Blythewood Online 691

Blog

  • County Planning Commission to Tweak Zoning Rule

    Rimer Pond Developer Held Back by Provision

    COLUMBIA – The Richland County Planning Commission voted on Monday to rewrite a portion of the County’s Rural Commercial zoning ordinance that has so far impeded Patrick Palmer, Chairman of the Planning Commission, from moving forward with his own request to rezone 5.23 acres of property on Rimer Pond Road from Medium Density Residential (RS-MD) zoning to Rural Commercial (RC) zoning.

    The property is part of a larger 31.23-acre property owned by Sycamore Development LLC. Palmer’s father, Hugh A. Palmer, is a principal in Sycamore Development LLC, and Patrick Palmer, a commercial realtor with NIA Avant Commercial Real Estate in Columbia, is representing his father’s company in the sale of the property, which is listed at $350,000 per acre.

    While the County planning staff recommended on April 6 that the Planning Commission vote to recommend to County Council that Palmer’s request for commercial rezoning be granted, the Planning Commission balked, citing the official ‘summary’ statement attached to the Rural Commercial zoning district ordinance. The summary, or purpose statement, describes areas best suited for Rural Commercial zoning. In describing those areas best suited for Rural Commercial zoning, the ‘summary’ identified, among other things: “the more isolated agricultural and rural residential districts and residents located beyond the limits of services of the municipalities . . .”

    At the April 6 meeting, a large group of residents opposing the proposed commercial zoning pointed out that the summary inaccurately described the area surrounding the property for which Palmer, the applicant, was requesting commercial zoning.

    Commissioner Beverly Frierson, one of four commissioners who voted against the commercial zoning request, agreed that the area in question is not isolated or located beyond the limits of service.

    “They are already well served by commercial conveniences,” Frierson said.

    Because of his conflict of interest in the property, Palmer recused himself from voting at that meeting and the Commission, with a 4-1 vote, sent the zoning request to County Council with a recommendation for denial. When the issue came before County Council on April 27, Chairman Torrey Rush stated that a large contingent of residents were there in opposition to the rezoning and asked that the issue be deferred without discussion until May 26 to allow the developer time to explain the proposed commercial development to the residents, even though the developer had at that time made no attempt to contact residents.

    The County planning staff then delayed the zoning request another month, to be heard at Council on June 23. The reason for that delay, as explained by County officials, was to allow the Planning Commission to review the wording of the summary section of the Rural Commercial zoning ordinance, which had been the culprit in the Commission’s recommendation for denial of the zoning request on April 6.

    After another month-long delay by the Planning Commission in reviewing the summary (because Palmer said he was not able to be present for the discussion), it was finally reviewed on Monday with the Commission’s unanimous recommendation for a rewrite of the summary at its July 6 meeting.

    Monday’s meeting was dominated by conversation between Palmer and County Planning Director Tracey Haigler, whose staff had backed Palmer’s rezoning request on April 6. Haigler’s microphone was inexplicably turned off at times during her discussions with Palmer so that her part of the conversation was inaudible to the audience, and she was asked by some Commission members to turn it back on.

    “Are we looking at modifying the code as a whole?” Palmer asked Haigler.

    “We are,” Haigler said, explaining further that, “the purpose statement has been used to either approve or deny something and we want to be sure it actually meets the intent of the Planning Commission.”

    While Haigler said she had requested funding for an outside consultant to rewrite the summary, she said funds were tight and that the rewrite would probably have to be done in-house by the staff and suggested the staff could work on that at the July meeting.

    Palmer argued that “This (summary) part of the code, it’s more of a theoretical issue.” He asked, “Should those (summaries) even be in the code?”

    “I agree that the intent is more of a theoretical intent of the code,” Haigler said, “but I’m just saying it’s been used as the basis for denial or approval (of zoning requests).”

    “Maybe we need to get a more definitive classification like, say, road classifications where we use vehicle trips per day,” Palmer suggested. “The term ‘isolated’ could mean anything less than 3,000 vehicle trips per day or maybe less than 12,000 trips per day.”

