Category: News

  • Raised millage, deep cuts cast shadow over Fairfield budget

    WINNSBORO – A proposed tax increase, cutting county departments by 10 percent, and other major budgetary matters came up during a Fairfield County Council work session Monday night.

    Described by one council member and others in attendance as “chaotic,” the meeting lasted over three hours.

    Taxpayers, however, didn’t get to see any of it.

    An agenda for the work session stated the proceedings would be live streamed, a customary procedure since the beginning of the pandemic. But the stream wasn’t available, and it was not uploaded to the county’s YouTube channel when the meeting ended around 9:30 p.m. Monday.

    By Tuesday morning, an 11-second, audio only excerpt had been uploaded, but the clip was no longer there by Tuesday evening. Nothing had been posted as of Wednesday’s press deadline.

    County Chairman Moses Bell couldn’t be reached for comment.

    As to the missing meeting recording, Councilman Doug Pauley voiced dismay that taxpayers couldn’t watch the council as they conducted the public’s business.

    In a telephone interview Tuesday, Pauley said the meeting lasted at least 3 ½ hours.

    The meeting opened with County Administrator Malik Whitaker reading a copy of his budget letter to the council.

    The meeting then devolved into a disjointed discussion about the budget, among council members who jumped from one topic to another until Pauley intervened and asked why the department heads were all asked to be there if they were not going to be given the chance to talk about their department needs.

    “I wanted to hear from every single department head. I didn’t care if it took till midnight. We are there as council members to represent the citizens and the employees,” Pauley said.

    In this budget letter, Whitaker proposed raising taxes by 4.7 mills or cutting 10% to “non-essential accounts.” Pauley said his understanding is the cuts are across the board, impacting most county departments.

    “With a County Council mandate to cut recurring county government operating cost and reduce the County government’s reliance on unassigned fund balance to produce a balanced budget, Fairfield County Government Administration is presenting for your review, analysis, and consideration, two options for proposed FY 2023 budget cuts that reduce the deficit,” the letter states.

    Pauley and budget documents also state that the county lacks a formal capital improvement plan.

    Meantime, the county is facing staffing shortages and aging equipment, which Pauley said seriously impacted public safety. Department heads came forward to talk about their needs – a fire truck recently caught fire responding to a call and the department can’t afford to order a new one. Staffing shortages at the detention center contributed to an officer being injured while transporting a detainee. Theresa Lawson, Director of the Detention Center said that two officers are needed to transport a detainee, but with last year’s cuts, only one was available for a recent transfer and because of that, the officer was injured. She said the Sheriff’s deputies had to be called.

    “These departments are struggling monetarily to run their departments efficiently and safely,” Pauley said. “The budget we were presented from administration doesn’t include vehicles. It doesn’t include a lot of positions as well. You’re not finding any fire trucks, patrol cars, or ambulances.”

    In a budget memo, Whitaker said department heads were asked to develop a list of capital needs over the past five years and submit them as part of their budget requests.

    In the short term, Whitaker proposes covering capital costs from other funds, such as federal stimulus money.

    Fire services alone says it needs nearly $2 million in FY2023, noting one truck is 42 years old and two others are 35 years old, according to budget documents.

    EMS anticipates needing $900,000 in FY2023 to replace three vehicles and another $700,000 in FY2024 to replace two more, documents show.

    Other steps Whitaker said the county is eying include moving 1.5 mills from debt service to the general fund and adding 1 mill of tax to the Library fund.

    Whitaker said rising gas prices, retirement costs and insurance have created challenges in presenting a balanced budget.

    “The work needed to getting [sic] a balanced budget is going to be challenging and will require the work of county council, administration, and department directors,” Whitaker said.

    Calls for departmental cuts follow the council’s ruling majority decision to spend $1.5 million in previously unbudgeted money last fiscal year on a mini park in Blackstock, upgrades to Willie Lee Robinson Park, and roof repairs to the Department of Health and Human Services building.

    The same council majority later voted for a lease agreement with Dominion Energy on land for another recreation park without budgeting for insurance, equipment, utilities and other associated costs.

