Blythewood Online 691

Category: Government

  • Blythewood Town Council mandates masks

    BLYTHEWOOD – During a special called meeting last week, council voted 4 – 1 to approve an emergency mask ordinance that is, according to Town Administrator Carroll Williamson, largely like the one recently passed by Richland County and similar to the one the Town enacted last year. Councilman Eddie Baughman voted against the ordinance.

    One difference in this ordinance and the county’s is that the Blythewood ordinance does not apply to schools, Williamson said.

    The ordinance requires masks to be worn in all commercial establishments for the next 60 days.

    Councilman Brock asked how the ordinance will apply to the Oktoberfest.

    “There would be no exception for the event,” Williamson said.

    As for enforcement of the ordinance at Oktoberfest, Williamson said, “We will make sure they do everything they can to comply with the ordnance.”

    He said, however, that there are no enforcement plans specifically.

    “It does say every effort will be made for voluntary compliance,” Williamson said.

    Brock suggested an amendment that would alleviate the businesses from having to fund special protections by providing the town’s businesses with all necessary hand sanitizer, masks and face coverings as reasonably requested.

    Councilman Larry Griffin asked, “Are we doing this just to do it? Or are we going to enforce it?”

    Council did not address fines which are listed in the ordinance as $25 for noncompliance. Business owners/managers of restaurants, retail stores, salons, grocery stores, and pharmacies in the Town must require their employees to wear a face covering and can be fined up to $100 if their employees do not comply with the ordinance.

    General Mask Mandate

    1. All persons entering a commercial establishment in the Town must wear a face covering, which covers the mouth and nose, while inside the establishment. A face covering must also be worn in situations where distances between people change frequently such as a busy sidewalk, waiting area, or popular outdoor area where it is impractical or impossible to maintain six feet of distance at all times. This paragraph does not apply to religious establishments or schools. However, the use of face coverings is recommended during religious and school activities as well.

    2. All restaurants, retail stores, salons, grocery stores, and pharmacies in the Town must require their employees to wear a face covering, which covers the mouth and nose, at all times while having face to face interaction with the public.

    3. Any person who is unable to safely wear a face covering due to age, an underlying health condition, or is unable to remove the face covering without the assistance of others is exempt from this Ordinance.

    4. Face coverings are not required in the following circumstances:

    • In personal vehicles;
    • When a person is alone in enclosed spaces; during outdoor physical activity, provided the active person maintains a minimum of six (6) feet from other people at all times;
    • When a person is alone or only with other household members;
    • While drinking, eating or smoking;
    • When wearing a face covering causes or aggravates a health condition.
    • When wearing a face covering would prevent the receipt of personal services.
    • When a person is 10 years of age or younger.

    5. A person who fails to comply with Paragraph 1 of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a civil infraction, punishable by a fine of not more than $25.00. A person who fails to comply with Paragraph 2 of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a civil infraction, punishable by a fine of not more than $100.00.

    6. Each day of a continuing violation of this Ordinance shall be considered a separate and distinct offense. In addition to the fines established by this paragraph, repeated violations of this Ordinance by a person who owns, manages, operates or otherwise controls a business subject to this Ordinance may, subject to all procedural protections set forth in the Town Code, result in the suspension or revocation of any occupancy permit or business license issued to a business where the repeated violations occurred. Repeated violations of this Ordinance are additionally hereby declared to be a public nuisance, which may be abated by the Town by restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction, or other means provided for by the laws of this State. The foregoing notwithstanding, every effort shall be made to bring the business into voluntary compliance with the terms of this Ordinance prior to the issuance of any citation. For the purposes of Paragraph 2 of this Ordinance, “person” shall be defined as any individual associated with the business who has the control or authority and ability to enforce the social distancing requirements of the Ordinance within the business, such as an owner, manager or supervisor. “Person” may also include an employee or other designee that is present at the business but does not have the title of manager, supervisor, etc., but has the authority and ability to ensure that the requirements of this Ordinance are met while the business is open to the public.

  • Blythewood reverses decision to release FOIA’d documents

    BLYTHEWOOD – On Monday, Aug. 30, the town reversed its refusal to release responsive documents sought by The Voice from Town Administrator Carroll Williamson through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request 41 days earlier.