    The Planning Commission will next meet at 1 p.m. on July 3. A public hearing before County Council is scheduled for Palmer’s commercial zoning request at 7 p.m. on June 23.

    The zoning change requires three votes by council, each usually taken at a regular Council meeting. The public hearing, when the first vote is taken, is the only time the public is allowed to address the issue. If the Council votes to deny the request on any of the three votes, the request is not allowed to come back before the Planning Commission for a year.

    Both Planning Commission and Council meetings are held at the County Building at 2020 Hampton St. at the intersection of Hampton and Harden streets. To receive agendas and meeting packets for Planning Commission and Council meetings, call Suzi Haynes at 803-576-2176, or email her at haynessu@rcgov.us.

     

  • District Salary Study Gets Second Look

    WINNSBORO – Although the Fairfield County School Board conducted a comprehensive salary study just four years ago, and adopted a new salary schedule in 2011, Dr. J.R. Green, Superintendent, told the Board during their May 19 meeting that he intended to clean up what he called “inconsistencies” within that schedule.

    The Board on March 26, 2011 was presented with a recommendation from MGT Consultants on two different schedules, Green said – one with a 1.5 percent variance between steps, and another with a 3 percent variance between steps. But what the Board ultimately adopted, Green said, was not exactly what MGT had recommended.

    “It was parts of what was recommended,” Green said, “and parts of it I’m not quite clear how it was determined.”

    The schedule for middle school principals, Green said, was adopted with the recommended 1.5 percent step increases, although the recommended salary range was not adopted.

    “The salary range based on what was adopted was $54,785,” Green said, “while the recommended beginning salary based on MGT’s market analysis was $66,021.”

    MGT’s recommendation, Green said, would have put Fairfield in a more competitive position when compared to neighboring districts. Currently, a middle school assistant principal with a Master’s degree + 30 and six years’ experience earns $59,905 in Fairfield. In Richland/Lexington 5, that figure is $76,313; in Richland 1, $71,945 and in Richland 2, $71,588.

    “In terms of what MGT recommended, it put us not necessarily at the high end of the range, but it put us somewhere in the ball park,” Green said. “Currently we are not very competitive.”

    Green said there were also inconsistencies in the steps, as adopted by the Board in 2011.

    “What (MGT) recommended was a 1.5 percent variance between steps, or a 3 percent variance between steps,” Green said, “and we adopted parts of the 1.5 between steps, and other grades, kind of unexplainably, we have a variance of .7 percent, .9 percent, 1.2 percent, .8 percent, .6 percent, and it’s not even consistent across the board. So employees have a difficult time understanding how they move along the salary schedule.”

    Green said he also found that MGT had recommended an additional $1,000 for non-instructional personnel with a Master’s degree + 30, and $2,000 for non-instructional personnel with a doctorate degree. Those would also be included in his recommendation, he said.

    Teacher Salaries

    Green said that while teachers’ salaries lagged behind neighboring districts in year zero, Fairfield raises those salaries higher and faster than its neighbors. By year three, he said, Fairfield pays higher than Richland 1, Richland 2 and Richland/Lexington 5.

    “I think we’re going to make some recommendation to improve our competitive advantage when it comes to year one,” Green said. “One thing I’m bouncing around . . . is maybe a signing bonus and a retention bonus for year one and year two.”

    Green also told the Board that his forthcoming recommendation will only bring the District current with 2011 numbers originally recommended by MGT. A new study may be necessary in the near future, he said.

     

  • FAA Investigates Plane Crash

    WINNSBORO – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is investigating the May 20 crash of a single-engine, two-seater airplane near Camp Welfare Road.

    The crash occurred at approximately 10 a.m. when the pilot encountered complications while attempting to land. The plane went down in one of the parking lots of Carolina Adventure World, according to Fairfield County Sheriff Will Montgomery, whose deputies responded to the scene and secured the area before agents from the FAA could arrive.