    Monday night’s grim budget forecast for the county came less than 48 hours before the county was slated to break ground on a $2.5 million recreation center Bell fiercely lobbied to fund over other needs out of the $99 million Dominion settlement. Pauley said the rec center is further proof of wasteful spending that’s politically motivated.

    “What’s disturbing to me is how Chairman Bell could sit up there yesterday, and then tomorrow have a groundbreaking ceremony on a $2.5 million recreation center when we are robbing Peter to pay Paul,” Pauley said.

    “We got a $99 million settlement [from Dominion Energy] and five months later we’re at the bottom of the barrel. That’s a problem with our leadership’s priorities,” he said.

  • BW/Cobblestone lawsuit settled

    BLYTHEWOOD – When Lenore and James Zedosky moved from West Virginia to South Carolina, they didn’t envision spending nearly five years of their retirement locked in litigation with a national home builder.

    Now the lengthy legal battle has finally reached a conclusion.

    On March 14, the Zedoskys along with two other residents and DR Horton jointly agreed to settle the lawsuit in a dispute over green space, according to Richland County court records.

    Per the terms of the dismissal, each party will pay for their own legal costs. A $5,000 deposit is being returned to the plaintiffs as well.

    Lenore Zedosky said she is relieved the litigation has ended.

    “After five years, thousands of dollars and some health issues, we decided it was just time to end it,” she said. “We felt like we had a very good case. Our lawyer met with their lawyer and both came to a consensus that the case would be dismissed, so we were very pleased about that.”

    The legal battle began back in July 2017, when the Zedoskys and two other plaintiffs sued DR Horton and the Town of Blythewood.

    The suit asserted that covenants in place stated the properties would be adjacent either to a deeded nine-hole golf course or remain a perpetual greenway pursuant.

    DR Horton acquired the property in 2012 with plans to subdivide it for future development in violation of the covenants, according to the suit.

    Zedosky said as a result of the settlement, DR Horton has agreed to preserve the green space and not develop the contested property.

    A DR Horton representative couldn’t be reached for comment.

    In court filings, DR Horton denied claims in the homeowners’ suit. The home builder also filed a cross claim against the Town of Blythewood, saying the town wrongfully denied building permits for which DR Horton applied.

    According to court papers, DR Horton eventually consented to dismissing its cross claim against the town, but the town never agreed to the dismissal.

    Blythewood Town Manager Carroll Williamson said the town didn’t consent because it wanted a definitive ruling to eliminate any ambiguity on permitting issues.

    The town wanted “clear legal guidelines for how to treat the property for permits going forward,” Williamson said. “Because of this, we did not agree to a dismissal without a ruling on the merits.”

    Meantime, the Zedoskys and other co-plaintiffs said DR Horton’s plans would have a material adverse effect on their rights including, but not limited to, a devaluation of the value of their properties and a significant disruption of their quiet enjoyment of their property that would result from the loss of the property as green space or as a golf course.

    The suit claims Horton sought permission from the town to subdivide the property.

    “Horton has failed to obtain the written consent of the majority of owners affected by Horton’s intended change in the use of the property which is subject to the Greenway Covenant,” the suit states.

    Now that the suit is dismissed and resolved, Zedosky said the process illustrates that it is possible to prevail in planning or zoning disputes.

    “We now want to work with the town to make sure this doesn’t happen again,” Zedosky said. “We’re hugely relieved. If you work with your elected officials and are professional about what you’re asking for, you can impact what happens at the local level.”

  • Man arrested in Blythewood for setting woman on fire

    BLYTHEWOOD – A man who doused a woman with gasoline and set her on fire was arrested in Blythewood on March 22.

    Stevenson

    According to Lott, 41-year-old Keitrick Stevenson was arrested without incident at a home in Blythewood Tuesday morning by the Midlands Gang Fugitive Task Force and Richland County Sheriff’s Department’s Special Response Team.

