BLYTHEWOOD – Four town residents have filed to run for two
at-large seats on town council in the upcoming Nov. 2 municipal elections. The
filing period ended Tuesday at 5 p.m.
Larry Griffin
Filing to run for the four-year term on council are: incumbents Larry Griffin and Sloan Griffin, Planning Commission Chairman Rich McKenrick and Cobblestone Park resident Roxann Henagan.
Larry D. Griffin, 67, a resident of Langford Road, was first elected to town council in 2015 to fill the remaining two years of Councilman Bob Massa’s four-year term after Massa moved away. Griffin was then elected to a full four-year term in 2017. He is the president of the Bethel-Hanberry Athletic Alumni Association and owns GEM Financial Resources.
Sloan Griffin
Sloan J. Griffin, III, 35, a resident of Cobblestone Park, was first elected to council in February, 2020, to fill the remaining two years of a four-year term vacated by Brian Franklin after he was elected mayor. Griffin has served on the town’s planning commission and is now seeking his first full four-year term on council. He is the Emergency Manager for SCDOT.
Roxann Henagan, 52, a resident of Cobblestone Park, is making her first run at public office. Henagan is an author and describes herself as one who provides advocacy support for education.
Roxann Henagan
Rich McKenrich, 55, is a resident of Ashley Oaks neighborhood, and is seeking his first term on town council. He has served on the town’ planning commission for three years and is currently the chairman of the planning commission, is the Blythewood appointee to the TPAC Committee and serves as the HOA president for Ashley Oaks phases 4-7. He works in new construction sales.
The Voice will publish campaign statements from each candidate in a coming issue.
McKendrick
Register to Vote
The last day to register to vote in person for this election
is Saturday, Oct. 2, 2021 by 12 noon. Voter registration by mail must be
postmarked no later than Monday Oct. 4, 2021. Voter Registration on line, fax
or email must be entered no later than Sunday, Oct. 3, 2021 at 11:59 pm. To
register to vote or to obtain absentee ballots, contact the Richland County
Voter Registration Office, 2020 Hampton Street, Columbia, S.C. Absentee ballots
may be requested by calling the Voter Registration Office at 576-2240.
In-Person absentee voting will begin Monday, Oct. 4, 2021 at 2020 Hampton
Street.
The Polls will be open from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. The polling
place for all precincts in this election–Blythewood 1, Blythewood 2,
Blythewood 3, Longcreek, and Ridgeway (Fairfield County)—is:
Blythewood Park
126 Boney Road
Blythewood, SC 29016
The results of the election shall be determined according to
the plurality method.
At 9 a.m. on Election Day, the absentee ballot return
envelopes will be examined at the Richland County Voter Registration and
Elections office, 2020 Hampton Street, Columbia.
The Richland County Board of Elections and Voter
Registration will hold a hearing on Thursday, Nov. 4, at 9 a.m. at 2020 Hampton
Street, Columbia to determine the validity of ballots challenged, if any, in
this election.
BLYTHEWOOD – On Monday, Aug. 30, the town reversed its
refusal to release responsive documents sought by The Voice from Town
Administrator Carroll Williamson through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request 41 days earlier.
The Voice requested the following documents:
1) a copy of the contract or letter of engagement that
secured the outside legal services of Nexsen Pruet attorney David Black and a
copy of documentation of the retainer paid for Mr. Black’s services as well as
any subsequent invoices for his services, and
2) copies of documentation showing whether town attorney
Shannon Burnett is being paid for the MPA matter outside her normal agreed-upon
annual compensation from the town.
In the Aug. 30, 2021 response, the Town’s outside counsel,
David Black, an attorney with Nexsen Pruet law firm in Columbia, went into
lengthy detail clarifying two exemptions that he claimed allows for the Town to
withhold the requested documents:
1)“S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(3)(A) provides an exemption
to FOIA where the records or information requested would interfere with a
prospective law enforcement proceeding. The records and information you have
requested would interfere with a prospective law enforcement proceeding.”
(Black did not explain the nature of that law enforcement
proceeding and did not respond to The Voice’s request for copies of subsequent
invoices to the Town for his firm’s legal services.)
2) “S.C. Code Ann. §
30-4-40(a)(7) provides an exemption to FOIA for Attorney Work Product and any
other material that would violate Attorney-Client Relationships. The records
and information you requested will not be provided as it is Attorney Work
Product and is also exempt via the Attorney Client Privilege.”