    “There was significant damage to the aircraft, but all indications are that the pilot did not suffer any life-threatening injuries,” Montgomery said. “We’re just thankful that this did not have a more tragic outcome.”

    The FAA had not released the name of the pilot at press time, nor had they released the make and model of the aircraft or why the pilot was attempting to land a little more than 25 miles from the Fairfield County airport.

     

  • Cabin Carpenter’s Dream Meets Premature End

    Adolf Weitzel at work on his cabin in Alaska.
    Adolf Weitzel at work on his cabin in Alaska.

    NEAR ANCHOR POINT, ALASKA – At age 76, Adolf Weitzel of Ridgeway was living his dream – retired from the homebuilding industry, he was building a log cabin on 3 acres of coastal wilderness in Alaska. He was building the cabin off the land by himself. His story appeared in the Sept. 6, 2013 issue of The Voice. Because he could only work during the summer months while the weather was good, he arrived in Alaska in mid-May and stayed until mid-September.

    A week ago Saturday, on May 17, Weitzel once again arrived in Alaska, eager to begin his third summer of construction. But it was not to be. The morning after his arrival, according to his daughter-in-law Joanna Weitzel of Blythewood, as Weitzel was driving his 2006 Chevrolet pickup truck to pick up supplies for the cabin, he died of heart failure, crashing his truck into an unoccupied home. While no one else was injured in the accident, Weitzel appears to have died instantly, his daughter-in-law said.

    “A friend who picked Adolf up at the airport in Anchorage said he arrived in great spirits,” Joanna Weitzel told The Voice. “He had been out to the cabin and was happy to see that it had done well over the winter. He was eager to get started. Our family is heartbroken to lose Adolf and we are heartbroken that he did not get to fulfill his dream.”

    Joanna Weitzel said she is especially comforted that her children will have the memory of spending part of their summers in Alaska helping Adolf work on the cabin.

    But now the focus for the family is on how to finish Adolf’s dream. Joanna Weitzel said the family plans to complete the cabin but needs help in doing so.

    “We have several friends and family members who have volunteered their help,” she said. “We may not do the job Adolf would have done, but the plan is to get it finished.”

    Adolf is survived by his wife Annerose and daughter, Pat, who live in Ridgeway; a son, Steve (Joanna Weitzel’s husband) and their two children, Erin and Davis; and a granddaughter, Ashley Cox who resides in Greenwood.

    To help with the funding of the cabin’s construction and travel expenses, the family has set up a GoFundMe account. Anyone who wishes to contribute can go to http://www.gofundme.com/vh3h85n.

     

  • Truck Crashes into Business

    RIDGEWAY – Two patrons at a local convenience store narrowly escaped injury earlier this month when a pickup truck crashed through the front of the business, smashing brick and glass and crushing shelves of merchandise into the walk-in cooler.

    The incident occurred just before 8 p.m. on May 6 when a 2012 Toyota pickup truck driven by Andrew McKinstry, 67, of Longleaf Road in Ridgeway, slammed into the AM PM Food Mart at 7210 Highway 34. The S.C. Highway Patrol said McKinstry was in the parking lot of the business, facing south, and stepped on the gas instead of the brake. The Highway Patrol said McKinstry did have a valid driver’s license and that no charges were being filed in the accident.

    Victor Sharma, owner of the AM PM, told The Voice that more than $15,000 in merchandise had been destroyed in the wreck, while the store’s walk-in cooler had suffered significant damage. In all, the business suffered $60,000 in damages, Sharma said.

    Repairs were scheduled to begin this week, according to Sharma. The AM PM Food Mart will be open during construction, he said.

     

  • Hospital CEO Steps Down

    Mike Williams
    Mike Williams

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield Memorial Hospital, which is in the midst of merger negotiations with a larger, undisclosed Richland County hospital, will now also be in search of a new Chief Executive Officer. Mike Williams confirmed last week that he is stepping down as CEO, a position he has held for the last seven and a half years. Williams’ retirement is effective as of Aug. 31.

    “We wish him well in his retirement,” hospital board member Boyd Brown said. “The board will now put together a search committee and find a new CEO by Sept. 1.”

