5 million from
the fund balance, up from roughly $3 million in previous years.
Taylor said the difference is largely due to $1.8 million
the county is spending on land purchases to support industry. Another $100,000
has been added to help cover anticipated legal costs.
Taylor said the key to reversing the county’s budget issues
lies in attracting new industry and investing in infrastructure needed to
support that industry.
“You can’t tax your way to prosperity nor can you cut your
way to prosperity. What we have to do is grow our way to prosperity,” he said.
“It’s not something where we’re squandering money; it’s an investment. Without
a sewer plant, we’re really dead in the water with economic development.”
Councilwoman Bertha Goins agreed. Underfunding
infrastructure would hurt the rural areas much more, she said.
“If you don’t have it in place, you get passed over,” Goins
said. “We will be sitting in the dark while counties around us prosper, grow
and increase.”
BLYTHEWOOD – As Blythewood works through its budget process for the 2020/21 fiscal year, the funding of events became a point of contention at the May 26 town council meeting, which was held via Zoom.
With all the disruptions caused by COVID-19, two things were
made clear: hospitality tax (H-tax) revenue is down significantly, and unknowns
related to the virus could put a damper on the annual town events that are
funded by H-tax revenue.
“At the end of the day, to give you a balanced budget we had
to make some drastic cuts,” said Town Administrator Brian Cook, who presented a
draft budget on first reading that was created with input from council members.
The town’s hospitality tax, which is generated by
restaurants, is down from a typical $175,000 to just $29,000 – less than 17
percent of the typical amount. The town uses this money to fund tourism,
including events that are supposed to draw tourists.
Looking at a budget proposal that included major cuts to
events in the coming year, the council members clashed over what approach to
take.
“I’m not comfortable saying ‘This is how much money we’re
going to get’ because I think it’s going to be a lot less than anybody
anticipates,” said councilman Donald Brock.
“If people aren’t going out spending, then money’s not going
to flow into the town coffers, and if the town doesn’t have the money, then we
can’t spend it. I think we really need to kind of step back and be cautious in
allocating funds and not overpromise.”
Brock’s suggestion was to fund each event at $1 as a
placeholder, and re-assess quarterly when actual revenue – and the status of
events realistically taking place amid social distancing – is known.
Also, he said, weight should be given to cultural events
like Black History Month, which don’t have their own revenue stream, over
entertainment-focused events that raise money through ticket sales and
sponsorships and that generate enough revenue to fund themselves.
“Revenue has nothing to do with it!” declared Councilman
Eddie Baughman. He repeated the statement several times.
“The whole idea behind the hospitality tax money is to bring
folks to town to spend money,” Baughman said. “Their revenue should be
irrelevant.”
Baughman was particularly concerned about the Big Red Barn
Summer Jam event. He said a significant percentage of the profits it generates
go to fund charitable activities in town.
Baughman asked for an explanation for why the event, which
last year received $12,000 in town funds and this year requested $25,000, was
slated to receive just $6,250.
“We’re cutting their funding almost to the point that
they’re probably going to back off and not do it,” he said.
At that (May 26) council meeting, with available H-tax
funding dropping from $175,000 to only about $29,000, administration suggested
the following reduced funding amounts.
Only three events were funded at $6,250 in the budget
proposal: Summer Jam, which topped 1,000 attended in its second year and
RibFest and OktoberFest, both of which brought in well over 2,000 in their
first year. Black History Month was slated to receive $5,000; Bengal Boys Golf
$2,250; Holiday Market $1,500; the Big Grab $1,000; and Spring Market $746. The
July 3 fireworks, which was set to receive $25,000 before the cuts were
initiated, brings in 5,000 – 6,000. While it’s still in the discussion stage,
council is leaning toward have the fireworks event but with no music and no
food and attendees would view the fireworks from their vehicles.
Three other events and several planned maintenance projects
were slated to receive $0.
Mayor Bryan Franklin said the reasoning behind funding some
events a lot more than others was sound. In the draft budget, the bulk of the
available funding was allocated toward events that have significant
ahead-of-time costs, such as hiring, booking performers and publicity costs.
“It’s not picking winners and losers,” he said. “It’s where does that start-up money come from? What organization does it need to go to early so they can lock in plans, and how can we keep it below our $29,000 [revenue projection]?”