In a clear reversal of this response, Black, did, however,
forward the requested documentation to The Voice with only one paragraph
redacted and with the following explanation for his decision to release the
documentation to The Voice:
“While the engagement letter clearly is marked privileged, the Town is producing the redacted version of the engagement letter, subject to and without waiving such privilege, in hopes that such production will put an end to your [The Voice’s] ongoing attempts to assist MPA and Ms. Hunter in their litigation that has damaged the Town. [See Publisher’s Note]
Besides including the redacted letter of engagement, Black,
acknowledged that the Town’s municipal attorney, Shannon Burnett, is not
receiving compensation for her work on the MPA lawsuit and the Town’s
countersuit outside what she is normally paid by the Town.
While one paragraph of the engagement letter, dated April
21, 2021, was redacted, the letter disclosed that the Town paid Black an
initial $5,000 retainer and that an additional retainer could be required if
there is a change in the scope of the engagement such as the firm’s appearance
in litigation.
The Voice has issued a second FOIA to the Town for
information pertaining to any additional retainer fees charged to the Town
since MPA filed suit against the Town on June 28, 2021.
The letter of engagement also revealed that Black’s fee is
$475 per hour and that another attorney in the firm, who would be assisting the
Town, charges a fee of $315 per hour.
According to the letter, the Town also agreed to pay for any
ancillary fees billed to the firm by third parties and any necessary expenses
for travel, lodging, meals mileage, copies, computerized research, staff
overtime and other expenses related to the terms of the firm’s agreed upon
engagement with the Town.
In an initial Aug. 3, 2021, response to The Voice’s July 20
FOIA request, Black refused to send the letter of engagement and other
requested documents, stating that “The Town has advised that it is in
possession of responsive records as you describe in your request, however, such
records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 30-4-40(a)(3) and
(7).
The Voice responded on Aug. 20 that, “When an exemption is
cited in a written determination response to a S.C. FOIA request, it must be
fully stated. Simply citing to 30-4-40(a)(3) does not satisfy your legal
requirement to cite an exemption. (a)(3) has seven subsections (A)-(G) and each
carries a different rationale to keep information exempt.
“Until you provide a written determination that includes
which exemption you are using – I’m assuming you aren’t saying all seven
subsections apply simultaneously – it’s not possible for me to know if I have a
right to access information of this/these type(s). Please clarify which of the
subsections you are intending to cite for nondisclosure.”
With no response after a week, The Voice sent another email
to Town Administrator Carroll Williamson on Aug. 27, 2021, with a deadline of
Aug. 31 for a response. That response (detailed at the beginning of the story)
was received on Tuesday, Aug. 30 at 5:42 p.m.
Publisher’s Note: The Town and Black continue to blame The Voice and others for the predicament it finds itself in, but the reference to The Voice here describes what newspapers do – seek and report information of interest and significance through the use of material gathered from sources and public records.
BLYTHEWOOD – MPA Strategies, LLC has filed a reply to the
Town’s counterclaims filed July 20, 2021, in response to a lawsuit filed by MPA
Strategies against the town government on June 28, 2021. All the claims and
responses were filed in the Court of Common Pleas Fifth Judicial Circuit in
Richland County.
MPA also filed three motions last week, including one to
dismiss.
First Motion
In the first motion, filed Aug. 18, 2021, MPA seeks to have
the Town’s counterclaim dismissed, stating that the counterclaim, as it relates
to the executed Marketing Agreement, fails “for being brought in an improper
venue in violation of the fully negotiated forum selection clause agreeing to
jurisdiction in Lexington County,” where MPA’ offices are located.
In the motion, MPA also states that the Town’s counterclaims
against MPA Strategies, LLC, Ashley Hunter and State and Frink Foundation for
fraud, negligent misrepresentation/fraud in the inducement; violation of S.C.
Unfair Trade Practices Act; violation of S.C. Frivolous Civil Proceedings
Sanctions Act; civil conspiracy; violation of Federal False Claims Act – 31
U.S. Code Section 3701, et seq.; and negligence/gross negligence, “fail for a
failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”
Second Motion
In its second motion, MPA asks the Court to strike Joseph
Dickey, the attorney for Ashley Hunter (MPA’s owner), from being called as a
witness in Court.
MPA states that on July 20, 2021, the Town of Blythewood,
“made false and defamatory allegations in its Answer and Counterclaims by
naming Plaintiff and Counterclaim defendants MPA Strategies, LLC (“MPA”), State
and Frink Foundation (“State and Frink”) and Ashley Hunter’s attorney Joseph D.
Dickey, Jr., Esq. (“Dickey”), in its Counterclaims.
“The Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants [MPA, Ashley
Hunter and State and Frink Foundation] can only speculate that the Town is
attempting to create a conflict between them [MPA, Ashley Hunter and State and
Frink Foundation] and its chosen counsel and/or to fabricate a basis upon which
to seek to disqualify their chosen legal counsel [Dickey] from representation
going forward,” the motion states.