    “I’ve seen a lot of bad things, but this was one of the most horrific crimes I’ve seen against a person,” Sheriff Lott said in a news conference, calling the crime one of the worse he had seen in his career and that Stevenson was an extremely violent repeat offender.

    “Mr. Stevenson is not new to us. We arrested him in 2006 for stabbing a man to death. He plead to manslaughter charges, spent eight years in jail and got out only to try and kill again,” Lott said. “We’ve also arrested him on drug and weapons charges, resisting arrest…all the way back to l997.”

    The victim was with a group of people outside a home on Prescott Road when Stevenson approached with a plastic pitcher of gasoline. He then threw the gasoline on the victim, who ran away. As she ran, Stevenson threw several matches on her, finally catching her on fire when she fell down.

    The woman was transported to a local hospital and then to a burn center.

    “His intent was to destroy this woman’s life,” Lott said. “She’s still alive and still struggling. She’s burned badly.” he said.

    Lott praised his investigative team for their work in locating the store where the plastic pitcher and matches were purchased by Stevenson

    “They were able to determine that he purchased the pitcher and the matches at a nearby Family Dollar store earlier that same day,” Lott said.

    Stevenson is charged with attempted murder and is being held in the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center.

  • Harris denied bond for Fairfield murder

    CHESTER – Amber Nicole Harris, one of the two people charged with carjacking a Fairfield County woman and beating her to death last year was denied bond Friday by Judge Paul Burch.

    Harris

    The body of Linda Robinson was spotted on the side of Carpenter Rd. last August. She’d left her Blackstock-area home a few hours beforehand to drive to the Chester Walmart pharmacy and pick up her husband’s prescription. The incident that led to her death actually started out as a kind gesture as she saw someone on the side of the road experiencing car trouble, per Chester County Sheriff Max Dorsey.

    They stayed in the car while she went inside for the medicine then there were “conversations that led her to drive” to Carpenter Rd. in the northern portion of Chester County. Specifics of Robinson’s death were not released at the time, with Chester County Coroner Terry Tinker only noting that the woman suffered head trauma. More detail was offered in court Friday by Heather Weiss of the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office.

    According to Weiss, a witness saw Robinson’s Blue Dodge Caravan with a woman “clinging to the side” before being throw off. Once her body was discovered it was determined that the 63-year-old grandmother had been beaten to death with a 2×4.

    The van was found abandoned later on, but some evidence was left behind, including a receipt from a Dollar General. Store camera footage was pulled from the time of the sale and George Linward Faile was identified as the subject.

    Law enforcement was able to determine that Harris was in a relationship with Faile, but she was initially not home when law enforcement went looking for her. She was eventually located. A search warrant was obtained and items belonging to Robinson, including medicine and a credit card, were found. Additionally, Harris’ fingerprints were found inside Robinson’s vehicle and on the 2×4 believed to have been used in beating her to death.

    Harris has a long criminal record that includes larceny, public disorderly conduct, possession of meth, possession of marijuana, grand larceny and probation violation. She was, in fact, on probation at the time of Robinson’s death and allegedly used the stolen vehicle to drive for a visit to her probation officer. Weiss said she has also gotten in trouble in jail since having been arrested.

    “She has been given the opportunity to prove she can follow laws and rules of the state…she has shown she cannot do so,” Weiss said.

    Given her record and the brutal nature of this crime, Weiss said Harris was both a flight risk and threat to the community and asked for bond to be denied.

    One member of Robinson’s family spoke in court against bond being granted for Harris, that being the daughter-in-law of the victim, Catherine Robinson. Her entire family has lost a sense of security, she said and she wept as she talked about the pain her young child has felt in losing a grandmother. She has struggled with trying to explain the evils of the world to him, she said.

    Harris was represented by Geoffrey Dunn of the public defender’s office. While he acknowledged her criminal past, he said it was not one filled with violent crime.

    “What it truly reflected was someone struggling with drug addiction,” he said. “She has no means to flee if granted bond, is a lifelong county resident and her parents and three children live in Chester County,” Dunn said.

