Blythewood Online 691

Category: News

  • Swell on Wheels: Classic Cars Cruise Festival

    Three longtime Winnsboro friends show off the antique cars they each have owned for about 50 years. At left, Town Councilman Jackie Wilkes and his 1955 Ford; Buddy Castles and his 1940 Ford Deluxe and Sam Edenfield and his 1955 Chevrolet 150 Businessman’s Coupe. The cars will be on display during the Rock Around the Clock Car show Friday and Saturday. (Photo/Barbara Ball)

    WINNSBORO – The 16th annual Classic Car Show at Rock Around the Clock in Winnsboro on Saturday will host 175 classic cars, many from Fairfield County and some from as far away as Florida, Tennessee and Virginia.

    Show organizer and Winnsboro native Sam Edenfield, 71, has managed the show since its inception and said there is an exceptionally good turnout this year.

    “It’s going to be a lot of fun for the spectators and the exhibitors,” he said. “We’re awarding 50 trophies, $500 in cash and a couple thousand dollars’ worth of prizes and giveaways. The popular Poker Walk is returning this year at noon, and we have our terrific singing DJ, Fitz McGill, back again this year.”

    Edenfield is bringing two of his own classic cars, a 1929 Ford Roadster hot rod he built from scratch 10 years ago and a 1955 Chevrolet with which he shares over 50 years of history.

    “My brother bought it in 1959 from Central Chevrolet of Columbia,” he recalled, “and then in 1961 he traded it to our neighbor, Bruce Baker, who was in my high school class. Bruce drove the car to Los Angeles, Cal., but it got stolen there and was missing for six months before they found it – all the way up in San Francisco! Bruce drove the car back home in 1962, my dad traded him a car for it, and after my dad’s death in 1966 the car became mine.”

    His Chevrolet is a 150 Businessman’s Coupe, a rare car that sold new for about $1,500. It was outfitted for executives of the 1940s and ‘50s – for instance, instead of a backseat, it had a plywood platform to hold a briefcase and a suitcase. Over the years, Edenfield has completely updated it with a digital dash, power steering, cruise control, heat and air conditioning.

    “Mine’s all modern,” he said. “I’ve repainted it, redone the interior, redone the complete running gear. I’ve got it to where I could drive it to California again if I wanted to!”

    Edenfield takes his car to several shows a year, but also drives it regularly and plans to eventually pass it to his son, Bill, who runs Independent Body and Tire, the Winnsboro body shop that Edenfield started with his wife 26 years ago and is now retired from.

    Edenfield has enjoyed working with classic cars his whole life, and in school became friends with classmates and fellow car enthusiasts Jackie Wilkes and Buddy Castle. The three Winnsboro friends are bringing cars to this year’s show that they have each owned and worked on for around 50 years – decades of trading notes and brainstorming with each other about restoration issues with their cars.

    “Jackie got his 1955 Ford in 1956, and he’s just finished completely restoring the car to its original factory condition,” Edenfield said. “And Buddy has a 1940 Ford Deluxe that he bought in 1961 and has restored to original condition. He originally redid the car 30 or 35 years ago and has kept it in great shape. He brings it to the show every year.”

    Edenfield said that when the guys first got their cars, working on them wasn’t just a fun hobby, but also a necessity.

    “Back in the day,” Edenfield recalled, “if you had a car, you had to keep it running – you couldn’t just take it down to the dealership for repairs. You and your buddies had to figure out what was wrong with it and then repair it or go find an old part that would work. I saved up $35 to buy my first car by working at a filling station, cutting grass, washing cars – it was a different world back then,” he recalled fondly. “That’s why I enjoy doing the show so much – it’s great to see these classic cars kept in wonderful condition and enjoyed by people who remember how things were back then.”

  • Council Usurps BZA, Courts

    Sign Ordinance Bypassed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Ordinance Vote on Hold

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

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

    Cloud Technology for Town Hall

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

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

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

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

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

    Final Paving Set for Park

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

    New Park Events Funded

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

    Manor Rental Update

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

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

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

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

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

  • See You in Two Weeks . . .

    Keith Lewis
    Will Montgomery

    Sheriff’s Race Heads to Run-Off

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The primary run-off will be Oct. 14.

  • Public Pitches Planning Ideas

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

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

    Public Safety

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

    • Security cameras for downtown.

    • Additional street lights downtown.