“In addition, it seems apparent that the Town seeks to
damage Mr. Dickey’s reputation by intentionally making false allegations in its
counterclaim.”
“As there is no basis or other valid reason for Mr. Dickey
to be identified, the Counterclaim Defendants respectfully request that his
name, any allegations against him, and any reference to him be stricken from
the Town’s counterclaims,” the motion states.
After presenting a lengthy argument about the issue, the
motion states that,“The Town’s counsel [David Black with Nexsen Pruet] and
in-house counsel [Shannon Burnett] through her verification, falsely has
certified to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, formed after
an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that Mr. Dickey has committed
the crimes of fraud and other related crimes. This false certification has
occurred despite these facts,” which are listed in the motion:
“1. Prior to Joseph Dickey’s first involvement in this
matter, Town Attorney Shannon Burnett advised Town Council at a publicly
recorded meeting that having non-profit status was not a requirement for a
vendor to perform marketing for the Town.
“2. Joseph Dickey’s first involvement in this
matter was to draft a letter notifying the Town of his representation and
concerns about the contract award at the direction of a client.
“3. Joseph Dickey, once informed, fully disclosed that State
and Frink did not have 501(c)(3) status and had no need to obtain it based on
the Town’s RFP and applicable law prior to contract execution.
“4. Joseph Dickey provided Town’s counsel persuasive legal
authority supporting MPA and State and Frink receiving State A-tax funds and
again notifying the Town that State and Frink did not have 501(c)(3) status
prior to execution of the contract.
“5. Joseph Dickey’s role as counsel for the Plaintiff and
Counterclaim Defendants is simply no Rule 11 basis upon which to make the
defamatory accusations that he committed crimes or other dishonest actions.
“Based upon these facts and under any reasonable objective
standard this certification fails and Town’s counsel and officials should be
held accountable for their false certifications,” the motion states. “One can
only surmise that the identification of Mr. Dickey is part and parcel of a
strategy to create conflict where none exists and/or to deprive the Plaintiff
and Counterclaim Defendants of the legal counsel of its choosing,” the motion
stated.
The motion requested the court to issue an order, “striking
any and all allegations identifying and falsely accusing Mr. Dickey of
committing a crime, silently making him a witness, and requiring the Town to
pay the attorneys’ fees and costs associated with filing and arguing this
motion.”
Third Motion
A third motion requested protection from Court appearances
for Dickey for a specified period of time for a family matter.
BLYTHEWOOD – During the FY2021-22 budget work session and
discussions during Blythewood Town Council meetings, council identified
specific outside agencies to receive funding. However, Town Administrator
Carroll Williamson noted in a memo that council members approved the budget
without a specific amount allocated to each agency. The total amount allocated
for all the agencies was $37,500.
“[These agencies] are not necessarily affiliated with A-Tax
or H-Tax awards,” Mayor Bryan Franklin said “but are grants we give to
organizations that ask for them and that have a relationship with the town.”
Williamson said the purpose of the item being on the agenda
Tuesday night is to allow a separate vote for each outside agency’s funding
once the agencies have provided their organizational information and stated how
they intend to use the funds. He said the agencies that are not on this agenda
would be voted on later after they have provided the necessary information to
town hall.
At Councilman Donald Brock’s suggestion, council took one
vote to approve all the following outside requests:
Blythewood Chamber of Commerce – $5,000
Big Red Barn – $1,000
Blythewood Soccer Club – $1,000
Camp Discovery – $1,500
Bethel-Hanberry Athletic Alumni Association – $6,000
Councilman Larry Griffin recused himself from voting since
he is president of the Bethel-Hanberry Athletic Association.
BLYTHEWOOD – The Town of Blythewood has been at risk of a
legal action for almost two months after Mayor Bryan Franklin failed to submit
responsive documents to a Freedom of Information request from MPA Strategies,
the town’s newly contracted marketing and grant writing firm.
On Tuesday, June 28, MPA filed that legal action against the
Town, stating that, “The Town still has not complied with the plaintiff’s
request and has demonstrated no intent to comply with the law.”
MPA is asking for a declaratory judgment and for injunctive
relief pursuant to and under the authority of S.C. Code 30-4-10, et seq., which
is known as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
MPA filed the complaint in the Court of Common Pleas Fifth
Judicial Circuit in Richland County.