    People are entitled to bonds, he said, and he requested a reasonable one in this case, allowing that a high bond would essentially be no bond at all given her limited ability to pay.

    Burch described Harris’ record as “quite lengthy” and made mention of the fact that Harris was out on bond at the time this alleged incident took place. With that being the case, he denied the bond request.

    Weiss said she hoped to get the case on the docket by the end of the year.

  • Richland Co. Sheriff: Gregg Martin arrested for sex crime involving a child

    COLUMBIA – A Blythewood and Columbia-area photographer was charged with a sex crime involving a child, the Richland County Sheriff’s Department reported.

    Martin

    Gregg Martin, 53, was arrested April 8 after deputies received a report of him taking inappropriate photographs of a young girl under his care, the sheriff’s department said in a news release.

    An investigation revealed that Martin groomed the child and gave her illegal substances, according to the release. Martin was charged with engaging a child under 18 for sexual performance in addition to unlawful conduct toward a child, according to the news release.

    Martin owns Gregg Martin Photographic Design and is a well-known photographer in the Blythewood area who takes sports photos of students from Blythewood High School, Ridge View High School, Cardinal Newman and other area schools, many of which can be viewed on his website.

    If convicted on the felony charge of engaging a child under 18 for sexual performance, Martin would be guilty of second-degree criminal sexual conduct and could face up to 20 years in prison, and unlawful conduct towards a child is a felony charge that could bring a maximum punishment of 10 years in prison, according to South Carolina law.

    Jail records show Martin has been released from Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center. Information on his bond is not yet available.

    Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott is asking potential victims to come forward at this time. Anyone with information about Martin is asked by the Sheriff’s department to call CrimeStoppers at 888-CRIME-SC.

  • Town of Winnsboro files lawsuit against County over solid waste fee

    WINNSBORO – Winnsboro is taking Fairfield County to court.

    On March 30, the Town of Winnsboro formally filed suit against the county, claiming in court papers that the county’s solid waste fee shouldn’t apply to Winnsboro town residents.

    The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that the $63 per ton fee is “invalid and illegal”, according to court documents.

    Winnsboro also seeks a refund of any solid waste fees it has paid or will pay. The town agreed, under protest, to temporarily pay the fee on the condition that payments are held in trust pending disposition of the case, the suit states.

    Fairfield County was served with the suit on April 4, and a deadline of October 26 has been set to complete mediation.

    Reached by telephone Tuesday evening, Fairfield Council Chairman Moses Bell kept interrupting as a reporter for The Voice tried to seek comment about the Winnsboro suit.

    “I can’t believe you called me with all the lies you tell on me,” Bell said. “That’s all you do, is tell lies. That’s all you do. All you do is lie. Why do you lie so much?”

    Once The Voice mentioned the lawsuit, the call suddenly disconnected.

    Winnsboro Town Manager Jason Taylor could not be reached.

    In prior interviews, Taylor has said the county fee amounts to double billing. The litigation makes the same argument.

    Fairfield County has enacted a commercial solid waste fee for years.

    In its 2021-2022 budget, the county expanded the fee’s applicability to the town and the Fairfield County School District. Neither had previously been charged the $63 per ton fee.

    “The County budget failed to set out the factual and legal basis upon which the solid waste fee to be charged the Town was established,” the lawsuit states.

    According to the suit, Fairfield County violated state law by not allowing the town to participate in development of the fee.

    The Town cites sections of state law it says require the inclusion of local governments in developing solid waste plans. Failing to follow that process also explains why the court should invalidate the fee, the litigation states.

    Winnsboro’s suit further notes the town conveyed real estate to the county in the furtherance of providing solid waste services. The County breached that agreement by “unilaterally” imposing the solid waste fee, according to the suit.

    “The County has failed to act in good faith and deal fairly with the Town by failing to attempt to renegotiate any provision of the parties’ cooperative agreement,” the lawsuit states.

    As of March 28, the Town owed nearly $62,000 in unpaid solid waste fees, according to Fairfield County Administrator Malik Whitaker.

