Blog

Good Sam, Others ‘Frozen’ at 14-15 Levels

WINNSBORO – In a complete reversal of last week’s consensus following a final budget work session, County Council Monday night sliced into a laundry list of social program allocations before passing third and final reading of the 2015-2016 budget.

Although the cuts were part of a recommendation by County Administrator Milton Pope as an alternative to levying a new roads maintenance fee, Council passed the budget with the fee intact.

To Fee or Not to Fee

Talk of the fee first surfaced during Council’s May 7 budget work session, and came at the suggestion of the County Transportation Committee (CTC), according to Pope. The proposed $5 a year on personal vehicles and $10 a year on commercial vehicles, which would be added to Fairfield County car tax bills, would raise an estimated $123,570 to provide maintenance on County improved roads and dirt roads.

An effort to squash the fee and replace it with savings from within the budget came from Council members Walter Larry Stewart (District 3), Dan Ruff (District 1) and Billy Smith (District 7), prompting Pope to dig into the budget. At Council’s June 1 work session, Pope brought forward an option to cut into Council’s cell phone budget, meals for Council, meals and lodging for the Administrator and the County attorney, dues and membership fees for the Administrator, unemployment insurance and fuel for County vehicles. The option also included freezing allocations at 2014-2015 levels for the Good Samaritan House, the Board of Disabilities and Special Needs, Transitions, the American Red Cross and the Chameleon Inspirations Learning Center.

After considerable discussion of the alternative (see the June 5 edition of The Voice), Council decided against the cuts by a 4-3 consensus, leaving the road maintenance fee as is. Chairwoman Carolyn Robinsons (District 2) was the deciding voice, siding with Kamau Marcharia (District 4), Mary Lynn Kinley (District 6) and Marion Robinson (District 5).

By Monday night, however, both Robinsons had flipped.

“It was a snap decision,” Chairwoman Robinson said after the meeting. “Go back and check. Carolyn’s always had problems with those gifts. This is not my first rodeo to say ‘no’.”

A handful of citizens spoke out against the fee during the firsts public comment portion of the meeting, including District 2 resident Beth Jenkins, District 4 resident Jeff Schaffer and District 3 residents William Coleman, Wanda Carnes and Debra Matthews.

“We have people living in this county paycheck to paycheck,” Matthews said. “They can’t pay their utility bills. Those are the folks who that $5 will affect. I cannot believe you cannot get $124,000 out of an over $30 million budget. I don’t buy it.”

Night of the Long Knives

Smith’s motion cut $1,250 each from the American Red Cross and the Chameleon Learning Center and $2,500 each from the Good Samaritan House and Transitions. His motion also included cuts of $5,000 each, not recommended by Pope, to the Eau Claire Health Cooperative, the Boys and Girls Club and the Harvest Hope Food Bank.

Smith stressed that the reductions were not actual cuts, but a freezing of funds at last year’s levels. Thus, Good Samaritan’s allocation will stand at $25,000; Transitions at $2,500; the Red Cross at $3,750; Chameleon at $4,000; and Eau Claire at $55,000.

The Boys and Girls Club and Harvest Hope were new allocations proposed in this year’s budget and will therefore receive zero dollars from the County in 2015-2016. No reductions were made to the Board of Disabilities and Special Needs, which will receive $43,000 (up from $32,000 last year).

Pope reported to Council that the cuts represented a reduction of $29,100, and his calculations included a reduction of $1,350 from the recreation budget for promotional supplies – another motion by Smith; however, one that failed to carry on a 3-4 vote, with only Smith, Ruff and Stewart voting in favor.

Pope told The Voice Tuesday via email that the vote on the $1,350 was not “officially recorded,” although The Voice’s recording of the proceedings indicate that it was.

“As a means to clarify Council’s wishes, I specifically went through all of the proposed budget reductions in the Smith motion(s) to make sure members knew what they were voting on and voting for,” Pope wrote. “Council then ‘officially’ voted (raising of their hand) on the reductions, which included the $1,350.  This reduction is reflected in the final general fund budget total number.”

The Chairwoman said the cuts, based on Pope’s original calculation of $29,100, would translate as a savings to taxpayers of approximately one half of one cent on their tax bills.