    Williams, who has been with Fairfield Memorial for 32 years, would not comment further on his retirement, but instead scheduled a face-to-face interview with The Voice for Tuesday afternoon. Tuesday morning, however, Williams’ office canceled that interview. Efforts to reach John McGraw, Chairman of the hospital board of directors, were also unsuccessful at press time.

    Fairfield Memorial has been in dire financial straits for at least the last three years and has been courting a larger Richland County facility for the last year. Following a joint meeting with County Council on Jan. 29, Williams told The Voice that while the negotiations with the facility were promising, time was of the essence.

    “It’s looking good,” Williams said after the meeting. “If something is going to happen it’s going to have to happen before June 15.”

    June 15 is the deadline for the hospital to utilize $15 million from the S.C. Department of Health and Human Services for assistance in the merger, Williams said.

    Last May, County Council offered a letter of support for the hospital in its efforts to court a partner, and in March of 2014 the County issued a $500,000 emergency loan to Fairfield Memorial just so the hospital could meet its payroll. As of at least last December, the hospital remained delinquent on its contributions to the S.C. Retirement System. The Board voted in October to pay the employee portion into the system on a monthly basis and to develop a plan to bring the employer portion up to date and keep it current.

    While the hospital has struggled financially in recent years, prompting the need for a merger, Tim Mitchell, the hospital’s Chief Financial Officer, said after the Jan. 29 meeting that Fairfield Memorial was actually projecting a profit for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2015.

    “At the end of the first quarter of this fiscal year we had a small loss of $215,000,” Mitchell said, “but last year (it) was a $727,000 loss for the three months a year ago. From (2013) to (2014) we’ve cut the loss from $1.1 (million) to $356,000.”

     

  • Committee to Study Board Pay

    WINNSBORO – The Fairfield County School Board, at their May 19 meeting, voted to form a committee to study increasing the Board’s $35 a month salary. The vote and discussion came after State Sen. Creighton Coleman (D-17) and State Rep. MaryGail Douglas (D-41), in whose hands the final decision for a pay raise rests, addressed the Board on the matter.

    “We’re open to anything,” Coleman said. “The key is to find the sweet spot. I think the $35 a meeting is very low. I think we need to look at overall compensation statewide. I think it’s absolutely critical that we provide the best education we can for our kids in the most economical way that we can by the taxpayers. That’s the sweet spot that ya’ll are going to have to find.”

    Coleman asked the Board to present a recommendation to the legislative delegation and to provide justification for the pay raise, while Douglas said the concept would require some selling to the public.

    “It is going to meet resistance,” Douglas said. “You know that already. We need to do our homework and do it well and do it in a way that really educates folks out there.”

    Douglas said she has already received some negative feedback from constituents on the idea.

    “The comment to me, when they first read it in the paper a couple of weeks ago, was ‘How dare they?’” Douglas said. “The question that I posed to them was ‘Would you do it for that?’ The time that people have is of value. If we do it in the right way and a very respectful way I think it will end on a positive note.”

    Board member Annie McDaniel (District 4) prodded the delegation, asking why they were so receptive to an issue she said they had opposed in the past.

    “I’m just curious as to what really triggered you guys to think we’re deserving to be paid,” McDaniel said, “when now we meet only once a month and meet for about two hours and not doing nowhere near the work into knowing what’s going on in this district now as we did in the past.”

    But Douglas said she wasn’t going to “wallow in what happened years ago.”

    What brought her to the table, she said, was a phone call she had received from The Voice newspaper after the matter was first discussed last month.

    “I want to address what is good for this county and in this particular school district,” Douglas said. “I don’t know if you think there’s an underlying agenda here. There is no agenda here except that whenever that discussion started among you, we were brought into that. We are on a level playing ground, as far as I’m concerned, as to how we move forward from here.”

    The Discussion

    Henry Miller (District 3), who first brought the matter to the floor last month, proposed a monthly payment of $625 for each Board member, plus an additional $100 for the chairperson. If the chairperson was absent from a meeting, that additional $100 would go to whoever chaired that meeting – in most cases, the vice chairperson.