    Whitaker has stated without evidence that Taylor “suggested, supported and approved this uniform user fee during his tenure as Fairfield County administrator.”

    Taylor has denied ever creating or lobbying for the fee.

    It was actually Councilman Mikel Trapp who motioned to insert the solid waste fee as a line item into the county budget on April 26, 2021, according to council meeting minutes.

    Councilwoman Shirley Greene seconded that motion, and Bell voted in favor of it.

    The only comment Taylor made in reference to adding the fee into the budget was a request for council members to vote individually on each line item, according to a meeting recording.

    In addition, the recording shows Councilman Neal Robinson also feared the fee amounted to double charging. “A concern was brought to me by a few constituents that we’d possibly be charging county citizens who live in the city almost like double,” Robinson said. “If you kind of think about it, it is true. We typically don’t charge the citizens in the county for trash services.”

  • County didn’t know its financial status for months

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield’s auditing firm concluded there’s a “significant deficiency” in how the county keeps its financials.

    “A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance,” the long-awaited financial audit states.

    Elliott Davis issued the admonishment, a key finding in the audit that was supposed to be completed, approved and supplied to the state by Jan. 1.

    Audit findings were presented during a special meeting Monday. No votes were taken, though the county has since submitted the audit to the S.C. Comptroller General’s Office per state law.

    Aside from the tardiness, the audit found no significant issues with Fairfield’s finances, said Ryan Miller with Elliott Davis.

    “The biggest thing was the timeliness of it. Besides that, things were clean,” Miller said.

    Still, the three-month delay came at a cost.

    Fairfield County Council Chair Moses Bell and County Administrator Malik Whitaker didn’t let council members know  about the missing audit until Feb. 1 – a month after the due date – prompting the state to ultimately withhold more than $1.5 million in state funding.

    In addition to increasing the chance for error, the tardy audit means “County Council is not provided timely, accurate financial information from which to make decisions that affect the County’s taxpayers,” the audit states.

    The audit further recommends that all general ledger accounts be reconciled to subsidiary ledgers on a monthly basis to minimize errors and correct them immediately when they arise.

    It also states the county needs to reinstate and fund a staff analyst or fiscal analyst position that was frozen during the 2022 budget year, and that this employee would develop monthly financial closing processes.

    “This initial resource will help the Finance Department develop monthly financial closing processes which will enable it to complete its annual financial closing process in a timely manner,” the audit states.

    However, during Monday’s meeting, County Administrator Malik Whitaker revised the corrective action, deleting the specific job titles referenced in the Elliott Davis document.

    Whitaker added that the position would not develop monthly financial closing processes.  Instead, the staff position would be “responsible for reconciling all general ledger control accounts to subsidiary ledgers or other detailed schedules on a monthly basis,” he said.  Meantime, the county would enact internal policies that set benchmark dates to ensure future audits are filed on time.

    That the audit had not been submitted to the state did not become public knowledge until Councilman Douglas Pauley let it be known that Whitaker had forwarded emails with that information from the Comptroller General’s office on Feb. 1. In his email, Whitaker noted that councilmembers were not to share the information beyond themselves.

    The state had contacted Council Chairman Moses Bell at least twice – on Nov, 19 and Jan. 4 – about the audit, documents show.

    Bell casts blame

    On Monday, Bell voiced dismay over the late audit, pledging the situation wouldn’t happen again. However, he mostly took aim at the Mt. Zion contract, which moves county offices into a new administration building at the site of the old Mt. Zion school.

    Bell moved on to what he said is the depleted fund balance, without explaining that fund budgets fluctuate throughout the year. He said plummeted at least $14 million. He then attacked the media in apparent reference to The Voice’s reporting about the late audit.

    “I’ve said for all deliberate purposes, the fund balance has been depleted. It shows itself in this audit,” Bell said. “Look at the numbers so when the tabloids starting writing, they start looking at what they’re writing.”

    In reviewing council minutes, The Voice noted that Bell and the council majority that votes in lockstep with him signed off on nearly $1.1 million in unbudgeted projects since July 1, 2021.