In the complaint, Joseph D. Dickey, Jr., attorney for MPA,
said that on or around November, 2020, the Town contacted MPA concerning
proposed marketing and grant writing services. The Voice has previously
reported that former Blythewood Town Administrator Brian Cook suggested the
Town consider contacting Ashley Hunter, MPA’s owner and CEO, to provide those
services, as she was providing similar services for a number of other towns in
South Carolina who, he said, were pleased with her work.
According to the complaint, council initiated a request for
proposal (RFP) for marketing and grant writing services on Dec. 30, 2020.
Nonprofit not required in RFP
The complaint states that the RFP did not require applicants
to be a nonprofit, tax exempt organization or eligible to receive state
accommodation tax funds to be responsive.
In addition to MPA’s RFP, the Town also received submissions
from NP Strategy and the Greater Blythewood Chamber of Commerce.
The contract was subsequently awarded to MPA over the
Chamber of Commerce by a town council majority vote of 3-2 on Feb. 22, 2021.
Franklin and Councilman Eddie Baughman were the two
dissenting votes, favoring the Chamber of Commerce over MPA.
The complaint states that while having a nonprofit entity
was never a requirement of the Town’s RFP, the Town subsequently advised MPA
that it would be beneficial for MPA to become a nonprofit entity. The complaint
stated that MPA complied, establishing the nonprofit State and Frink
Foundation.
“Despite awarding the contract, the Town then required MPA
to further negotiate the contract outside the parameters of the original RFP,”
the complaint states.
The contract was negotiated by Franklin with assistance from Town Attorney Shannon Burnett and Town Administrator Carroll Williamson.
Stalled Negotiations and Rumors
After almost two months of unsuccessful negotiations and because at least two town officials had spread rumors about Hunter to the media and other town officials, MPA submitted a written FOIA request to the Town on April 15, 2021, in which MPA asked for all documents from Franklin’s devices relating to MPA pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 10-4-10, et seq.
The mayor signed the contract the next day and sent it to Hunter to sign.
MPA’s FOIA request sought disclosure of, among other things, certain documents and recordings from Mayor Bryan Franklin related to MPA, Ashley Hunter and State and Frink Foundation, MPA’s nonprofit entity.
Town Charges $500 FOIA Fee
On April 20, Franklin authorized retaining Black to represent the Town in it’s dealings with MPA.
On April 23, 2021, MPA received correspondence from Black acknowledging receipt of MPA’s FOIA request and advised the cost of copying documents….10 cents per page plus $10 per hour for copying and a fee of $500 to pull email and text messages per device for the electronic data sought through the FOIA.
Three days later Dickey responded, questioning, “the excessive fee of $500 for a third party vendor to check devices.” After receiving no reply from Black, the complaint states that Dickey sent a follow up email on May 5, 2021, inquiring if Town’s response was to be received no later than May 24, 2021, the due date for the Town to submit the documents.
On April 29, The Country Chronicle newspaper sent FOIA requests to all five Blythewood town councilmen for documents concern MPA Strategies. On May 7, Black emailed Dickey stating that the Town had decided to waive all FOIA charges previously quoted and that, “a response by May 24 was ‘highly optimistic.’”
More Response Delays
On May 24, according to the complaint, Dickey emailed the
Town stating there had been no communication from the Town since May 7, 2021,
and that, “today is the deadline for the Town to respond with the requested
information.”
According to the complaint, about 45 minutes later, Black
responded.
“As we discussed, your FOIA request overlaps with several other requests for the same data. All of the data is being pulled by an independent contractor [TCDI]. We are still in the process of pulling all of the data,” Black wrote.
Franklin had insisted publicly and repeatedly that all council members were required to submit all their devices – personal and town issued – to Black to be processed through TCDI. The Freedom of Information Act, however, does not require that FOIA responses be processed in that manner.
The complaint stated that Black said the independent contractor would pull all documents from all the devices and that he would then determine which documents were responsive and submit them to the requestors. Not all of the councilmen wanted to submit their personal devices to be scanned and said they would submit texts, emails and other documents themselves or through their own attorneys.
“I do believe we are entitled to a timeframe of which to expect responses,” Dickey replied, according to the complaint. “Is that something the Town is unable to provide?”
Black emailed back, “Correct. I am unable to provide you a
timeframe until we get all of the data from all devices. Thanks for your
understanding. Additionally, you have made allegations that a town employee
made some form of defamatory or improper comment regarding your client,” Black
wrote. “If you could elaborate on that it may help me expedite things.”
Dickey responded on May 26.
“The mayor has publicly stated his information has been
submitted. Therefore, I don’t understand the delay,” Dickey wrote. “I only
requested data from the Mayor, so I am unsure of “all devices” you reference.