    The Voice requested the following documents:

    1) a copy of the contract or letter of engagement that secured the outside legal services of Nexsen Pruet attorney David Black and a copy of documentation of the retainer paid for Mr. Black’s services as well as any subsequent invoices for his services, and

    2) copies of documentation showing whether town attorney Shannon Burnett is being paid for the MPA matter outside her normal agreed-upon annual compensation from the town.

    In the Aug. 30, 2021 response, the Town’s outside counsel, David Black, an attorney with Nexsen Pruet law firm in Columbia, went into lengthy detail clarifying two exemptions that he claimed allows for the Town to withhold the requested documents:

    1)“S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(3)(A) provides an exemption to FOIA where the records or information requested would interfere with a prospective law enforcement proceeding. The records and information you have requested would interfere with a prospective law enforcement proceeding.”

    (Black did not explain the nature of that law enforcement proceeding and did not respond to The Voice’s request for copies of subsequent invoices to the Town for his firm’s legal services.)

     2) “S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(7) provides an exemption to FOIA for Attorney Work Product and any other material that would violate Attorney-Client Relationships. The records and information you requested will not be provided as it is Attorney Work Product and is also exempt via the Attorney Client Privilege.”

    In a clear reversal of this response, Black, did, however, forward the requested documentation to The Voice with only one paragraph redacted and with the following explanation for his decision to release the documentation to The Voice:

    “While the engagement letter clearly is marked privileged, the Town is producing the redacted version of the engagement letter, subject to and without waiving such privilege, in hopes that such production will put an end to your [The Voice’s] ongoing attempts to assist MPA and Ms. Hunter in their litigation that has damaged the Town. [See Publisher’s Note]

    Besides including the redacted letter of engagement, Black, acknowledged that the Town’s municipal attorney, Shannon Burnett, is not receiving compensation for her work on the MPA lawsuit and the Town’s countersuit outside what she is normally paid by the Town.

    While one paragraph of the engagement letter, dated April 21, 2021, was redacted, the letter disclosed that the Town paid Black an initial $5,000 retainer and that an additional retainer could be required if there is a change in the scope of the engagement such as the firm’s appearance in litigation.

    The Voice has issued a second FOIA to the Town for information pertaining to any additional retainer fees charged to the Town since MPA filed suit against the Town on June 28, 2021.

    The letter of engagement also revealed that Black’s fee is $475 per hour and that another attorney in the firm, who would be assisting the Town, charges a fee of $315 per hour.

    According to the letter, the Town also agreed to pay for any ancillary fees billed to the firm by third parties and any necessary expenses for travel, lodging, meals mileage, copies, computerized research, staff overtime and other expenses related to the terms of the firm’s agreed upon engagement with the Town.

    In an initial Aug. 3, 2021, response to The Voice’s July 20 FOIA request, Black refused to send the letter of engagement and other requested documents, stating that “The Town has advised that it is in possession of responsive records as you describe in your request, however, such records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 30-4-40(a)(3) and (7).

    The Voice responded on Aug. 20 that, “When an exemption is cited in a written determination response to a S.C. FOIA request, it must be fully stated. Simply citing to 30-4-40(a)(3) does not satisfy your legal requirement to cite an exemption. (a)(3) has seven subsections (A)-(G) and each carries a different rationale to keep information exempt.

    “Until you provide a written determination that includes which exemption you are using – I’m assuming you aren’t saying all seven subsections apply simultaneously – it’s not possible for me to know if I have a right to access information of this/these type(s). Please clarify which of the subsections you are intending to cite for nondisclosure.”

    With no response after a week, The Voice sent another email to Town Administrator Carroll Williamson on Aug. 27, 2021, with a deadline of Aug. 31 for a response. That response (detailed at the beginning of the story) was received on Tuesday, Aug. 30 at 5:42 p.m.

    Publisher’s Note: The Town and Black continue to blame The Voice and others for the predicament it finds itself in, but the reference to The Voice here describes what newspapers do – seek and report information of interest and significance through the use of material gathered from sources and public records.