    • No Parking signs near Post Office.

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

    Utilities

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

    • Upgrade wastewater treatment plant.

    • Extend water line down Hood Road.

    • Maintain and upgrade existing water and sewer lines.

    Economic Development

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

    • Define the right businesses and industries for Town.

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

    Quality of Life

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

    • Health and fitness program for young adults and seniors.

    • Develop a community garden.

    • Develop a beautification program.

    • Provide Wi-Fi service downtown.

    • Provide ambience music in downtown area.

    • Construct a downtown gazebo.

    • Expand the Arts on the Ridge festival.

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

  • Lawmen Stump for Top Cop Spot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • What Did We Learn from County Bond Session?

    Records Don’t Back County Claims

    PARKER POE REP DODGES MEDIA QUESTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Council Reinstates Leave Days

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

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

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

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

  • County Tackles Bond Questions

    County to Review $24.06M Mechanics

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

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

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

    Why are the GO Bonds Being Issued?

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

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

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

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

    How did the County get so Deeply in Debt?

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

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

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

    Details, Details

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

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

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

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

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

    Raising Funds to Pay Off Debt

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Citizens’ Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Council May Reopen Grant Window

    Days Lost to Weather Also Get Second Look

    WINNSBORO – In a work session that spanned more than two hours Tuesday night, County Council weighed the pros and cons of revisiting the County’s inclement weather policy as well as an extension of the application deadline for community grants. Both items surfaced at Council’s Sept. 8 meeting, prompting Chairman David Ferguson (District 5) to call for the special session.

    Grants

    The grant question came to the forefront after Council doled out the funds during the Sept. 8 meeting and found that, collectively, $6,000 was left on the table. Council’s revised policy on the discretionary spending allocates $2,500 for each district and established a rigorous set of criteria for applicants. After Council’s Sept. 8 vote, four of the seven districts still had significant funds remaining ($2,000 in District 1; $1,500 in District 3; $1,500 in District 4; $1,000 in District 6).

    Councilman Kamau Marcharia (District 4) suggested after the vote that the roughly one-month application window under the new policy was too brief and Tuesday night he reiterated that position and added that he felt Council members should be involved early in the application process. Under the new policy, applications are submitted to administrative staff and then recommended by the Administrator to the entire Council for a vote.

    “Council member involvement is kind of what, in part, brought us to this redefining of the discretionary (spending) to ‘community enhancement grant’,” Interim Administrator Milton Pope said, addressing Marcharia’s concerns. “The process was developed to limit Council member involvement on the front end of the process where the public would see it as very transparent and not someone getting favor over someone else. . . . In some ways it was on purpose to exclude any involvement on the front end where people wouldn’t think the process was fixed.”

    Councilwoman Mary Lynn Kinley (District 6) suggested extending the application window for an additional 30 days, she said, to give more organizations ample time to seek funding. Vice Chairman Dwayne Perry (District 1) suggested a 60-day extension. Pope and staff will review the process and bring the matter back to Council for a vote at Monday night’s meeting.

    Snow Days

    The debate over if and how to revise the County’s policy regarding inclement weather, as well as whether or not to reinstate leave days used by employees this summer when a busted air conditioner forced the County Courthouse to close up shop for three days, was far more complicated and drawn out.

    The current policy, adopted in 2011, requires employees to burn vacation or sick-leave days if foul weather shuts down the County.

    “It’s my opinion that if Council or the County Administrator tells somebody not to come to work or tells people to stay home, we should not dock that person for staying home,” Councilman David Brown (District 7) said. “I’m thinking that in the past 365 days our employees have been docked nine days for one reason or another that was an administrative call, and that’s like losing half a month.”

    Brown’s sentiments were shared by Councilwoman Carolyn Robinson. While Perry said he could see both side of the issue, he added that “If we as a government can’t keep (the Courthouse) open, it’s not the employees’ fault.”

    Council eventually elected to separate the two issues – reinstating the leave days used by Courthouse employees and revisiting the weather policy – and will bring the reinstatement of the Courthouse days to the floor on Monday evening.

    The weather policy issue was clouded somewhat when Ferguson told Council that if a vote to pay employees for weather days came to the floor Monday, he would immediately follow that with a motion to give the County’s emergency workers, who have to work regardless of the weather, an additional day’s pay for working those days.

    Council eventually chose to send the policy review back to another work session before bringing the matter to a regular meeting.