    On Aug. 23, council voted to spend $1,050,000 on a mini park in Blackstock, upgrades to Willie Lee Robinson Park, and roof repairs to the Department of Health and Human Services building.

    The county hired an administrator for $135,000 annually in December, a deputy administrator for $115,000 annually two months later, and it is still paying approximately $200,000 annually each to two consultants to assist the new administrator for a total of approximately $600,000 for administrative work.

    The county will incur additional costs after recently signing a lease agreement with Dominion Energy to develop another park site, this one in northern Fairfield. While the actual lease expense is negligible, the deal obligates Fairfield County to obtain at least $3 million in insurance coverage. It’s uncertain how much those policies will cost.

    Fairfield must also pay for any park equipment, utilities, or other amenities associated with developing the park. A council majority approved the deal despite not identifying a funding source.

    Greene vs. Pauley

    Another awkward moment occurred Monday when Councilwoman Shirley Greene pursued a line of questioning in an apparent attempt to discredit Councilman Pauley.

    Greene quizzed Miller, the Elliott Davis auditor, about whether he thought it was inappropriate for Pauley to contact Elliott Davis about the audit before it was completed.

    Pauley has said he contacted the auditor because council as a whole never acted on the audit or asked about it. Greene has accused Pauley of acting inappropriately.

    “Is it not the role of the county administrator and our controller to handle those kinds of questions?” Greene asked.

    “Typically the auditor is going to speak directly with finance director and the county administrator first,” he said. “I don’t know the rules on your side of the fence in terms of reaching out.”

    “Did you find this unusual?” Greene pressed.

    Miller, however, remained neutral. He said the practice of a council member reaching out was “infrequent,” but never characterized it as irregular or inappropriate.

    “I’m not leaning one way or the other,” he said.

  • Richland County PC defers controversial mass rezoning

    COLUMBIA – Richland County Council chambers were packed Monday afternoon with residents from throughout the county. They were there to express their concerns, fears and objections to Richland County’s proposal to rezone all 375,000 acres of unincorporated land in the county. Unincorporated land is all land that is not within the town limits of a city or town.

    The commissioners’ task was to hear from the county’s residents and then make a recommendation to council as to whether to adopt, deny or defer the proposed county-wide zoning map. The map is the second part of the county’s newly proposed Land Development Code. The first part – the new zoning codes, or classifications – have already been approved by council last November, but they are not effective until the zoning map is approved.

    Echoing the public comments made at the March 7 planning commission meeting on the issue, more than two dozen residents spoke vehemently in opposition to the rezoning map. None spoke in favor. 

    The proposed mass rezoning is driven by county staff while council has made a number of attempts to slow the train down over the last year and a half.

    Of those who spoke before the commission Monday, the main objections to the rezoning were that the new zoning will make it easier for developers to bring dense subdivisions to rural areas of the county without the requirement for developers to go before county council for rezoning, By not being able to go before council, the public loses the right to have input about what goes into or next to their neighborhood.

    Blythewood resident Janet Robinson and fourth-generation owner of family property, told commissioners that, right now, 400 homes are proposed but not yet approved to be built behind her property. Currently, she and her neighbors will have a chance to persuade council to see things their way in a public council rezoning meeting.

    Without a public rezoning process that is currently in place, Robinson said, she would no longer have a voice in what developers bring next to her property.

    “To me, the message being sent is that the rural voice is no longer wanted or needed,” she said.

    Robinson implored the commission to deny the map or, to at least defer it to allow creative conversation to “keep Richland County a great place to live.” 

    “What smart growth looks like to me is being respectful of the homes in the community and the people who have supported and have been the cornerstone of this very county,” she said.

    Matt Neece, the policy coordinator with Carolina Farms Stewardship Association – a two-state nonprofit that serves and advocates for small and medium-sized family farms in both Carolinas –  said members from Eastover to Blythewood who have 15 to 25-acre multi-generational farms that were farmed for the last 100-150 years, recently alerted him to letters they received from Richland County inferring that their farms would no longer be farms under the new zoning. 