  • Taylor talks about his plans for growth, revitalization in Winnsboro

    Winnsboro Town Manager Jason Taylor looks to bring the downtown to new glory days. | Contributed

    WINNSBORO – Two months into his new job as town manager in Winnsboro, Jason Taylor says he’s been meeting with council members, other local leaders and town staff to hear their concerns and priorities and help formulate a vision for the future.

    Among the priorities on their list: improve the town’s utility services, increase utility revenue through efficiency and growth, and spur the revitalization of Winnsboro’s downtown on a 21st-century model.

    “We have a new mayor, I’m new, and we’ve got a number of new staff members, within our utilities. We appreciate what’s been done in the past, but sometimes a new set of eyes can see it with a different perspective, and hopefully things can progress,” says Taylor, who previously served as county administrator for Fairfield County before taking the job with the town.

    “Sometimes a new perspective can be a good thing.”

    Like the county, the town has experienced significant political and staff turnover this year. But looking toward the future with development plans, Taylor says he’ll likely be working on many of the same projects because the town and county are inextricably linked.

    “Regardless of what happened in the past, I see us moving forward together. We have to work together…. Our interests are essentially aligned,” he says.

    “If they do good, we do good, and vice versa. If the county has [an industry] come in, that’s more jobs for our citizens and that’s more water and utilities we’re going to sell. If the town grows, I don’t think people realize it, but outside the nuclear power plant, the citizens of Winnsboro pay more collectively in property tax than any other entity.”

    For the town’s utilities, Taylor says a top priority is the implementation of an electronic meter-reading system, which began under the leadership of the recently retired former mayor. Another priority will be getting the town’s water plant up and running 24 hours a day.

    He says the town is uniquely positioned because of its four utilities – water, sewer, gas, and electric – which generate most of its budget. Those, he says, can be run more efficiently – a change that will benefit citizens as well as the town’s bottom line. The net goal will be expanding utility services, especially water, in order to improve the system.

    “We’ve got up to 10 million gallons of water capacity that we could sell,” he says, noting that the town is currently using less than one-fifth of that capacity. “In the past I think we’ve had to turn people away because we didn’t have sufficient capacity. Well, we have that capacity now.”

    Taylor says the town will also be very involved in the county’s big sewer plant project; the town is critical to moving the project forward and also has the infrastructure and expertise to operate the plant.

    With regard to revitalization, Taylor says he’s been studying examples of other small towns that have found success. Some very small mountain towns, he says, have “caught lightning in a bottle” by attracting the right kinds of restaurants, brewpubs, and boutique venues.

    “I want to see it a vibrant community where people want to come live, where you can walk from your house to a wonderful shop or restaurant on Main Street and quality of life is improved for our citizens. I want a downtown that is vibrant, thriving and alive, and where people want to visit and want to live,” he says.

    “I think you’ve got to kind of find your niche and you’ve got to do a lot of work and planning to figure out how to make it happen.”

    An important part of that planning process, he says, is recognizing that the romantic or nostalgic vision that has driven some revitalization efforts – hopes of bringing back the five-and-dime or the mom-and-pop hardware store as a downtown anchor – is misguided in the era of Walmart and Amazon.

    Instead, he says, downtowns need the right mix of “atmosphere” in the form of historic buildings – and Winnsboro has plenty – and shopping and dining venues that are attractive to 21st-century visitors who are looking for something different than what’s offered by chain restaurants and big-box stores.

    He says Winnsboro’s downtown center, which already has an identity and sense of place, is the perfect location for this to take place.

    In the effort to bring sustainable businesses to Winnsboro’s downtown, he says the town will likely seek grants to help redo old buildings and perhaps create a spec building for retail – similar to the way industrial developers build spec buildings to attract industry.

    “You’ve got to prime the pump,” he says. “We want to make it easy for them to choose Winnsboro – not have to go through a bunch of headaches, time and money before they can open a business here.

    “We hope to make it easy for people to do business in downtown, and then, hopefully, success will lead to more success.”

  • MPA files motion for dismissal of counterclaim

    BLYTHEWOOD – MPA Strategies, LLC has filed a reply to the Town’s counterclaims filed July 20, 2021, in response to a lawsuit filed by MPA Strategies against the town government on June 28, 2021. All the claims and responses were filed in the Court of Common Pleas Fifth Judicial Circuit in Richland County.