The information you’re requesting has nothing to do with the Town or you
complying with the FOIA request. Let me know when to expect a full response.”
Black replied on May 26, that, “in order to waive the $500
per device charge, we negotiated a bulk rate for all of the devices. We are
unable to process until the vendor receives all the devices. On email it is
pulled and being reviewed,” Black wrote. “We may be able to get you the email
before the texts.”
Dickey pointed out that, “Notably, the Town remarkably was able to timely respond to the County Chronicle’s April 29, 2021 FOIA request as confirmed through the newspaper’s June 17, 2021 article.”
The Freedom of Information Act provides that any person has
a right to inspect or copy any public record of a public body, except as
otherwise provided by state statute 30-4-40. The statute also provides that a
S.C. public body in receipt of written FOIA request, “shall within ten days
(except Saturdays, Sundays and legal public holidays) of the receipt of any
request notify the person making each request of its determination and the
reasons thereof.”
In the complaint, Dickey stated that, “If the request is granted, the public body must, no later than thirty calendar days from the date on which the final determination was provided, must furnish the requestor with records.”
The June 28 complaint states that MPA has not been provided any of the requested records, all of which were due May 24, 2021.
In the complaint, MPA asks the Court to declare that the
Town of Blythewood violated the FOIA in failing to maintain public records and
in failing to produce records in response to a request. Dickey is also asking
the Court to require the Town to immediately respond and produce the responsive
documents as required by law.
The complaint also asks for “attorney fees and costs incurred by MPA in bringing this action and prosecuting it.”
UPDATE: On July 9, Black emailed the responsive documents to both MPA and The Voice. Those sent to The Voice included 1,886 documents, a very large portion of which are documents that make no mention of MPA, (i.e. a notice that the Board of Zoning Appeals will not meet, copies of months and months of the agendas and agenda packets for all town board and committee meetings, notice of events at Blythewood High School, information about funding Movies in the Park, etc.) Most of the documents are duplicated, some as many as four or five times. The 1,886 documents are in no particular order, and it is not discernable who many of the texts messages are from are to.
BLYTHEWOOD – When an article in the April 29 issue of The Voice reported that Mayor Bryan Franklin unilaterally hired outside counsel – without town council’s consent – to represent the Town concerning MPA Strategies, Franklin, in a 19+ minute tirade against the newspaper’s account, said it was “absolutely fabricated and false.” He insisted that not he, but the town administrator and town attorney hired outside counsel.
“I did not hire outside counsel,” Franklin stated
emphatically at the May 3 council meeting. “I did not direct anyone to hire
outside counsel,” he said, claiming that he didn’t even find out about the hire
until about the same time council members found out, which was three days after
the hire. During Monday night’s town council meeting, however, Town Attorney
Shannon Burnett walked back the mayor’s claim that he did not direct or know
about the hire. Burnett said Franklin did know about the hire before it was
made, and that he approved it.
Burnett said that after she and Town Administrator Carroll
Williamson found who they thought would be the right attorney for the MPA
Strategy issue, they consulted Franklin.
“Before the [attorney’s] agreement was signed, you did
approve it,” she said, looking toward Franklin.
In his second tirade in a month against the press, Franklin
also targeted some of his fellow councilmen Monday night as conspiring against
him.
Getting into the weeds, Franklin sought to prove his point
by claiming that Richland County Councilman Derrek Pugh and Town Councilman
Larry Griffin had passed information to him that some council members said, “if
they make things so rough for [me], I would resign and we’d have a special
election and this individual would then run for mayor. That’s the kind of
council members you have up here,” Franklin said from the dias.
Contacted by The Voice after the meeting, Councilman Larry Griffin denied Franklin’s accusation.
What he (Franklin) said is not true. I did not say that.
Larry Griffin, Blythewood Town Councilman
“What he [Franklin] said is not true,” Griffin said. “I did
not say that. I recall Mr. Franklin asking me why he was getting so much heat
from people. I said, ‘Maybe if you get enough heat, you might resign.’ This was
general talk, not specific to anyone,” Griffin said. “I stand on my integrity and
I am not going to be drawn into petty bickering between my fellow council
members. This is childish and unprofessional behavior.”
Pugh declined to outright deny or confirm Franklin’s
accusation but responded to The Voice with an emailed statement.
“I have always been and will continue to be forthright in my
conversations and actions. I have not and do not engage in conversations that
undermine our leaders in any way,” he wrote.
Franklin launched into other claims as well that enforce his
belief that there is a conspiracy against him.