    In a sarcastic interpretation of the county’s letters, Neece mocked, “You (farmers) must be mistaken.  This is not a multi-generational farm you have here.  This is, in fact, a hobby farm.  Those 20 pigs you have on your property may look like livestock, but they’re actually pets.”

    The audience laughed, but the county’s message seemed painful to hear.

    Neese said that South Carolina’s Right to Farm Act prohibits counties from implementing stricter regulations than the state legislature imposes on what farmers can do with their property. Neece warned of possible lawsuits that may come if small family farmers are forced out of business. He cautioned the planning commission to keep the existing “agri” zoning classifications.

    A number of speakers and others in the audience from the Ballentine area near Lake Murray wore “No Rezoning” T-shirts. They expressed the concerns of many others that infrastructure in their area is already inadequate to support the density that exists today, and that the proposed zoning to an area already established with single-family residences is not appropriate for multi-family duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. 

    Pam Selkinghaus and Donna Cole from that area submitted “No Rezoning” petitions with 1,334 names.

    There were also speakers from within towns and cities who feared the rezoning of county “donut holes” within their municipalities.

    Forrest Acres town councilman Tommy Andrews expressed concerns related to multi-family units being built in “donut holes” in Forest Acres neighborhoods already established with single-family residences. 

    “I don’t think this is a lake problem or rural problem or a Forest Acres problem.  I think it’s a Land Use Table and Map problem,” Andrews said.

    Shawn Greenwood, city administrator for Forest Acres and Andrews also expressed procedural concerns related to the effective date of the new code.  The code has already been passed, eliminating RU, for example, but the map is not and won’t be decided for some time. That leaves both residents and developers in a conundrum about how properties are currently zoned. The codes do not go into effect until the map is approved.

    Several citizens in the real estate business spoke against the plan, including one who develops small rural subdivisions with large lots to the west of Blythewood.

    “With all the “regs”, realtor Vanessa Patrick said, ”I can’t make it work. Kill the map, do a re-write.”

    Because of density restrictions to be imposed in more rural areas, an Eastover resident stated that privileges currently tied to land zoned RU (rural) would be removed and would prohibit subdividing to create ¾ parcels to give as heir property to their children. 

    A frequently repeated concern of those attending was that approving the new map, which would result in rezoning all parcels in unincorporated Richland County, would strip county council’s ability to approve or deny much of the new development, thus limiting council’s ability to manage growth.

    Richland County Planning Commission listened to more than two dozen citizens opposed to the county planning staffs’ mass rezoning plan.

    Following the public comment period, planning staff stated that council is currently scheduled to have a first reading and zoning public hearing on the proposed zoning map on April 26. 

    When Chairman Jason Branham called on commissioners for questions and comments, most expressed serious concerns related to the map and the proposed zoning classifications. 

    At the end of the meeting Branham read a lengthy prepared statement (posted on The Voice’s website at blythewoodonline.com) identifying a number of discrepancies and issues he saw in the Land Development Code as well as an aggressive increase in density.

    Branham said the result of approving the map would be “materially modifying existing practices, which involve the naturally increased time given to a typical individual rezoning application. [That time] involves a site-specific application, communications with staff, review and input and recommendation with the planning commission, hearing from the community and review and input and vote by council, which is often accompanied by community meetings and site-specific agreements as to development.” 

    Branham stated that he could not “in good conscience vote to approve the proposed map…”

    Commissioner Frierson then made a motion to defer action until the commission could have additional work sessions prior to their regular May 2 meeting.  The vote was unanimous.

    What is not known, is how the delay of the approval or denial of the proposed map will affect the dates of when the new zoning codes will take effect.

  • Pedestrian dies after being hit on Fairfield Road

    COLUMBIA – The Richland County Coroner’s Office is asking for the public’s help in identifying a man who was killed in a hit-and-run crash. The man died April 1, Coroner Naida Rutherford said. 