    MPA also filed three motions last week, including one to dismiss.

    First Motion

    In the first motion, filed Aug. 18, 2021, MPA seeks to have the Town’s counterclaim dismissed, stating that the counterclaim, as it relates to the executed Marketing Agreement, fails “for being brought in an improper venue in violation of the fully negotiated forum selection clause agreeing to jurisdiction in Lexington County,” where MPA’ offices are located.

    In the motion, MPA also states that the Town’s counterclaims against MPA Strategies, LLC, Ashley Hunter and State and Frink Foundation for fraud, negligent misrepresentation/fraud in the inducement; violation of S.C. Unfair Trade Practices Act; violation of S.C. Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act; civil conspiracy; violation of Federal False Claims Act – 31 U.S. Code Section 3701, et seq.; and negligence/gross negligence, “fail for a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”

    Second Motion

    In its second motion, MPA asks the Court to strike Joseph Dickey, the attorney for Ashley Hunter (MPA’s owner), from being called as a witness in Court.

    MPA states that on July 20, 2021, the Town of Blythewood, “made false and defamatory allegations in its Answer and Counterclaims by naming Plaintiff and Counterclaim defendants MPA Strategies, LLC (“MPA”), State and Frink Foundation (“State and Frink”) and Ashley Hunter’s attorney Joseph D. Dickey, Jr., Esq. (“Dickey”), in its Counterclaims.

    “The Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants [MPA, Ashley Hunter and State and Frink Foundation] can only speculate that the Town is attempting to create a conflict between them [MPA, Ashley Hunter and State and Frink Foundation] and its chosen counsel and/or to fabricate a basis upon which to seek to disqualify their chosen legal counsel [Dickey] from representation going forward,” the motion states.

    “In addition, it seems apparent that the Town seeks to damage Mr. Dickey’s reputation by intentionally making false allegations in its counterclaim.”

    “As there is no basis or other valid reason for Mr. Dickey to be identified, the Counterclaim Defendants respectfully request that his name, any allegations against him, and any reference to him be stricken from the Town’s counterclaims,” the motion states.

    After presenting a lengthy argument about the issue, the motion states that,“The Town’s counsel [David Black with Nexsen Pruet] and in-house counsel [Shannon Burnett] through her verification, falsely has certified to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that Mr. Dickey has committed the crimes of fraud and other related crimes. This false certification has occurred despite these facts,” which are listed in the motion:

    “1. Prior to Joseph Dickey’s first involvement in this matter, Town Attorney Shannon Burnett advised Town Council at a publicly recorded meeting that having non-profit status was not a requirement for a vendor to perform marketing for the Town.

     “2.  Joseph Dickey’s first involvement in this matter was to draft a letter notifying the Town of his representation and concerns about the contract award at the direction of a client.

    “3. Joseph Dickey, once informed, fully disclosed that State and Frink did not have 501(c)(3) status and had no need to obtain it based on the Town’s RFP and applicable law prior to contract execution.

    “4. Joseph Dickey provided Town’s counsel persuasive legal authority supporting MPA and State and Frink receiving State A-tax funds and again notifying the Town that State and Frink did not have 501(c)(3) status prior to execution of the contract.

    “5. Joseph Dickey’s role as counsel for the Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants is simply no Rule 11 basis upon which to make the defamatory accusations that he committed crimes or other dishonest actions.

    “Based upon these facts and under any reasonable objective standard this certification fails and Town’s counsel and officials should be held accountable for their false certifications,” the motion states. “One can only surmise that the identification of Mr. Dickey is part and parcel of a strategy to create conflict where none exists and/or to deprive the Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants of the legal counsel of its choosing,” the motion stated.

    The motion requested the court to issue an order, “striking any and all allegations identifying and falsely accusing Mr. Dickey of committing a crime, silently making him a witness, and requiring the Town to pay the attorneys’ fees and costs associated with filing and arguing this motion.”

    Third Motion

    A third motion requested protection from Court appearances for Dickey for a specified period of time for a family matter.

  • New hurdles to Mt. Zion relocation

    WINNSBORO – During Monday night’s county council meeting, Council Chair Moses Bell called on several county officials to voice their concerns about plans to relocate the county’s administration operations into the newly renovated Mt. Zion building when it’s completed in October, 2021.