Smith also pushed through a motion to reduce Council’s cell phone line item by $5,250, which passed on a 6-1 vote. Marcharia, while he said he was not on the County’s cell phone plan, voted against the measure.

Smith also moved to reduce line items for County Council catered and prepared meals; County attorney meals and lodging; County Administrator dues and memberships; and County Administrator meals and lodging by $500 each for a total of $2,000.

“I just find it absurd to attack this kind of petty little stuff,” Marcharia said before the vote.

The catered meals, Chairwoman Robinson said, included County sponsored functions, like Industry Appreciation Night and next week’s intergovernmental meeting.

“The other night we had a very nice event for industry appreciation that we had not had in two years to thank all the companies, so I guess that takes that out as well,” she said prior to the vote.

After the motion failed to carry on a 3-4 vote, with only Smith, Ruff and Stewart voting in favor, Robinson addressed the freshmen Council members.

“You’ve been here five months,” she said. “You have no idea how much we have to meet with other folks in order to build a relationship.”

‘Enough Talk’

Once the pruning knives had been put away, Kinley moved to approve the slightly leaner budget with the fee still in place and a 2 percent cost of living increase for County employees, to include countywide elected officials. Marion Robinson offered a second just as Stewart tried to be recognized.

“Before we do that I have an additional motion,” Stewart said.

Marcharia noted that there was a motion on the floor, and Kinley asked the Chairwoman to call for the question.

“You need to understand what I’m getting ready to do,” Stewart said.

“But you can’t do that,” Marcharia said. “She’s called for the question.”

“No, no, no, no, no,” Stewart said. “We are not – it appears that she is trying to approve something that I am not prepared to approve, and she’s trying to close out the discussion.”

“We’ve had enough discussion,” Kinley said.

Chairwoman Robinson called for a vote on the call for the question, which passed 4-3, with Stewart, Ruff and Smith voting against. Robinson then called for a final vote on the budget, which passed along the same lines, 4-3.

“My motion as going to be to remove the $123,570 for the road maintenance fee,” Stewart said afterwards. “Just take it totally out of the budget.”

Near the close of the meeting, during County Council time, Stewart questioned the final vote.

“We had motions to amend,” Stewart, addressing the Chairwoman, said. “You recognized Mrs. Kinley before us and accepted her motion, which shut us out of the process. That was patently unfair and very irregular, and I question whether what we have done after that is illegal, because of the procedure that you used.

“In a budget of $35 million, this ($123,570), that is less than two-tenths of 1 percent,” he continued. “I know in this budget somewhere there is some excess that we could have looked at, instead of putting an additional burden, an addition levy on the citizens.”

Ruff said he was also disappointed Council did not eliminate the road fee. Smith agreed, but said Kinley’s move was a parliamentary one that was just “part of the process.”

“We just lost on that one,” Smith said.

Smith also said Council should take a harder look at how it handles allocations overall.

“At some point I think this Council needs to have a discussion about not continuing to take money from citizens and then give it to something else,” Smith said. “We can take money away from folks just as well as we can give to them, or take away from them less as well as we can give them more. This is just taking money from folks and sending it somewhere else. At some point we have to think a little bit less about spending and spending and spending and we have to think about cutting.”

 

BLYTHEWOOD – After some intense questioning by members of the Town’s Accommodation Tax (A-Tax) Committee about how some organizations have spent money awarded to them from the A-Tax fund in past years, Committee members tightened up the rules last week for organizations applying for those funds in the future. The Committee voted unanimously June 3 to require all applicants to start providing receipts for all expenses for events receiving A-Tax funding.

According to the motion, if applicants fail to attach those receipts to a financial report 90 days following the close of the funded event, 20 percent of their approved funds will be withheld and they will not be considered for future funding.

In the past, the Committee has required recipients of A-Tax awards to report only generally on the event for which the money was awarded. The reports contained information such as copies of advertising, how the Town of Blythewood was recognized, a list of sponsors and a general summary of the event results. While awards are limited specifically to those events that draw tourists, a review by The Voice of final reports from last year’s events revealed some subjective accounts of the number of tourists in attendance but rarely any corroboration for those numbers.

“We need to see (a financial reporting) when these applicants come back,” Committee Member Carol Coston said, “because only then can we evaluate whether there is value in continuing to fund them.”