    Andrea Harrison (District 1) asked if the $625 would take the place of any other monthly payments made to Board members, such as mileage. Miller agreed that it would.

    William Frick (District 6) suggested that, since it was not likely that the matter could get through the General Assembly before this year’s session ends next month, the Board create a committee to study the question.

    “You have some districts that don’t pay anything,” Frick said, “and then the ones that do pay, there are about five or six that pay less than we do. The vast majority pay fairly well. Some $10,000 a year. To have some sense of where we belong in a category that goes from zero to $25 a month to $10,000 a year, I would like to see if we could get a sense of where we fit in with those other districts.”

    “This absolutely cannot be a fly by night, hand out one sheet of paper kind of deal,” Harrison agreed. “I’m willing to serve on the committee. It has to be done thoroughly and in detail, and we have to justify every dime.”

    The committee passed on a 5-1 vote, with Paula Hartman (District 2) voting in opposition and McDaniel casting no vote at all. Harrison, Miller and Carl Jackson (District 5) will serve on the committee.

     

  • Parker: Tree Rules Unwieldy

    BLYTHEWOOD – A year after the Planning Commission revised and combined the Town’s Landscaping, Buffer Yards and Tree Preservation Ordinances into one ordinance and sent it to Council for a vote, the proposed ordinance continues to be held in abeyance as the Town operates under a tree preservation ordinance that Town Administrator Gary Parker declared at Monday night’s Town Council meeting to be complex in its requirements and difficult for staff to administer.

    “The current ordinance places more burden on the individual homeowner and developer than is reasonable,” Parker told Council.

    He said it also burdens the Town Administrator with too much discretion in making decisions about compliance. He said it is time for Council to consider the revised ordinance because “the ordinance isn’t workable as a practical matter. It requires so many trees to be replaced that it is impractical to place them on the particular lot or lots in question or in the common area.”

    As an example, Parker said that under the current ordinance the developer must replace the removed trees with actual trees that are to be placed in a tree bank at some location.

    “The proposed revised ordinance allows the developer to write a check for the equivalent value of the required replacement trees,” Parker said, “and the money is deposited in a tree bank account for later purchase of public area trees.”

    Parker said another improvement in the proposed ordinance is that instead of a tree replacement formula based on the number of trees, the formula is based on tree density, which is giving credit for the cumulative size of trees being saved and compensating for any shortfall by replanting. The tree diameter threshold for removal/replacement in the proposed ordinance increases from 6 to 8 inches.

    A provision in the proposed ordinance that quickly became controversial at the meeting requires Town Center District businesses to comply with the planting/landscaping ordinance within five years after the ordinance is adopted. Malcolm Gordge, Chairman of the Planning Commission, spoke up from the audience to say he felt that the requirement to comply within five years would place too great a burden on businesses.

    But Councilman Bob Massa disagreed, asking Gordge, “What hardship would there be?”

    “Perhaps there is concrete in the way,” Gordge answered.

    “That’s where your Town Administrator comes in with some common sense,” Massa told Gordge. “You don’t want to water the ordinance down until everyone plants concrete and therefore does not have to comply with the ordinance.”

    “The current code calls for compliance only when the property is developed or expanded by a certain amount,” Gordge said, “not at a point in time when you have to comply with all the requirements of the ordinance regardless of the situation. Rather than get into the same situation we got into with the signs, it should be addressed now. It’s just an unnecessary burden on businesses to comply with the ordinance, in my opinion.”

    “No offense,” Massa said, “but we created the sign problem, not the businesses. The ordinance was clear – businesses had seven years to come into compliance and then we (Council) started to debate whether we should allow them to come into compliance.

    “We caused the problem,” Massa said. “If you look at our Master Plan, it was based on our being green, not concrete. The Administrator has the discretion to make adjustments when certain landscape requirements are not possible. The businesses have five years. It’s not like they have to comply tomorrow.”