After the May 26 meeting, some council members suggested pulling $134,654 from the H-tax fund balance to fully fund the FY21 H-tax events as shown in the chart above. These amounts are proposed but will be voted on at the June 22 town council meeting at The Manor.
Sutton Shaw, who owns the Big Red Barn Retreat and organizes
the Summer Jam, was in attendance to lobby for her event.
She touted the enthusiasm she witnessed among tourists at
Myrtle Beach on a recent weekend as a sign of good news for tourism and events,
but her comments on the realities of planning the Summer Jam cast doubt on the
timing of this year’s event in light of COVID-19.
“Some of us are planning now,” she said of event organizers.
“Our summer jam originally happens in July. We are trying to move to
September….”
She didn’t make a specific request for funding, but rattled
off a list of her own community contributions. She expressed disappointment in
what she felt is council’s lack of appreciation for her efforts as reflected in
the proposed reduced funding amount for her event.
“Personally I’m donating all my time, and my family has
donated 75 acres of the land for a new building and investing over $1.5 million
to bring our newest program in that will launch in October,” she said, noting
that these efforts are aided by profits her family’s business has realized
during the pandemic.
“My family owns 26 Sonic drive-ins, and we’re killing it in
sales. We’ve been up 20 and 30 percent with Covid,” she said.
Her comments reinforced a point made by Brock earlier in the
meeting.
“If we’re continuing to allocate money to events that can
fund themselves, then we won’t have money to fund upstart and new events that
can bring additional tourism into town,” he said before sharing some numbers
about the Summer Jam.
Last year, he said, the town contributed $12,000 to the
event. The year before that it was in the $6,500 range. Those two years, the
event turned a net profit of more than $26,000.
“I don’t know how I could sit here and possibly vote to
approve an event that should be sitting on $26,000 in the bank, and their
expenditure last year was $28,000,” he said, arguing that town funds should be
used only to help revenue-generating events to get established – not to support
them perpetually.
Councilman Sloan Griffin agreed with the idea of taking a
step back to re-assess event funding as information – about the revenue, about
the effects of the pandemic, about the likely status of events in real time –
becomes more clear.
“I agree at this budget session right here that we do need
to take a pause,” Griffin said. “We could be in the same situation January next
year.”
When council convene on June 10, the H-tax funding packet
had done an about-face, reflecting full funding for the events as shown in
chart the chart above.
With almost $500K in the H-tax fund balance, Town
Administrator Brian Cook said some council members had suggested using some of
that fund to fully fund the H-tax events.
“We took $134,654 out of the H-tax fund balance and
allocated it for that purpose,” Cook said. “It will be up to council as to how
much they want to use to fund the events.”
The next meeting will be open to the public to attend and
will be the final vote on the fy2020-21 budget. It will be held at Manor at 7
p.m., Monday, June 22. Those attending are asked to wear masks and practice
social distancing.
WINNSBORO – A
resolution passed by Fairfield County Council Monday night has headed off a
rift that developed between the county and Providence Health over Prisma’s
proposed purchase of Providence Health-Fairfield Emergency Room.
Following Prisma Health’s surprise announcement in March
that it had signed a deal to acquire the ER along with three other Midlands
hospitals, Fairfield County officials – not having been informed of the sale –
requested the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), which
signed off on the deal, to pump the brakes on the proposed purchase agreement.
The county’s concerns were numerous – foremost was their
concern about the continued delivery of quality health care for Fairfield
residents. The county was also concerned about the effect the sale would have
on its financial investment in the ER – $10 million the county had agreed to
pay Providence over 10 years to be used for operation of the ER as well as $4
million the county had been required to escrow as assurance those ten $1
million payments would be made.
Fairfield County and (the former) Fairfield Memorial Hospital
questioned the legality of the DHEC staff’s approval of an amended Certificate
of Public Advantage (COPA) that cemented the deal between Prisma and Providence
Health.
Through its attorneys, the county formally requested in
March that DHEC conduct a final review of the decision that allowed Prisma
Health to acquire the four health care facilities.