Moving on from questions about past reporting, the Committee awarded the full amounts requested by all of this year’s applicants.

The Committee approved $15,000 for the Doko Rodeo after some clarification by applicant Buck Coggins as to whether the number of estimated ticket sales ($20,000) matched the 5,000 – 6,000 people he estimated would be attending the rodeo. Ticket prices for adults are $15 at the door and $12 in advance; tickets for children ages 6-12 are $5, and children under 6 are admitted free.

Coggins said at least 1,000 of the tickets issued would be complimentary, another 1,000 attendees will be children and about 500 of the attendees are the rodeo workers.

While the Committee approved $10,000 requested by the Tournament of Bands, Committee member Ken Shettles questioned how the event managed to have a profit of only $5,000 on concessions over a 12-hour period with a $12,000 expenditure.

“You are making less than a 5 percent profit,” said Committee Chairman Davis Garren . “You should be making at least 30 percent with this expenditure.”

Blythewood High School band director Jim Bonner, representing the Tournament, said that was an area he was trying to improve on.

The Committee approved $400 for music at the Christmas Tree Lighting and $2,000 for the Big Grab event in September. The Holiday Market, under the umbrella of Bravo Blythewood, asked for $4,000 this year, $2,000 more than last year to be spent for advertising.

The largest payout was to the Diamond Invitational baseball tournament in the amount of $20,000 – $10,000 more than requested last year. Committee members questioned the $10,000 increase while the Tournament’s expenses were increasing only $4,000. Dennis Ballentine, representing the group, explained that the Tournament was adding two more teams for a total of 12 teams next year.

The Committee funded the upcoming July 3 Independence Day celebration in Doko Park with $7,500 to cover the cost of tents, sheriff’s deputies, entertainment, advertising, an event planner and decorations. The fireworks were already paid for since the New Year’s Eve fireworks event in the park was cancelled (due to inclement weather in January) and moved, instead, to the July 3 date. Ken Shettles, owner of Chuggers and co-sponsor of the event with the Town, said he expects an attendance of about 2,000.

In other business, Steve Hasterok, Director of Events at The Manor, said the Town is in the preliminary planning stages for a barbecue competition for local vendors in late October. He said the event would include certified S.C. barbecue judges and that more information would be forthcoming.

The seven members of the A-Tax Committee are required by state law to include two people from the hotel industry, one from a cultural organization and the remainder a mix of hospitality businesses such as restaurants.

 

Mayor Asks for Financial Records

BLYTHEWOOD – The Town of Blythewood is in “excellent” financial shape, but the Chamber of Commerce is not.

At a special called meeting of the Blythewood Town Council on Tuesday, the future development of The Manor, the financial problems facing the Greater Blythewood Chamber of Commerce and the future finances of the municipality were discussed.

The Chamber has been struggling financially and wants Town Council to increase funding in an effort to continue the momentum of their work, President Wendy Broderick told Council at the meeting.

“We are on the cusp of something really great,” she said. “Our activity has grown, participation has grown. We want to get to the point where we are self-sustaining.”

To do that, Broderick said the Chamber needs $19,000, the majority of which will go to fund staff and administration.

“We feel strongly, with that level of support, you are going to see the growth we have seen in the last 18 months,” she said. “We are looking at twice that. It (the funding) would be a real shot in the arm.”

The Town gave the Chamber $9,000 last year.

Mayor J. Michael Ross questioned the larger amount of funding being requested, while commending the work of the organization. Ross asked that the Chamber’s books be made available.

“That’s a lot of money, $19,000,” he said. “I’d like to see the revenues of the Chamber. What is the operating budget?”

Broderick said the Chamber’s financial situation sees the Chamber unable to meet the obligations of their scholarship fund and will see their meeting schedule truncated.

One matter the Chamber is trying to transition away from – one that Broderick said has previously funded scholarships – is that of the Blythewood Christmas Parade. The Chamber receives about $7,000 from the Town’s Hospitality Taxes each year, which is about the same amount of money they give out in scholarships.

“The Board had a discussion to see if another organization would be a better fit to take (control of the parade),” Broderick told Council. But the business advocate organization has failed to find a replacement host for the Parade.

The Budget

Council passed first reading on a $1,316,534 budget for FY 2015-16, down from the current $1,447,651 budget.