“I try to hold the powerful press accountable when they make
up stories and say things like ‘we’re trying to hire a municipal attorney’,
which is not what we’re doing,” he said. “We hired outside counsel, which is
not a municipal attorney.” The Voice used the term ‘outside council’ throughout
the article. It did not use the term ‘municipal attorney’ as Franklin claimed
(see page 1 of the April 29, 2021 issue.)
“When you have conspiring council members working with the
press, that’s discouraging to me as the mayor,” he continued. “I have been met
with anger. I have been met with consternation. I have been met with private
attacks, and I have been disregarded,” Franklin said. “I feel I was betrayed,
even blackmailed.”
Franklin covered many bases during his almost seven minute
broadside claiming even that some councilmen had disparaged the town staff and
“think lowly of them.”
He accused – but did not name – one council member of saying
that, “if I would apologize to Ms. Hunter [of MPA Strategies] for the way she
was treated or find out who spread false rumors about her, and that if we paid
the legal fees that she incurred, that her FOIA would go away. I felt
entrapped,” Franklin said.
Councilman Donald Brock told The Voice after the meeting
that Franklin was apparently referencing him but misrepresenting what he
[Brock] said.
“I believe that Mayor Franklin has confused some of the
details from our April 27 meeting to discuss the open FIOA request from Ms.
Hunter,” Brock said in response to a request from The Voice.
“I never stated that signing the marketing contract would
end the FIOA request; additionally, I had no advanced notice that any FIOA
request was forthcoming as he has alluded to in prior conversations.
“I did recommend signing the agreement since it was approved
by a majority Council vote and is clearly in the best interest of Blythewood,”
Brock added.
“When asked what I felt was a reasonable resolution between
the Town and Ms. Hunter, I did suggest that the Mayor either apologize for the
defamatory comments made or reveal the source of the anonymous voicemail he
claims to have received,” Brock said. “I also asked if he still has the
voicemail. He replied that it had been deleted.
“In regard to the payment of Ms. Hunter’s legal fees, I did
suggest that the Town, as a partner and in good faith, inquire as to the
legality of a reimbursement,” he said. “It is my opinion that Ms. Hunter was
treated rudely and unfairly during the RFP and negotiation phases of our
marketing search and the Town should remedy if applicable. I have had zero conversations with Ms. Hunter
prior to and after this meeting in regard to the above. Any insinuation to the
contrary is false.”
Franklin called for his fellow councilmen and the newspaper
to be held accountable.
“I pray that people hold these people accountable to the
point where they resign or leave office voluntarily and do not run again,”
Franklin said.
“It pains me to say these things, but quite often as you’ve
all seen, the paper does not carry the true meaning of what we do here. They
spin things to make people look bad,” Franklin said. “Well, they’re making the
wrong people look bad. In my opinion the truth will prevail.”
BLYTHEWOOD – Wearing masks will no longer be part of the
Town’s emergency ordinance, beginning May 1. Council voted 3 – 2 Monday night
to amend the Town’s emergency ordinance to not require face masks in the town
limits. Voting against were Councilmen Sloan Griffin and Larry Griffin.
While masks will no longer be required and the park, Manor
and other town government areas have been open to the public for months, town
hall remains closed with no word about when it might reopen, according to a
town hall employee. Mayor Bryan Franklin has not responded to The Voice about
when the town hall might be reopened to the public. It has been closed since
March 16, 2020.
“Is there a reason to make the mask requirement expire?”
Sloan Griffin asked. “We’re still in a pandemic.”
“We’ve been wearing masks for a year,” Councilman Eddie
Baughman said. “It’s time we get back to normal.”
Business owners and churches can still require the wearing
of masks in their businesses and churches within the town.
FAIRFIELD COUNTY – With a $1.8 million land deal being proposed by Fairfield County, a partnership between the county and the Town of Blythewood is on track to check two big items off of local wish lists: a much-needed wastewater treatment plant and a ballfield complex for youth sports teams.
Fairfield County Council Chair Neil Robinson said both
projects are part of a long-range vision that could turn Interstate-77’s Exit
32 in Fairfield County into a new hotspot for development.
Fairfield County Administrator Jason Taylor agreed, adding
that if all the pieces come together, it could be a great benefit to the
citizens of both Fairfield County and Blythewood.
“The way you grow a community is not just by shuffling money
around inside the county or town; you need to bring in outside dollars.” Taylor
said, touting both the tournament-hosting potential of a sports complex and the
potential draw of adjacent commercial development made possible by the
wastewater treatment plant.
“There’s a synergy here – one thing helps build upon the other, and all those things help the critical thing that we’re focused on here [with this project], the wastewater treatment plant,” he said.