    Councilman Bob Mangone agreed.

    “The businesses in town helped write the new sign ordinance and then we (Council) started debating whether or not to enforce it. I certainly don’t want to pose a hardship on anyone, but perhaps if a business has a lot of concrete, there is a way to substitute some form of greenery that would at least add to the ambience,” Mangone said. “There are some places on Blythewood Road that could stand a few hedges. I don’t know that we want to completely beg off the question and not require compliance with the ordinance.”

    Notice of Election

    In other business, Council authorized a Notice of 2015 Election for Mayor and Three Members of Town Council to be held on Tuesday, Nov. 3, at Blythewood Park, 126 Boney Road in Blythewood. The election will be for mayor, two council members for terms ending in 2019 and one council member to fill the unexpired term of Robert Massa whose term ends in November 2017. Massa has resigned his seat effective the end of June.

    Candidates can file for office from Aug. 5 – Sept. 2.

    Traffic Impact Study

    Council passed first reading on a zoning amendment that requires a traffic impact study to be done for any proposed subdivision development of 90 or more dwelling units and for group developments of 150 or more dwelling units.

    New Industry Heights

    Council voted to approve first reading of an amendment to change the height limit to 100 feet in all industrial zoned districts in the Town. For all structures in excess of 40 feet in height, an additional 6 feet of setback from a residential zoning district boundary is required for each additional foot in structure height.

    “In other words,” Parker said, “if the structure will be 100 feet in height, then it will have to be set back an additional 360 feet from the residential boundary.”

    The 100-foot height has already been approved for the Light Industrial 2 and the Light Industrial Research Park Districts.

     

  • Planning Commission Takes Up Zoning Guidelines

    Decision Could Impact Rimer Pond Road Question

    BLYTHEWOOD – An agenda item that could affect a rezoning request for Rural Commercial (RC) zoning on 5.23 acres on Rimer Pond Road is scheduled to be discussed and voted on Monday during the meeting of the Richland County Planning Commission.

    At issue is the wording of the ‘summary’ paragraph that appeared on the Commission’s agenda for the Rural Commercial (RC) zoning request. The ‘summary’ serves as a guideline for how the County staff makes recommendations on zoning requests to the County Planning Commission, which in turn makes recommendations on zoning requests to County Council, the chamber where zoning requests ultimately become law or die.

    When the request for commercial zoning on Rimer Pond Road came before the Commission on April 6, residents along Rimer Pond Road showed up at the meeting to protest that, among other things, the summary’s guidelines for where to establish Rural Commercial (RC) zoning are flawed and should not be applied to Rimer Pond Road. Several members of the Planning Commission agreed, pointing out that while the opening sentence of the summary states that the RC district is suitable for “residents of the more isolated agricultural and rural residential districts and residents located beyond the limits of service of the municipalities,” another section of the summary sates, “the RC district is proposed to be within or adjacent to residential neighborhoods.”

    Commissioners Heather Carnes and Beverly Frierson said the two sections are not consistent, convincing the Commission to balk at the staff’s recommendation that favored the request for Rural Commercial zoning on the road. The Commission voted 4-1 against what would become, if it were granted, the first commercial zoning on the road.

    The zoning request with a recommendation for denial was subsequently sent to the County Council for a public hearing and first vote on April 27, but was deferred by the Council chairman until May 26. In the meantime, the ‘Summary of Rural Commercial (RC)’ popped up on the agenda for the May 5 Planning Commission meeting as an action (vote) item. But when the Commission met on May 5, Chairman Patrick Palmer, who is also the broker for the 5.3 acres on Rimer Pond Road for which Rural Commercial (RC) zoning is requested, asked to have the item deferred until the June 7 Planning Commission meeting because he said he had another appointment and would have to leave the meeting before the item came up. The deferment was granted.

    While Palmer has told The Voice that he is not an owner of the property, which he has listed at $350,000 per acre, Palmer’s father, Hugh A. Palmer, is listed on the S.C. Secretary of State’s website as the registered agent for Sycamore Development, Inc., and Sycamore Development, Inc. is listed as the owner of the property.