    Bell and Councilwoman Shirley Greene took the lead in voicing those concerns, stating repeatedly that the cost of the renovations to the county has now reached $10 million, up they said, from the initial $8.7 million.

    “That $8.7 million was adjusted to $8.9 million two years ago when council voted to add the teacherage to the project,” according to County Councilman Clarence Gilbert.

    “And the county’s costs are still at $8.9 million, I don’t know where they’re getting those amounts,” Rory Dowling, principal of 1st and Main (the developer), told The Voice on Tuesday, the day after the council meeting. “If they’re including the $900,000 state allotment for the 911 call center, or the [Dominion settlement’s] monument or museum, those are outside the county’s project. The county is only paying $8.9 million for the project.”

    “I think this project is on an extremely high budget,” the county’s newly hired consultant Ed Driggers told council Monday night.

    “You’re going to have cost overruns. Most of those cost overruns have already been approved. That was true with the 911 call center and the changes required to do that. You can’t reverse those types of things,” Driggers said. “Those decisions were made and you’ve moved forward. But they will have implications as you move forward,” he warned.

    Asked following the meeting whether the county’s costs were actually at $10 million, Driggers said he didn’t know.

    “Those are their (council’s) numbers, not mine,” Driggers said.

    Almost a million dollars of those cost overruns, however, were earmarked for the 911 call center’s relocation and upgrades that are state-mandated and state-funded and were not paid for out of the county’s general fund, according to Councilman Doug Pauley, during an interview following the meeting.

    “Those funds are restricted and could only be spent on upgrades for the call center whether the call center relocated to Mt. Zion or stayed in its current location,” Pauley said.

    Fairfield County Interim Administrator Brad Caulder called on Fairfield County Sheriff Will Montgomery to talk about his office’s concerns regarding relocating to the Mt. Zion campus.

    “We have some concerns about our offices being at Mt. Zion, mainly safety,” Montgomery said.

    “The windows are on ground level in the investigator’s office and in my office. So anytime the public is in these places somebody would be able to see them talking to us or could do some type of harm to them.

    “We also have 75 sex offenders who come to our offices every month to register and we’re going to have the rec building right next to our offices,” he said.

    “Another problem is space,” Montgomery said.

    He said the space is smaller than where they are now and that they have lots of training equipment they will need storage space for.

    Driggers added that another concern for Montgomery is that the space that was designated for the Sheriff’s office has since become smaller.

    After Montgomery spoke at the podium, Bell prompted him to lay blame on Taylor.

    “Did you bring these concerns forward with Mr. Taylor and others about the safety and space?” Bell asked.

    “The concerns were brought up day one when we started this project,” Montgomery said.

    Later in the meeting, Bell again prompted Montgomery.

    “I want to be clear,” Bell said. “I really need to be clear. You’re telling us that you shared all these concerns prior to when they started building?”

    “Absolutely,” Montgomery responded. “Everything but the windows.”

    Asked about Montgomery’s concerns, former County Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas, who voted for the Mt. Zion renovation in 2018, said he never heard Montgomery express these concerns previously and that Montgomery never came before council with them that he could remember.

    Dowling told The Voice that he is not aware that any space designations for the Sheriff have been modified.

    “Their space has never changed. The Sheriff’s department approved the plans two years ago and we have never heard anything more from them or anyone else about their space changing,” Dowling said. “They have the entire first floor and about a third of the second floor. The 911 call center, which is separate from the Sheriff’s offices, is also on the second floor.”

    Former County Administrator Jason Taylor, too, told The Voice that he has not been made aware that the space for the Sheriff’s offices changed after he left the county in June.

    “I went over there with the Sheriff and went over everything about a week before I left,” Taylor said. “We had numerous meetings with all the departments and everyone was always encouraged to look at the plans and tell us how we could make it better. And we had a number of public meetings.”

    Asked by Pauley if he would prefer to relocate or stay in his current building, Montgomery said he would leave that up to the county to decide, but he added, “We’re comfortable where we are.”

    Caulder then called on Driggers to express his opinion about the Sheriff’s concerns.