The need for increased wastewater capacity has been high on
Fairfield’s priority list recently as most of its existing capacity is already
in use. The county has brought in considerable new industry and accompanying
new jobs during the last three years or so, leaving Fairfield with only about
30,000 gallons of wastewater capacity – a fact that limits current potential
for both industrial and other types of development all over the county, and is
now prompting some industrial prospects to look elsewhere, taking their jobs
with them.
“Adding more wastewater capacity is key to the future
development of commercial and residential in the county. Without the new
capacity, the creation of new jobs, shopping opportunities and residential
development will be severely limited,” Taylor said.
“We had to find a site for the plant that has direct access
to a stream that can handle the expected effluent and will not require a
long-distance pipeline to a discharge site,” he said. The county settled on
property on Peach Road at the intersection of Cook Road just west of Exit 32 in
Fairfield County, just one exit north of Blythewood.
As it turned out, the property for sale is about 385 acres,
much larger and more expensive than what’s needed for the plant.
Enter Blythewood, where the need for ballfields has become a high priority with the exponential growth of the community. Building a sports complex was something newly elected Mayor Bryan Franklin talked about a lot in his campaign last fall. Blythewood, home of the popular Blythewood Youth Baseball & Softball League (BYSBL), has the revenue potential from accommodation and hospitality tax to purchase property for a sports complex but has not so far found a suitable/affordable site.
The Plan
The proposal is for the county to develop the wastewater
treatment plant and an extensive recreation park on 225+/- acres it purchased
on the south side of the property, and Blythewood is considering purchasing
60+/- acres in the center of the property for the sports complex. The current
land owner, Joseph Richardson, would retain about 100+/- acres on the north
side of the property for private multi-use development, including commercial,
possibly with apartments above.
In addition, the county portion of the park – a site not
suited for industrial development – will include the wastewater treatment plant
concealed in a heavily wooded area and a 50-acre pond that, Taylor said, is a
potential showplace, ideally suited for fishing, kayaking, canoeing, and maybe
a water’s edge event venue as well as a network of recreational trails.
“Because the wastewater treatment plant is located on the
property, it could reduce development costs on the site as much as $2-$3
million since they won’t have to run pipes, acquire easements and install pump
stations,” Fairfield County Economic Development Director Ty Davenport added.
Taylor said a partnership between Fairfield and Blythewood
and the landowner just makes sense.
Blythewood on Board
Franklin agrees.
“It’s just too good of an opportunity for us to pass up,”
Franklin told The Voice. “While our council has not yet voted on this plan,
we’ve discussed it in executive session and I know that all of our council
members are excited about it. We’re looking forward to moving on it.”
That move, however, could take as much as six to eight
months, he said.
“Blythewood doesn’t have a big budget, but we could pay for
the land over a three-year period of time. We just need time to assess it, get
our funds together, and let Fairfield get the zoning on the property.”
Having grown up in Blythewood, Franklin said he has fond
memories of playing on the three BYSBL fields when he was young. Those fields,
today, can barely accommodate the number of kids who want to play. Franklin
said he would like to see the town have a state-of-the-art facility like this
to support the BYSBL while also bringing substantial revenue to the town.
“Located on I-77 in the center of the state, the sports complex is going to attract kids of all sports from all areas of the state,” Franklin said. “And the commercial area is what the residents of Blythewood want to see – more restaurants, more things to do and close to home – just five miles from our Blythewood exit.”
A Mutual Benefit
“Both Blythewood and Fairfield will benefit from what the
other has in the park,” Davenport said. “For instance, Fairfield would have
joint use of Blythewood’s sports complex and neither would have to pay fees. A
rendering of the complex features up to eight baseball fields and five
soccer/football fields among other amenities that might include a hotel with
balconies for viewing games.”
From a development standpoint, Taylor said, the wastewater
treatment plant and sports complex projects are just the beginning. In addition
to meeting current needs, pairing needed infrastructure with a tourism-drawing
amenity will promote good, sustainable development at Exit 32.
That could help the county land a large manufacturing facility, Taylor said, such as an auto plant, just down the road at the future Exit 32 megasite. Such a facility, he said, would be a stable provider of jobs for the county and could also help attract the kind of planned, commercial development on Richardson’s acreage that might be anchored by a major sporting goods store and include hotels, restaurants and retail, which would bring in revenue during sports tournaments as well as serving Interstate travelers.
Annexation
Because of the proximity of the property to the Town of
Blythewood along Boney Road, the option is on the table for Blythewood to annex
the entire 385 acres and reap considerable revenue from not only the sports
complex, but the accommodation and hospitality taxes generated by the hotels
and restaurants, as well as franchise fees, business license fees and building
permits from the commercial development.