A resolution passed Monday evening by Fairfield County
Council and agreed to by Providence appears to have alleviated the county’s
concerns by authorizing an amendment to the original transformational agreement
(between Fairfield and Providence Health) in which both Fairfield and
Providence agree that if Prisma does carry through with the purchase of the ER
in Winnsboro, Prisma will return $3.5 million of the cash currently held in
escrow, back to the county. The remaining $500K balance of the escrow will then
be credited to the county’s next $1 million annual payment (which is paid
quarterly). In return for that financial
concession, the resolution states that the county agrees to withdraw the appeal
it has before the South Carolina administrative law court and then, going
forward, to provide support in favor of Prisma’s acquisition of Providence.
“Everything else stays in place – negotiated term of
providing care to the citizens, keeping the ER open, indigent care issues and
other things,” County Attorney Tommy Morgan said.
“That’s all good news,” Council Chairman Neil Robinson said
before gaveling the meeting to a close.
“The material change to benefit the county,” County
Administrator Jason Taylor told The Voice, “is that the $3.5 million we had
tied up in escrow is now back in the general fund for our use, and our
residents will continue to receive quality health care through the ER.”
Sen. Mike Fanning and wife Stephanie, with Rep. Annie McDaniel and Gladden Williams. | Contributed
WINNSBORO – In the Democratic Primary on Tuesday, State Sen. Mike Fanning (Dist. 17) and House Rep. Annie McDaniel (Dist. 41) both took home big wins to represent their party in November for second terms.
Mosely
Fanning kept his seat with 7,823 votes (67.93%) to former
House Dist. 41 representative MaryGail Douglas’s 3,694 votes (32.07%). District
17 covers Fairfield, Chester and part of York County. Fanning did not
immediately return The Voice’s phone request for a comment.
Fanning will face Republican candidate Erin Mosley of
Chester in the November election.
McDaniel, with 4,811 votes (71.01%) resisted newcomer
Charlene Herring of Ridgeway with 1,964 votes (28.99%). She will serve a two-year
term.
Brecheinsen
“I just want to thank the voters in District 41 for
re-electing me,” McDaniel said. “The strong showing shows they appreciate the
style of service I’ve provided them, and I want them to know that I’ll continue
to be a public servant and for them to stay involved in the political process
and hold us governmental officials accountable.
McDaniel will face Republican candidate Jennifer Brecheisen
of Chester in the November election.
WINNSBORO – During county council time Monday evening, a
time when council members speak their mind, Councilman Clarence Gilbert
suggested council should look into a review committee for certain situations
that might occur between citizens and local law enforcement.
“Considering what’s going on in our country now, I’d like to
propose that our council look into forming a citizens’ review board,” Gilbert
said. “It would review situations [that might arise] in our local law
enforcement departments.”
Council Chairman Neil Robinson agreed, saying council should
take a proactive approach to initiate a citizen’s advisory board to give
citizens a voice.
“We actually had a meeting with the Sheriff today,” County
Administrator Jason Taylor said. “The Chairman and I had kicked this idea
around earlier. We thought we need to do something to be proactive, to give
people a voice with the sheriff’s department if needed. It’s a way to address
issues citizens may have,” Taylor said.
“The Sheriff said he had already started reaching out to
some people for this. And we – the Chairman, Sheriff, Ms. [Assistant County
Administrator Laura] Johnson and myself – are looking to develop that further,”
Taylor said.
Gilbert asked if the county would have a say in who is
appointed to the review board.
“Or is it something the sheriff does?” he asked.
“With the sheriff and you all being elected officials, we’ll
see how we can put that together,” Taylor said. “It makes sense for it to be a
joint effort.”
“Not to say (Sheriff) Will (Montgomery) would be impartial
about who he might put on the board,” Gilbert said, “but I just think the
county or the citizens should have a little say in who sits on the board.”
Taylor agreed and said he would look into such a proposal.
Kennedy, Jackson in Runoff; Dickerson Looking at Recount
Pugh
BLYTHEWOOD – With a razor-thin margin of 52 votes, Derrek Pugh of Blythewood ousted 12-year Richland County Council incumbent Joyce Dickerson in an upset. Dickerson told The Voice Wednesday morning that she is unsure of the numbers and plans to look into a recount of at least some of the precincts. Pugh had 2,708 votes to Dickerson’s 2,656.
Pugh carried all Blythewood 29016 precincts handily and took
big chunks out of Dickerson’s votes in her home areas in St. Andrews, also an
area where Pugh did some growing up.
While constituents in Cedar Creek backed Dickerson in
response to her pushing back against Fairfield County’s proposed wastewater
treatment plant she lost some steam in Blythewood, specifically in
Crickentree’s Kelly Mill precinct where she fought and won a two-year zoning
battle with residents.