    “Mr. Driggers has done a great job digging into the construction and contractual obligations of the Mt. Zion renovation,” Caulder said.

    “Mr. Bell, you do remember that you’re about to spend $3.5M on recreation that could be used for a new Sheriff’s building, right?

    — Douglas Pauley, Fairfield County Councilman

    “Talking with Mr. Caulder, I believe the most cost beneficial path for the county would be to allow the Sheriff to stay in his existing situation, to allow resources to be used for the building we are in now,” Driggers said. “For upfit of that, we have some engineering studies that have given us some costs on that.” He did not say what those costs are.

    Bell said another eleventh hour concern is parking.

    “What you (Driggers) told me is that we don’t have near enough parking,” Bell said.

    Asked about the parking, Dowling said that, based on the amount of parking they currently have, there is ample parking at the new facility.

    “And there’s still plenty of space for overflow parking,” Dowling said. “No one from the county has consulted us about this.”

    Bell continued expressing his dissatisfaction with the building.

    “The way you heat it, they got all them open glass windows, so you’re going to have heat and air blowing out the windows. I cannot understand,” Bell said, raising his voice, “why a Sheriff, elected county wide, would not have his voice listened to by the decision makers. It is beyond me to understand that. We’re at a cross roads. This is a bad situation.

    “This is beyond where we ought to be,” Bell continued, becoming emotional.

    He then read from the 2018 council minutes when council approved the Mt. Zion project.

    “‘He (Bell) feels we made a grave mistake,’” he quoted. “‘There are other builders who build new buildings with this type of financing. He said this is a bad mistake.’”

    “People talk about my decisions – that was one,” Bell said.

    “Mr. Bell,” Councilman Douglas Pauley addressed the chair. “You do remember that you’re about to spend $3.5 million on recreation that could be used for a new Sheriff’s building, right?”

    After a pause, Bell shot back, “Mr. Pauley, I’ve not directed any questions to you, and you’re not to direct any questions to me. And it ain’t $3.5 million. It’s $2.5 million. Get your facts straight,” Bell said.

    “What about the mini park?” Pauley asked. “That’s another $1 million, right?”

  • Council defers vote to rezone

    BLYTHEWOOD – The owners of a 10.4 acre property located at the intersection of Sandfield and Langford Roads and for years generally known as the Tom Boney cow pasture, applied to have the zoning of the property changed from Rural (RU) to Multi-Neighborhood Commercial District (MC) with Architectural Overlay District (AO).

    “The property is located at an ‘activity center,’ a designation on the future land use map, which means a mix of uses, traditional town-scale walkability,” Williamson said. “The MC district has a medium land use density for residential, civic, office and retail categories. It’s one level below Town Center which is heavy for those categories.”

    “Is there any indication what they are proposing or thinking about what they plan to use the land for down the road?” Commissioner Ed Kesser asked.

    Williamson said it is supposed to be something that will be complimentary to what is coming across the street (Langford Road) which is the Blythewood Farms subdivision.

    While Commissioner Malcolm Gordge offered up a motion to approve the rezoning request, there was a pause with no one second the motion.

    “Mr. Williamson, everything behind this property is rural, right?” Commission Chairman Rich McKenrick asked.

    Williamson confirmed that everything north of the property is Rural and residential.

    “The applicant is not here, right?” Commissioner Erica Page asked.

    “That’s correct,” Williamson said.

    Asked by McKenrick whether the applicant, Jim McLean, gave any information to go on as to his plans for the property, Williamson said he (McLean) did talk about the benefits of the MC zoning district over Town Center District which allows some uses that are more intense than he (McLean) would like.

    “Is he currently marketing this property for sale?” McKenrick asked.

    “Not that I’m aware of,” Williamson said.

    “It’s always disappointing when the applicant doesn’t represent themselves in their interest,” Gordge said. “This is purely a zoning request at this point.”

    Kesser said he would like to talk with the applicant, and Page said she needed more details before she could make a decision to change the zoning.

    McKenrick said he didn’t want to delay the vote, but that he would like the opportunity to ask the applicant questions.

    The Commission voted unanimously to defer the vote until next month when they would like to be able to have the applicant in attendance to answer questions.