“It certainly is a substantial change from the current year budget,” Town Administrator Gary Parker said. “I believe it is a realistic budget. It shows you what the costs are.”

In the budget analysis, Parker highlighted the costs associated with the running and upkeep of The Manor which came to $210,000. With $84,855 revenue from rental and equipment fees, it is proposed to transfer $10,000 from the General Fund and $115,895 from Hospitality Taxes for the Manor to break even. The most significant changes for the Manor were above-budgeted salary expenditures for operations staff, specifically those setting up events and cleaning staff.

The 2015-16 Operating and Enterprise Fund Budgets were also passed on first reading. Council asked for a breakdown of the costs of professional services at the June 29 meeting for individual service outlays for Economic Development, information technology consultants, VC3 IT consultants and others.

“Personally, I would like to see a much more detailed plan for what they plan on using this money for,” Mayor Pro Tem Bob Massa said.

New Offices

Parker led discussions surrounding the proposed construction of two offices at The Manor complex. On one side of the argument, it was said that the offices are necessary for the competitive running of the facility. Some councilmen expressed fear that business would be lost with no physical presence of the Town at The Manor.

On the other side, Councilman Tom Utroska, describing himself as the “doubting Thomas,” said he felt the offices were not necessary and should not be a priority with other, outstanding capital projects.

“We need to pay for those capital projects before we do this,” he said.

“There is no question on the money,” Parker explained, describing the financial health of Blythewood as excellent. “We have more than the money to do this. We can easily proceed with this.”

Parker said the project is a relatively small one, with a cost of around $50,000. The project will be discussed more at the next full council meeting to include engaging an architect to examine proposals.

It was also discussed whether the offices could be paid for with $340,000 Utility Tax Credit Grant Funds left from the Town’s now defunct restaurant project. However, Town Attorney Jim Meggs said he believes that these funds can only be used for projects specifically related to economic development purposes. He said the grant must be used by the Town and that the project must be approved by the South Carolina Department of Revenue before it begins.

“How soon can we have a project identified and ready for proposal?” Utroska asked. “I’m scared to death it (the money) will sit there for two to three years and then we will have to give it back, pay taxes on it and pay interest. And I don’t want to leave it for another, quote-unquote, administration.”

“Certainly it is in our best interest to move forward with this,” Parker added.

Analyzing the Manor

Events and Conference Center Director Steve Hasterok explained that he has undertaken a competitive analysis for The Manor, looking to maximize revenues from rental of the Manor, comparing it to similar facilities and competitors.

“The whole idea is to price the manor competitively. Not the most expensive, not the cheapest,” he said.

Priced around $3,000 for 12-hour weekend day rental such as a wedding would require, Hasterok said he was confident that the facility would have paying customers 40 weekends a year. He also proposed raising the rates for business use and changing Sunday rental costs to be in line with weekday rates, rather than more expensive weekend rates, in order to attract more Church and social groups.

The competitive analysis will include nearby venues, such as the Cobblestone Country Club Ballroom, The Farm at Ridgeway, the Columbiana Center in Irmo; and downtown Columbia venues such as 701 Whaley and the Capital City Club. Hasterok will bring his proposed changes before the June 29 Town Council Meeting.

All-Star Tournament

Finally, Council agreed to fund the Blythewood Baseball/Softball League with $1,000 to host an All-Star Tournament for teams of 8- and 9-year-olds, but had significant reservations regarding the care of the fields and surrounding areas.

“Let (the organizer) know what he can do, and that is keep the fields clean,” said Councilman Eddie Baughman. “I want to see that additional overflow parking used. I think the trash is an issue. The parking is a definitive issue. I’d like to see somebody take responsibility for those. They need to know that if they do not follow through, it could jeopardize their funding.”

 

Ordinance: Raise Must Include Countywide Officials

WINNSBORO – A 2 percent cost of living increase for County employees that excluded countywide elected officials in the second reading of the 2015-2016 budget was revised by Council during a May 26 work session after administration uncovered a five-year-old ordinance that tied Council’s hands.

Interim County Administrator Milton Pope recommended the pay raise during a May 7 work session, but Councilman Billy Smith (District 7) balked at including the elected offices of Probate Judge, Tax Auditor, Treasurer, Clerk to Court, Coroner and Sheriff.