Without providing documentation guaranteeing a promised
250-foot buffer between Crickentree residents and an undetermined number of
homes proposed on the adjoining former Golf Course of South Carolina, Dickerson
led the charge on third and final reading to rezone the golf course from
Traditional Recreational Open Space (TROS) zoning to Low Density Residential
(RS-LD) zoning. More than a hundred Crickentree and area residents attending
the meeting.
Blythewood is represented by three different Richland County
Council representatives. Here are the results of the other two contests.
Gwendolyn Kennedy
Gretchen Barron
In County Council District 7, Incumbent Gwendolyn Kennedy, with 2,758 votes (41.58%), was forced into a runoff with Gretchen Barron who took 2,420 votes (36.48%). Richard Brown finished with 1,455 (21.94%).
District 9 incumbent Calvin ‘Chip’ Jackson, with 2,503 votes (49.67%) will be in a runoff with Jonieka Farr who had 1,218 votes (24.17%). Angela Addison took 937 votes and Blythewood’s Jerry Rega received 381.
Local democratic primary election results for Blythewood
29016 challenged races:
Blythewood is represented by three different Richland County
Council representatives. Here are the results of those three contests.
DISTRICT 2 – With a razor-thin margin 0f 52 votes Derrek Pugh of Blythewood ousted 12-year incumbent Joyce Dickerson in a big upset. Dickerson told The Voice Wednesday morning that she plans to look into a recount of at least some of the precincts. Pugh had 2,708 votes to Dickerson’s 2,656.
DISTRICT 7 – Incumbent Gwendolyn Kennedy, with 2,758 votes (41.58%), was forced into a runoff with Gretchen Barron who took 2,420 votes (36.48%). Richard Brown finished with 1,455 (21.94%).
Gwendolyn Kennedy
Gretchen Barron
DISTRICT 9 – Incumbent Calvin Chip Jackson, with 2,503 votes (49.67%) will be in a runoff with Jonieka Farr who had 1,218 votes (24.17%). Angela Addison took 937 votes and Blythewood’s Jerry Rega received 381 votes.
Jackson
Farr
For more details on local races, see the June 11 issue of The Voice.
WINNSBORO – Fairfield County polls will be open from 7 a.m.
– 7 p.m. on Tuesday.
State Senator Mike Fanning, House Rep. Annie McDaniel and
Fairfield County Sheriff Will Montgomery all face challengers in the June 9
democratic primary.
Fairfield Clerk of Court Judy Bonds and Fairfield County
Coroner Chris Hill are both running unopposed in the primary.
Senate
Winnsboro’s MaryGail Douglas is running against Fanning in
Tuesday’s primary for the Senate seat. Douglas previously served six years in
the House (District 41.) Fanning, a resident of Great Falls is finishing out
his first term in the Senate representing Fairfield and parts of Chester and
York Counties.
House
Democrat Charlene Herring is challenging Annie McDaniel for
the House District 41 in the primary. Herring served 12 year as mayor of
Ridgeway and is on the Board of the Fairfield Chamber of Commerce. McDaniel is
completing her first two-year term in the House. She previously served 18 years
on the Fairfield County School Board.
Sheriff
Sheriff Will Montgomery, who has served six years as
Fairfield County Sheriff, has one challenger in the primary, Ed Jenkins. No
republicans are running in that race.
Unopposed
Bonds, clerk of court, and Hill, coroner and Sheriff Will Montgomery are all three running unopposed.
Montgomery
Bonds
Hill
Elections Delays
The rescheduled general elections for the Town of Ridgeway
and Town of Jenkinsville residents will be held on Tuesday, July 14. The
Ridgeway election will seat two town council members, and the Jenkinsville
election will seat two town council members and the mayor, according to Fairfield
County Voter Registration Director Debby Stidham.
Stidham said her office will accept absentee applications
only until Friday. Absentee ballots for the primary will be accepted through
Tuesday.
For information about candidates, elections or voting, call
Fairfield County Voter Registration at 803-635-6255.
COLUMBIA – In what Fairfield officials say was an
unprecedented action, Richland County Council voted unanimously on May 5 to
direct staff and technical committee appointees to vote in opposition to
Fairfield County’s plans to construct a wastewater treatment plant that they
say would bring industry, jobs, housing subdivisions and general prosperity to
Fairfield.