  • Town prepares to receive millions

    BLYTHEWOOD – Anticipating millions of dollars in new funds to be coming to the Town in the near future, council voted unanimously Monday night for Town Manager Carroll Williamson to prepare the Town’s budget funds for the additional revenue.

    “Significant revenue funds are anticipated in this budget year that we didn’t know much about as we were going through the budget earlier in the year,” Williamson told council. “I would like to get approval from council to move forward setting up accounts in anticipation of coming back with a budget amendment before you sometime in November.”

    Councilman Donald Brock asked Williams to explain where the anticipated funds are coming from.

    “The ARP (American Rescue Plan) is sending approximately $2 million,” Williamson said. He added that another $250,000, coming from the state, is earmarked for Doko Meadows Park security upgrades. Williamson said there might be other grants coming as well.

    “All that was not in the budget that we currently have,” Williamson said, “so we will have separate accounts for all that and then bring that before you for your approval.”

    Local Gov Investment Pool

    Council also voted 5-0 to utilize the Local Government Investment Pool.

    “The Town has accounts in the local government investment pool held in the state treasurers office,” Williamson said. “It’s a state savings account that many municipalities, counties and schools use to save their excess cash to generate some interest. The Town currently has no funds in these accounts, and we do have excess cash that needs to be in there,” Williamson said.

    “The [Town’s] CPA did recommend that we move the excess cash to this account so, even though interest rates are extraodinarily low now, there is something,” Williamson said. “I think we need to get them in those accounts. The exact amount we’re needing, I’ll go by the Town’s CPA for guidance and I will brief you on that as well.”

  • Council OKs funding for outside agencies

    BLYTHEWOOD – During the FY2021-22 budget work session and discussions during Blythewood Town Council meetings, council identified specific outside agencies to receive funding. However, Town Administrator Carroll Williamson noted in a memo that council members approved the budget without a specific amount allocated to each agency. The total amount allocated for all the agencies was $37,500.

    “[These agencies] are not necessarily affiliated with A-Tax or H-Tax awards,” Mayor Bryan Franklin said “but are grants we give to organizations that ask for them and that have a relationship with the town.”

    Williamson said the purpose of the item being on the agenda Tuesday night is to allow a separate vote for each outside agency’s funding once the agencies have provided their organizational information and stated how they intend to use the funds. He said the agencies that are not on this agenda would be voted on later after they have provided the necessary information to town hall.

    At Councilman Donald Brock’s suggestion, council took one vote to approve all the following outside requests:

    • Blythewood Chamber of Commerce – $5,000
    • Big Red Barn – $1,000
    • Blythewood Soccer Club – $1,000
    • Camp Discovery – $1,500
    • Bethel-Hanberry Athletic Alumni Association – $6,000

    Councilman Larry Griffin recused himself from voting since he is president of the Bethel-Hanberry Athletic Association.

  • County hires $200/hour consultant to assist admin

    WINNSBORO – The County’s Human Resources Director Brad Caulder was hired last month by the majority 4 as the county’s interim administrator to replace former Fairfield County Administrator Jason Taylor. Last week Caulder hired a $200 per hour consult to assist him in his administrative duties.

    Ed Driggers

    Ed Driggers, a consultant with Parker Poe, will be paid for a minimum of 10 hours or $2,000 per week, which would total $8,000 per month or about $100,000 annually, just $25,000 under Caulder’s annual salary. Caulder said Driggers will likely work about 20 hours a week initially, which would total $16,000 per month or about $200,000 annually.

    Caulder said that after a while, he would expect Driggers hours to drop back to about 10 per week.

    A section of Driggers’ agreement with the county also provides for $40 per hour for any personnel that Driggers hires to work under him on any of the county’s projects.

    The consulting agreement also provides for both Driggers and anyone he should hire to work under him to be reimbursed for mileage and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses.

    The minimum cost to the county for Driggers ($100,000 annually) and Caulder ($125,000 annually) totals $225,000 annually.

    Caulder is under contract for six months.

    Top employees receiving extra pay

    Caulder also told The Voice that some of the county’s top level employees will receive extra pay for extra work. He would not say how much extra money they are receiving, who those employees are or whether the extra pay is temporary or permanent.