    The unidentified man was walking along Fairfield Road (U.S. 321) about 3 a.m. when he was hit by an unknown vehicle in the northbound lane, according to the South Carolina Highway Patrol. 

    The vehicle left the scene after the collision. The crash happened near the intersection with Sharpe Road, which is about a mile from Exit 70 on Interstate 20. 

    The coroner’s office said the man is black, about 6- to 6-foot-3 tall and is believed to be in his 30s or 40s. The man had a shaved head and a tattoo of the initials “BMS” on his right arm, according to the coroner’s office.

    Anyone with information about the man is asked to call (803) 576-1793. The crash is being investigated by the Highway Patrol.

  • Whitaker falsely accuses Taylor of adding fee for solid waste to budget

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County Administrator Malik Whitaker falsely blamed his predecessor for an ongoing dispute over solid waste fees.

    On Monday night, Whitaker called out Jason Taylor, now town manager for Winnsboro, for creating the fee and including it in the county’s 2021-2022 budget.

    Whitaker

    “It should be noted that former County Administrator [Jason] Taylor suggested, supported and approved this uniform user fee during his tenure as Fairfield County administrator,” Whitaker stated.

    Whitaker’s claim, however, is incorrect.

    Council minutes reviewed by The Voice state that council members, not Taylor, voted to insert the solid waste fee into the current county budget.

    “I did not create the fee. That fee was not instituted by me,” Taylor said. “That fee was put on a list of things that county council wanted to include in the budget.”

    Whitaker’s gaffe comes in response to the town seeking a meeting with the county to try to resolve the solid waste dispute.

    The Town of Winnsboro has not paid the fee since the fee’s adoption July 1, 2021. Fairfield says the town owes nearly $62,000, though the town has said it doesn’t plan to pay.

    Last month, the town adopted a resolution vehemently objecting to the county fee, saying it’s essentially a double charge since town residents also pay county property taxes for solid waste services.

    Whitaker took issue with the town requesting a meeting only after refusing to pay the fee and adopting a resolution hinting at legal action. Whitaker said he thought the town should have paid the fee first, and then requested a meeting.

    Taylor said the town was following the advice of its attorneys.

    “We structured our actions after consulting our legal counsel,” Taylor said.

    Whitaker gaffed further by questioning why Taylor only now opposes the solid waste fee without providing any evidence that his predecessor [Taylor] ever supported it.

    “He has not told me why this uniform fee was appropriate in the budget ordinance when he was Fairfield County administrator, but now as town manager of Winnsboro, it is now inappropriate,” Whitaker said. “I think it is important for him to clarify his change in position.”

    Taylor said there is no position to change, reiterating that he never created, supported or proposed the solid waste fee in the first place.

    “[The fee] was not in the budget that I presented, but they (council members) voted to put it in,” Taylor said.

    How the fee really originated

    During typical budget years, individual council members add items to the budget under what’s called the motions list.

    On April 26, 2021, Councilman Mikel Trapp requested to add the $63 per ton solid waste fee to the motions list, according to council meeting minutes from that date.

    Councilwoman Shirley Greene seconded that request, minutes show.

    “County council members request things to go on the motion list. The staff puts together the budget,” Taylor said. “That [the fee] was one of the items one of the council members wanted to include.”

    On April 26, Councilman Neal Robinson raised similar concerns about the fee being a double charge.

    “A concern was brought to me by a few constituents that we’d possibly be charging county citizens who live in the city almost like double,” Robinson said. “If you kind of think about it, it is true. We typically don’t charge the citizens in the county for trash services.”

    During that meeting, Council Chairman Moses Bell countered that the fee is justified.

    “The Town of Winnsboro, as I understand it, charges for trash pickup,” Bell said. “Because they charge for trash pickup, the only thing they’d be doing here is, just like any business owner, they’d have to pay for it.”

    Winnsboro, however, doesn’t charge for trash pickup. The town only charges a nominal fee to cover the cost of transporting curbside trash to the dumping site.

    In the end, Fairfield County Council voted last spring to add the solid waste fee. The overall budget ordinance vote passed by a slim 4-3 margin.