The three-page document, produced by Richland County
Assistant Administrator John Thompson at the behest of Councilwoman Joyce
Dickerson, outlines the concerns of Richland County residents who live along
Cedar Creek where Fairfield’s treated effluent will be discharged. Dickerson,
who is battling for her council seat in the June 9 Democratic primary, said
many of the Cedar Creek residents live in her district.
Thompson sent the document along with letters urging denial
of the treatment facility to the Environmental Planning Advisory Committee
(EPAC), the Bureau of Water for S.C. Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SCDHEC), and the Central Midlands Council of Governments (CMCOG) which
is the governing authority that allocates capacity for the wastewater treatment
facilities in the midlands.
Should these agencies bow to Richland’s directives,
Fairfield County Administrator Jason Taylor said it would be devastating for
Fairfield. Fairfield County has had recent success in recruiting new industry.
With only 34,000 gallons per day left, a single small employer could consume
the remaining capacity.
“Without a new wastewater treatment facility, economic and
community development would stop,” Taylor said. “We would not be able to
recruit new industry, new housing subdivisions or other commercial development.
It would bring future growth to a standstill. This wastewater treatment
facility is absolutely critical to the future of Fairfield County, without it
there would be no new jobs.
Later in the summer, Fairfield will present its proposal to
the EPAC (Environmental Planning Advisory Committee), a recommending body to
the COG board which will have the final say on whether to allocate capacity for
the proposed facility.
In the document, Thompson includes an extensive excerpt from
DHEC’s web page that DHEC acknowledges is outdated. The document also lists
what he says are reservations expressed by Cedar Creek residents – primarily
that the wastewater effluent will contaminate the creek water as well as the
aquifers that supply their water wells, their only source of drinking water,
Fairfield County Director of Economic Development Ty
Davenport said the document is based on fears, not facts.
Chuck Williams with SCDHEC, told The Voice that there is no
record of any water wells in South Carolina being contaminated with wastewater,
that most contamination of private water wells in the state is caused by nearby
septic tanks.
Engineers and SCDHEC refute the assertion that the effluent
discharged into the creek will impact aquifers and resident water wells. They
say Fairfield’s proposed facility will not impact the aquifers.
“If the community ‘just doesn’t want it,’ the 208 Plan is
the venue to hear those concerns,” Thomas & Hutton senior Engineer Jeff
deBessonet said. “A new state-of-the-art facility would open the door for the
elimination of the older Ridgeway treatment system and provide a high-quality
treatment facility to manage growth in Fairfield County.”
County Administrator Jason Taylor said the county is going
to great expense to be sure they have a system in place that will discharge the
highest quality effluent into the creek.
John Culbreth, with Thomas and Hutton engineering
consultants, said at the Jan. 13 Fairfield county council meeting that the
treated effluent discharged from Fairfield’s facility would be processed by a
state-of-the-art treatment system – a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system – that
would not contaminate the creek. He said it is an advanced level of treatment
that would discharge water of near drinking water quality. He said that
discharge is frequently used to irrigate golf courses and crops and for other
similar uses.
Shawn Goff, who lives on Cedar Creek and opposes the
discharge into the creek, agreed that the MBR technology, from his research, is
the best of the best.
“If you have to have one, this is the one you want,” Goff
told his fellow Cedar Creek residents at a community meeting held at the
community center in Cedar Creek in January. “I can’t tell you that it’s the
devil, because it’s the most advanced wastewater treatment facility that’s
available. There are no open pools. It’s all contained and it has a small
footprint, about seven acres. Anyone can Google and do the research. I was
trying my darndest to find some piece of bad press or something that has
happened at one of these plants, and I can’t,” Goff said. “They say the creek
will be cleaner than it is now.”
Davenport said that any Fairfield industries producing high
levels of contaminants would be required by law to pre-filter those
contaminants out of the water before it is sent to the Fairfield wastewater
facility.
While Thompson acknowledged that the proposed plant would
use MBR tertiary treatment technology, he listed two links that he said
referenced several failures of MBR technology
Davenport pushed back, noting that the two references dealt
primarily with failures that could be caused from neglected maintenance of the
system.