    “As it stands currently,” Rimer Pond Road resident Trey Hair told The Voice, “the summary favors our position against commercial zoning being brought into our area. Rural Commercial is not appropriate for our area.”

    Hair said he fears, however, that the summary could be changed to favor the developer in the case of the commercial request on Rimer Pond Road. To take advantage of such a change, the developer would have to start over with his request and bring it back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation, Suzi Haynes, Coordinator of Richland County Planning and Development Services told The Voice last month.

    The Planning Commission meets at 1 p.m. on Monday, at the County building at 2020 Hampton St. in Columbia. For more information or to receive an agenda and packet, contact Haynes at 803-576-2176.

     

  • Council Explores Free Downtown Wi-Fi

    Arch Plans Progress, Cotton Yard Lease OK’d

    RIDGEWAY – Town Council, during their May 14 meeting, received a proposal from TruVista Communications for turning downtown into a Wi-Fi hotspot. The service would potentially cost the Town a little more than $498 a month, but would provide a free internet connection to users in the downtown area.

    Brannon Hough, a TruVista Business Solutions Specialist, told Council her company would be willing to waive any installation costs for the 5-meg Ethernet service, “providing that we are able to put up a Council-approved sign somewhere in the town that says it’s provided by TruVista.”

    Hough said TruVista was proposing three access points within the town – one at the Century House and two on Main Street – that “will create a wireless network in downtown Ridgeway that can be used by anyone.”

    Creating a downtown hotspot was part of Ridgeway’s initial long-range strategic planning talks led by Scott Slayton of the S.C. Municipal Association last September. During a follow-up planning session last November, however, free Wi-Fi failed to make the final cut of priorities; although Mayor Charlene Herring did indicate that Council would explore the possibility of doing so.

    Randy Allen, a TruVista sales engineer, told Council during the May 14 presentation that the proposed wireless network could accommodate up to 15 network names with up to 100 users per network. The network also comes with a feature that would allow the Town and businesses to track the number of visitors to Ridgeway, whether they log onto a network or not..

    “If a smart phone passes through the area, they talk to the wireless network,” Allen said. “That’s just the nature of smart phones and tablets. So these devises will actually give you a report of how many people pass through your town. It reports on how long they stay. And it reports repeat visitors.”

    Allen said the proposed five-year lease of the equipment was guaranteed and the equipment was forward compatible for advancing technology.

    Ridgeway School Arch

    Councilman Heath Cookendorfer, reporting on findings from his committee to stabilize and restore the last remaining vestiges of the old Ridgeway School – the arch on Church and Means streets – said the first order of business was to keep the structure from tumbling down.

    Cookendorfer said the committee reached out to several local brick masons, but only one – King D. Murphy Qualls – came out to have a look at the patient. Cookendorfer said Qualls and the architect, Meredith Drakeford, agreed that the concrete base of the arch must be repaired and a 12-inch concrete footing installed to keep the arch standing. Afterwards, Cookendorfer said, the brick can be repaired and replaced.

    Cookendorfer said Ridgeway resident David Waters, who purchased the old bricks when the school building was demolished, was willing to sell back to the Town as many as needed to repair the arch.

    Ridgeway was awarded a $500 Community Enhancement Grant last fall for the initial phase of arch restoration, but Herring said two more quotes were required on the work. Council gave Cookendorfer the green light to proceed with the repairs, provided two more bids were secured.

    Sewage Plant Upgrades

    Council also gave the OK for a $201,700 bid from J.L. Construction of Piedmont for upgrades to the Town’s wastewater treatment plant. Ridgeway received a $220,000 grant several months ago from the Rural Infrastructure Authority for the project. Work is expected to begin next month.

    Cotton Yard Lease

    After three months of haggling and postponements, Council finally agreed to a $300 a year lease with Norfolk Southern Railway for the Cotton Yard property in the center of town. Council also agreed to a $752.60 liability insurance policy through Insurance of Fairfield.