    After several top level employees, including Taylor, the town attorney, assistant county administrator, clerk to council, community development director, parks and recreation director and others were pushed out by the majority 4 or left voluntarily since the first of the year. Caulder said this has caused an extra load of work on the remaining employees.

    A search is underway for candidates for permanent county administrator. Other vacant jobs in the county right now include the clerk to council position, community development director, human resources director and a permanent parks and recreation director.

  • How will majority 4 spend $7.6M?

    WINNSBORO – Approximately $7.6 million is coming to Fairfield County this month from the Dominion settlement, and county council is looking at their options for how to spend it.

    According to the $99.5 million settlement agreement, which was finalized in May and resulted from the county’s lawsuit in relation to the failed nuclear plant project, the $7.6 million is earmarked to assist the county in paying down its bond obligations.

    Specifically, it’s aimed at the $24 million bond – primarily for infrastructure projects – that the county committed to in 2013, anticipating revenue that would’ve been generated by the new plant.

    What’s not specified, however, is exactly how the county must use the money in its debt repayment effort. There are several options.

    Make Bond Payments Directly

    One option would be to use the money directly to cover the county’s bond payments for the next five years, storing it in an account earmarked for that purpose.

    The idea behind this option would be to simply fill in the gap, anticipating that within the next five years the county will have enough revenue coming in from new industries developed in that time to then cover the payments going forward.

    Pay to Principal, Lower Millage

    Another option would be to put the lump sum toward the principal of the loan and refinance what remains, bringing the county’s annual bond payment down from $1.7 million to approximately $1.2 million.

    Because of how bond payments are structured in relation to tax millage, this would result in a corresponding reduction in property taxes, reducing the county’s property tax revenue by approximately half a million dollars annually going forward.

    Use for Current Financial Issues

    A third option – and this is one that Bell appears to have his eye on and that he says the council is seeking more information to consider – would be to continue to make bond payments in the current fashion but use the money from the settlement to reimburse the county for the payments, essentially freeing up money for other things he might want to use it for.

    This, he says, would help the county to deal with current pressing financial issues and other immediate priorities.

    For example, he says, the county needs to make up the difference between the $4.2 million committed to a needed courthouse renovation project and the $5.3 million the project is expected to cost. And county leaders need to have money on hand for economic development opportunities that may arise.

    “We’re trying to make sure we have every option that can be good for the council to consider, so that’s what we’re working on currently,” Bell says. “We’re going to try to decide what are the best options for us as a county, knowing the financial situation we’re currently in.”

    He says that while opinions may differ on what is the best course of action, whatever the council ultimately decides, he hopes everyone will get on board.

    The $7.6 million, while a large sum in relation to the county’s budget and debts, is a relatively small piece of the pie in the total settlement.

    The $99.5 million settlement, which was announced in May, came after four years of legal process and negotiation after South Carolina Electric & Gas (SC E&G) parent company SCANA Corporation failed to develop its two planned nuclear reactors in Fairfield County.

    After SCANA abruptly announced the abandonment of the $9 billion project in mid-2017, investigations revealed fraud and ultimately led to criminal charges – resulting in prison time and other penalties – for two executives, plus a $25 million civil fine for the company.

    The Fairfield County lawsuit was one of several faced by SCANA and Dominion, the Virginia-based energy giant that bought them out in early 2019.

    Fairfield County leaders have touted the settlement as a win-win for the county and Dominion, which provides electricity for much of the county through its existing plant and stands to gain additional customers from development.

    The biggest chunk of the settlement — $45.7 million – is earmarked for development of the county’s much-needed wastewater treatment plant, which is being built to accommodate both residential and industrial growth in the county.

    An additional $13.4 million is also earmarked for economic development projects: $6.5 million to grade an industrial mega-site, $3.2 million for grading at the Commerce Center, $1.8 million escrow for rate relief, and $2 million for a spec building at the Commerce Center.

    The three most controversial earmarks have been the $2.2 million for a teachers’ village, $2.5 million for a park and recreation center in Ridgeway, and $1 million for a Martin Luther King monument on the grounds of Mt. Zion. A $27.1 million chunk of the settlement is going to the attorneys assisting the county in the settlement.