“If you don’t maintain an airplane, it will fall out of the
sky,” Davenport said. “There are no references in either of these sources to
downstream impacts on the environment, other facilities and jurisdictions as
the Richland document suggests.”
“We are proposing a treatment process that will be as good
if not better than any other facility in the midlands,” Taylor said. “To deny
us without looking at all the facts is short sited. Our proposed facility is a win for all of us.
Quality treatment is a win for the region it’s in and for the state.”
Thompson also objected to the Fairfield facility because he
said it will affect the permitting of Richland County’s Broad River wastewater
treatment plant, resulting in Richland spending more money to treat their
effluent.
Thompson put it this way: Richland’s “concentration of
impurities will have to be curtailed to minimize our impact on the environment.
Removal of contaminants such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia,
phosphates, and pathogens will necessitate the installation, operation, and
continued maintenance of complex components if we are to maintain the same
biological cumbering at the discharge of the Broad River WWTP.”
Davenport said that’s actually a good thing. With the Big
Cedar Creek discharging into Richland’s Broad River plant’s effluent, it would,
he said, cause Richland to have to clean its effluent to a higher degree.
Richland’s County Council Chair Paul Livingston wrote in his
letter to the Bureau of Water that Fairfield has other options such as
connecting to the City of Columbia or even expanding and/or upgrading the
existing Winnsboro wastewater plant. Neither are viable options, Taylor said.
“Winnsboro discharges into Jackson Creek which is already at
capacity and therefore is not allowed by DHEC to take more effluent,” Taylor
said. “And connecting to the City of Columbia is a financial impossibility for
Fairfield.
“The cost to the tax and rate payers would be insurmountable. It would cost twice as much money just to run lines and, in the end, we would not create new capacity or control our own capacity,” Taylor said. “After reviewing a number of different options, we have come to terms with discharging into cedar creek. All other options studied didn’t work for financial, permitting, or engineering reasons.”
News Commentary: It’s What Fairfield Needs
by Randy Bright
A recent article on the front page of the Post and Courier
highlighted the success of Fairfield County government’s aggressive efforts to
develop Fairfield into a rural industrial powerhouse.
The article helps to remind us the county is not sitting on
its industrial laurels. In fact, the county is working to expand and update its
water capacity to attract more industry, peripheral suppliers and other
businesses. This will attract more jobs and more tax dollars.
It will also improve living conditions to mitigate the
county’s reliance on Columbia labor instead of Fairfield labor.
The county’s plans to upgrade Fairfield’s aging and limited
capacity sewer system is an imperative to improving Fairfield’s citizens’
future health, prosperity and general welfare. As if to highlight Fairfield’s
needs, Duke University’s Kenan Institute for Ethics delivered the following
message as part of their Investing in Rural Sewage Infrastructure for Economic
Growth study in 2018:
“Building water and wastewater infrastructure in rural
communities across the U. S. creates jobs, stimulates investment from the
private sector and increases a county’s tax base. For each dollar spent
building water or wastewater infrastructure, about $15 are created in private
investment and $14 [added] to the local property tax base.”
Supplying rural areas with wastewater infrastructure has the
potential to increase economic activity in a number of ways, including reducing
out-migration of [county] residents and attracting industry to generate jobs,
which would attract residents.
Out-migration, which could partly be driven by a lack of
wastewater services, further exacerbates the problem because it decreases the
tax base on which a county can draw to provide such services. When this
happens, counties either remain in the same position (at best) or their
circumstances worsen because they cannot generate enough revenue to expand
their wastewater infrastructure. Rural communities are thus trapped in a
Catch-22.
Nothing improves living conditions and retains population
like an adequately functioning sewer system.
WINNSBORO – After 20 years, a new 20-year water agreement
between Winnsboro and Blythewood is in the final stages. Blythewood town
council passed the first of two readings on the agreement Tuesday evening, but
not easily.
After expressing their dismay with Winnsboro water quality
and customer service, Councilmen Sloan Griffin and Donald Brock suggested that
the agreement, which must be signed by the end of July, be renegotiated and undergo a major rewrite.
They also didn’t like that the agreement had been negotiated by the previous
council and mayor before they were elected last November.
Sloan Griffin said he conducted a poll concerning Winnsboro
water customer satisfaction, and that 70 percent of respondents disapproved of
Winnsboro water. He also called for competitive water contracts to be presented
from both Columbia and Winnsboro before deciding on an agreement. He also
suggested that only those council members who receive Winnsboro water should be
allowed to vote on the contract. He then went further to call for a referendum
by the residents to settle the matter instead of a vote by council.