“For the elected officials,” Smith said, “they knew what the salary was when they ran and they don’t have to run again.”

Four of the seven Council members, including Mary Lynn Kinley (District 6), agreed. However, during a continuation of those discussions on May 11, Kinley asked Council to hold off on a final decision until the administration could present a comparison with other counties.

“We need to keep a good relationship with our elected officials,” Kinley said. “I’d like to see what other counties, neighboring counties and counties our size, do first.”

The elected officials were excluded from the pay increase in the version of the budget that passed second reading on May 11. During the May 26 work session, however, Deputy Administrator Davis Anderson produced a 2010 ordinance that requires Council to include those offices in any cost of living increases granted to County employees. Anderson also told Council that, according to his conversations with the S.C. Association of Counties, no other counties excluded elected offices from cost of living increases.

“Unfortunately, with that ordinance out there, if we’re going to give anybody that 2 percent cost of living, then the elected officials have to get it, in my mind,” Smith said.

Pope said the County was preparing to embark upon a compensation study, which he said would reveal a large portion of County employees earning salaries below market value. A small 2 percent increase now, he said, would help move those salaries in the right direction and do so incrementally, avoiding a huge jolt to the payroll all at one time in the near future.

Pope also said the County was planning to move toward a performance-based system for pay increases in the future, once the compensation study had been completed. Councilman Walter Larry Stewart (District 3), however, suggested any pay increase could wait on the study to be completed.

“The more you talk, the more uncomfortable I become with this 2 percent and your study and all those things that are going on,” Stewart said. “I think we’ve gotten a little ahead of ourselves. If we are going to implement a performance-based salary system where the raises come through that, then maybe that’s what we need to do.

“But then the other point becomes,” Stewart continued, “why go throw a 2 percent out there and go back and do a performance based system after? We’ve got to get some things lined up first before we go throwing money out there.”

The issue on the table, Pope said, was the 2 percent cost of living increase he had recommended in the 2015-2016 budget. A performance-based system, he said, would have to come before Council as a separate item that Council would then have to fund.

“This is not, in my opinion, in any way putting the cart before the horse,” Pope said. “We are doing something at a minimum now, just to address that the county hasn’t had any type of (cost of living increase) for the past five to six years.”

“You’re talking about giving a 2 percent increase right now,” Stewart said. “Then you’re talking about looking at the performance based … then if we implement that, then we’re talking about another raise.”

“That’s prospective,” Pope replied.

“You just sat there and said we are way behind on this,” Stewart countered. “It’s a little bit puzzling to me about what we’re trying to do.”

“If we do the 2 percent (cost of living increase) for everybody now,” Chairwoman Carolyn Robinson (District 2) broke in, “and then what we’re talking about down the road is this study and a performance-based system, that’s called long range. It’s not going to be hammered out overnight. That’s something we put on our check-off list to start working toward for another year.”

Anderson told Council that administration would be meeting with the County’s department heads next month to begin putting an evaluation system back in place, one that would evaluate employees over the fiscal year to coincide with the budget.

“We’ll wait on our compensation study, and next budget come back to you with a full-fledged plan on how we’re going to roll this out,” Anderson said.

“If you don’t get the compensation study done, you really cannot have a plan,” Councilman Marion Robinson (District 5) agreed. “You’ve got to know where you stand.”

As Council considered the 2 percent increase for the elected offices, Councilman Dan Ruff (District 1) questioned the $60,000 salary of the County Coroner.

“That one really sticks out,” Ruff said. “We’re more than double most other like-sized (counties), and not too far from Richland County.”

Chairwoman Robinson said Council last year elected to bring the Coroner’s Office in line with the other countywide elected offices.

“Well, we’re not in line with other counties,” Ruff said. “None of that makes sense to me.”

Smith, while he said he did not necessarily disagree with Ruff, said the Coroner’s salary itself was a separate matter and urged Council to focus on the 2 percent at hand and the implementation of that increase across the board, elected officials included.

“I do believe our employees are deserving of the 2 percent,” Pope said. “And we’re doing this within a no tax increase budget. Hopefully that’s not being lost.”

The question, then, boiled down to raising everyone’s salary or raising no one’s salary.