After an hour’s discussion, Mayor Bryan Franklin,
frustrated, had a few things to say.
“Unless your poll is scientific, we can’t rely on it,”
Franklin said. “Someone could vote 4 or 5 times. And when someone says a
council member can’t vote on this or that because they don’t live in a certain
neighborhood, etc., that’s ludicrous.
“And we don’t have to call for a referendum for everything
that comes before this body. If that were the case, you just need me, not the
council members. I’ll lay out the agenda and let everyone in town vote on
everything,” he said.
“I understand your frustration,” Franklin said, “but that’s
not how government works.”
“And just because we elected two new council members doesn’t
mean we throw out the votes and start over,” Franklin said.
“It’s almost impossible to redo the contract before July,”
Franklin said.
The contract requires a two-year notice of termination.
Town Attorney Jim Meggs explained that, should the contract
terminate, Winnsboro would not have to provide water to Blythewood and that
there would be no other place to get water except Columbia, and he said they
are not interested in supplying water to Blythewood.
First reading passed with a 4-1 vote with Sloan Griffin
voting nay.
Town Administrator Brian Cook said there are not a lot of
changes from the initial agreement signed between the two towns in July 2000.
The main changes to the agreement are that Winnsboro will
pay a higher franchise fee to Blythewood (up from three percent to five
percent); Blythewood (in-town and out-of-town) will receive more favorable
rates that are in line with Winnsboro’s in-town and out-of-town rates; and if
the franchise is ended, the Town of Winnsboro is to be paid fair market value.
Other features of the contract call for Blythewood to pay
for water hydrants that it orders, Winnsboro to pay for hydrants it orders and
developers to pay for hydrants they order. The new contract includes extensions
provided in five-year increments.
The continuation of the agreement is an affirmation of a
longstanding relationship between the two towns. It was primarily Winnsboro’s
water that jumpstarted economic development in Blythewood in 2,000.
Until then, Blythewood had no public water service. It was
that year that the Ballow administration sought to bring economic development
to Blythewood with a hotel – the Comfort Inn. To do that, the town needed
water. Lots of water. Ballew turned to Columbia but was unable to negotiate an
agreement with the city to supply water to Blythewood.
Winnsboro was the only water supplier at the time who would
agree to extend service to Blythewood. With cooperation from Fairfield Electric
Cooperative in building a water tower, Winnsboro water made possible the
eventual construction of three hotels that currently contribute between
$400,000 and $500,000 in hospitality tax revenue annually to the town’s coffers.
But in 2014, a severe state-wide drought two years earlier
had drained Winnsboro’s reservoirs until there was not enough water to meet
Blythewood’s needs. As a result, Winnsboro Town Manager Don Wood signed an
agreement with the City of Columbia to temporarily supplement the Blythewood
area’s water supply.
In addition, Ross said at that time that Blythewood had
gotten wind that a private company had offered to purchase the Blythewood arm
of the water system from Winnsboro. Winnsboro council members said they never
entertained such an offer.
Ross told The Voice
shortly afterwards that council feared that they could potentially be at the
mercy of private industry and its water rates.
Blythewood town government abruptly gave Winnsboro a notice
of termination [of the water agreement]. Blythewood council signed that notice
of termination in April of 2014, effective July of 2016, but the termination
never came to fruition since the agreement didn’t actually end until 2020.
The resolution was a shock to Winnsboro council members who
said it came with no warning.
Termination of the agreement, however, automatically
triggers the sale of the system at fair market value, and it was at
Blythewood’s behest that Columbia made a $1.4 million offer on Nov. 19, 2014 to
purchase Blythewood’s system from Winnsboro.
But the water contract also mandates arbitration in the
event of a dispute between the two parties. While Winnsboro hired a mediator to
make their case, Blythewood did not, and the deadline to do so passed.
Winnsboro, meanwhile, initiated steps in September, 2014 to
construct a $12 million pipeline that would allow the town to draw as much as
10 million gallons of water per day from the Broad River. Winnsboro Mayor Roger Gaddy said the Broad
River project would make all of Blythewood’s concerns disappear, rendering
Blythewood’s move to wriggle out of the agreement moot.