“We need to do what the ordinance says,” Smith said. “We hold people accountable based off our ordinances, we ought to be held accountable based off of them also. Whether I agree with the end result or not is another topic for another day.”

Council agreed to include the pay raises in the June 8 third reading of the budget.

Council Balks at Funding Alternatives

WINNSBORO – A move by three freshmen County Council members to kill a proposed road maintenance fee recommended for the 2015-2016 budget failed to garner enough support during work session talks Monday night, with the majority of Council members looking unfavorably on alternative methods to raise the funds.

Talk of the fee first surfaced during Council’s May 7 budget work session, and came at the suggestion of the County Transportation Committee (CTC), according to Milton Pope, Interim County Administrator. The proposed $5 a year on personal vehicles and $10 a year on commercial vehicles, which would be added to Fairfield County car tax bills, would raise an estimated $123,570 to provide maintenance on County improved roads and dirt roads.

The fee was included in the second reading of the budget, which cleared Council on May 11. Councilman Kamau Marcharia (District 4), while voting with the majority on second reading, indicated some hesitancy to fully support the fee.

“You can call it a ‘fee’ if you want to,” Marcharia said after the May 11 meeting, “but it’s still a tax.”

But by the May 26 work session, Marcharia was fully on board.

“I want Council to know that I do support it after studying it for a while,” Marcharia said. “From what I understand in this county, we have over 300 miles of dirt roads. That’s enough to take you to Washington, D.C. and probably halfway back. I think it’s a service to the community to have this service.”

The effort to squash the fee and replace it with savings from within the budget came from Council members Walter Larry Stewart (District 3), Dan Ruff (District 1) and Billy Smith (District 7). Stewart, during the May 26 session, said the road maintenance fee violated Council’s promise of a “no tax, no fee increase” budget.

“But we have passed a fee increase on that road use situation,” Stewart said. “So we either need to go back and find some money to cover that or we have violated the original guidance.”

Chairwoman Carolyn Robinson (District 2) noted that there was a difference between a tax and a fee, a legal difference also pointed out by Pope following second reading. A ‘tax,’ Pope said, goes into the general fund of a governing entity, to be comingled with other funds and used at the discretion of that entity. A ‘fee,’ he said, is assigned to the specific use for which it was adopted by ordinance.

Pope added on May 26 that, while he had told Council at the outset of the budgeting process that a responsible budget would be possible without a tax increase, the fee was a different matter.

“The fee was something that came about primarily after the CTC meeting,” Pope said, “and we were asked to invest and create some kind of fund . . . to be able to treat these secondary roads we’re improving.”

“But it’s still an increase,” Stewart said.

Ruff said that although he saw the need for road maintenance fund, he would rather find the funds from within the existing budget.

“We need to create a fund to maintain roads. I get that,” Ruff said. “I just don’t want to burden taxpayers more. If we could get it from within, I’m OK with that.”

Pope and staff were tasked with finding those potential savings, which he presented to Council Monday. The cuts included a reduction of nearly $40,000 in fuel expenses for County vehicles, as well as a reduction in unemployment insurance by $10,000. Pope also said allocations to the Good Samaritan House, the Board of Disabilities and Special Needs, the American Red Cross and the Chameleon Learning Center had been pared back to 2014-2015 levels.

“I see nothing wrong with this, with the understanding as we go through the year, if we have to go back and re-look these, then we’ll do it,” Stewart said. “But as it stands here, this looks good to me.”

Councilman Marion Robinson (District 5), however, said fuel cuts made him uncomfortable.

“Just in Fairfield County today, the prices went up 10 cents a gallon,” he said. “If it came up during the year and this stuff spikes like I think it’s going to do, where are we going to get that money from?”

Pope said additional cuts in spending could handle a small increase in fuel prices, but any significant spike would require Council to revisit the budget.

Both Marcharia and Councilwoman Mary Lynn Kinley (District 6) questioned the wisdom of cutting into social programs in order to offset the fee, and both Council members said they had received no negative feedback on the proposed fee after discussions with their constituents.

“The Good Samaritan House, they’re the only ones in town who give money to folks who need it for their utilities,” Kinley said. “There are a lot of good services here. The Board of Disabilities, they run a very, very tight budget. I hate for us to cut these services and disturb this many accounts in this county. I feel like we need to leave that alone, let everybody pay this $5 or $10 charge and take care of our roads and move on. We don’t need to upset the lives of a lot of other people.”

But Ruff and Stewart pointed out that the proposed changes to the allocations were not cuts.

“We’re not cutting their budgets,” Stewart said. “All we’re doing is freezing them at the 2015 level. We’re letting the stay the same as they were.”

When Smith asked why allocations of $5,000 each to the Boys and Girls Club, Harvest Hope and the Eau Claire Health Cooperative had not been touched, Pope said, “The simple answer is that when we got to the number $123,570, then I stopped.”

“I’m not so sure we shouldn’t go and do the same with all of them,” Ruff said. “Make it fair.”

Smith agreed, suggesting the $15,000 could go back into the fuel account.

Council was facing difficult and unpleasant choices, Chairwoman Robinson said; choices she blamed on unfunded mandates handed down to the County from the state. The CTC, she said, is appointed by the local legislative delegation, and is in control of funds raised by the state’s gas tax.

“We’ve been told there was no more money to go back and resurface any of the roads,” Robinson said. “Guess who’s the closets person who’s going to hear the complaints about these resurfaced roads? County Council. And our hands are tied. If the state does not soon put some money into these county and state roads, we’re going to be back to horse-and-buggy days where it’s nothing but dirt again.

“Five dollars won’t even buy a pack of cigarettes,” she said. “It might buy a good cold beer. A lottery ticket. You’re talking about (paying it) one time in 365 days.”

With the final consensus split evenly between Smith, Ruff and Stewart in opposition and Marcharia, Kinley and Marion Robinson in favor, Chairwoman Robinson threw in with the proponents of the fee.

“And I know that I’m fixing to get the seventh threat from somebody in here about my election,” the Chairwoman, after her decision, said.

Third reading on the budget, which will include the road maintenance fee, will be held during Council’s June 8 meeting.

 

COG: Cultivate Relationship with Winnsboro

BLYTHEWOOD – Blythewood’s Planning Commission took its first look at the town’s updated Comprehensive Plan Monday. Highlighting the major challenges of a residential, commuter community that has grown tenfold since 2000, the Plan looks at the needs of the area where population increases and the demand for water and sewer capacity have outstripped estimates.

The document is the story of future development in the area and was summarized for the Planning Commission by Central Midlands Council of Governments Director of Research, Planning and Government Gregory Sprouse.

“This gives us a look at the existing conditions on the ground today, what we see and what we do not see . . . and seeing how we want the town to grow in the following years,” Sprouse said, outlining the document’s scope. “You are in a unique situation. The town does not own water and sewer infrastructure and relies on other entities. It is imperative that water and sewer development goes hand-in-hand with (continued expansion).”

Affordable housing and control over water and sewer capacity were the two areas of most focus Monday. With a high average income, an aging population and quickly expanding residential developments, but no ownership of water and sewer infrastructure, Sprouse stressed the importance of “cultivating the relationships” with current water supplier, the Town of Winnsboro, current sewer provider Palmetto Utilities and potential sewer provider, the City of Columbia.

The first viewing of the long-awaited document, which must be updated every five years, was an introduction to changes by Sprouse and more of a summary for the Commissioners than a thorough examination.

“It’s just nice to see something. It’s been two years,” said Commissioner Mike Switzer.

Commission Chairman Malcom Gordge suggested that “work groups” come together to polish the document over the next weeks, so an error-free version could be offered to town council following the Planning Commission’s July meeting.

Outside of the overview of the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission also voted unanimously to rezone 636 acres of land, which runs along Community Road, to Light Industrial 2 (LI2). There was little discussion before the vote.

“This is a subject that has been discussed since I arrived here a year ago,” Town Administrator Gary Parker said. “It seemed reasonable to me to bring this up and make this proposal. I think we are all pretty versed with this.”

Finally, the Commission addressed the Town’s Landscaping, Buffer Yard and Tree Preservation Ordinance. Several tweaks to the expansive, extant ordinance have been discussed and minor changes to the language recommended. The changes would allow monies from the Town’s Tree Fund to be used for professional services directly related to the ordinance. Another change looks to document the removal of healthy trees by residents on their property.