The long term plan could be extremely beneficial for the
citizens of both Blythewood and Fairfield County and would certainly raise the
fortunes of all of the residents of Fairfield County on many levels, including
jobs and new residential neighborhoods, Taylor said.
“The county would collect property taxes on all three
parcels. The site generates about $4,000 annually in taxes now,” he said. “A
single business in the commercial section could bring in well over $100,000
annually in property taxes. The property tax potential for the county is in the
millions”.
County officials say the several hundred acres adjacent to
the 385 acres are prime for the kind of nature-based housing subdivisions that
have replaced golf courses as the preferred type of residential development
across the country.
Davenport said the Exit 32 interchange, itself, is a
valuable asset with I-77, a major travel artery between Columbia and Charlotte,
a continuous resource.
“An interstate exit like Exit 32 costs about $50-75 million,
a resource that we need to take advantage of,” he said.
Master Planned
“I would really like to see this development taken to the
next level,” Taylor said. “We hope to develop a master plan and development
agreement on top of everything else, including tax incentives and other
incentives that make it more desirable for someone to come in and develop the
site to its best and highest use.
“We’re not just dreaming here,” Taylor said. “I think all of
this can be reality. We want to create a traditional, attractive community in
the commercial section that may have upstairs apartments, and where people can
easily take advantage of the proposed parks and the easy access to Columbia on
the interstate. We want to be proactive and get ahead of this [growth at Exit
32] with a development that is well thought out and sustainable.
“All this is driven by the wastewater treatment plant,” he
said. “We have to have the plant to support the future megasite just six miles
up the road. And when that plant hits, this 385 acres is going to explode.
Commerce has told us we have to be ready because when it does hit, it will be
hard at that point to catch up. I think that if we do this public-private
partnership right, everything will work.”
“At this point, of course, it’s just a proposal, a
public-private partnership between the county and the landowner to spur
development at Exit 32 to support the wastewater treatment plant and the plant
supporting growth, hand in hand,” Taylor said. “The county is also trying to
work with Blythewood to accomplish some of the goals that their mayor has set,
such as annexation and recreation. We can all three win here because our interests
are aligned to have improved access for all of our citizens to quality of life
amenities such as new parks, shopping options and residential choices – all the
things we can potentially have on that 385 acres,” he said.
Though there are still a lot of details that remain to be worked out on the project, all parties are hopeful.
Timeline
The timeline, of course, will be measured in years. Robinson
said 3-4 years is realistic for the $32 million plant to go through permitting
and construction, after which its capacity will be available to serve new
development in the county, both commercial and residential.
In addition to potential state funding contributing to the
plant’s construction, Robinson expects to pull $5 million from county coffers,
cover $8-10 million with the passage of a new penny sales tax, and cover the
rest with revenue generated by end users.
While Robinson said the penny tax is the most effective way
to fund the plant, the tax is dependent on voter approval on Nov. 3.
“With the penny tax, council wouldn’t have to raise property
taxes,” Robinson said.
The wastewater treatment plant’s two-million-gallon
capacity, expandable to four million gallons, is expected to serve Fairfield
County’s needs for at least 20 years.
“The wastewater treatment
plant has to happen. Without it, Fairfield County will have very limited growth
potential in the future; but when it’s built, the county will be in a great
position to welcome new growth, and to more fully realize its potential,”
Taylor said.
Robinson agreed.
“While people don’t necessarily love a wastewater treatment facility, and paying for it with a penny tax doesn’t give people a warm fuzzy feeling, they love what it brings – jobs, retail, industrial and residential growth, recreation, all of that and, quite frankly, lower property taxes in the end,” Robinson said.
The county has scheduled a virtual town hall meeting for 6 p.m., Tuesday, Oct. 6 to explain the plan and answer any questions from the public. To register for the webinar meeting, go to: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_sbFWi2blQxSOIVks-WpNdw.
BLYTHEWOOD – The rezoning of the Red Gate Farms property, a large undeveloped parcel near the heart of town, will go back to the planning commission Monday night after a convoluted vote by the Blythewood Town Council.
The reason was to allow time for the new owners of the
property, who purchased it in June, to come up with a plan and request zoning
consistent with their plans to develop it.
The land, roughly 143 acres on Blythewood Road, between
Muller and Syrup Mill roads, is currently designated as a PD (Planned
Development) district, a site-specific zoning designation for mixed-use
developments.
It’s been that way for more than a decade after a developer
had designed a mixed-use project to include 232 houses, 300 apartment units,
and 36 acres of commercial development, but never moved forward with
construction.
Town officials noted during the meeting that any development
other than the original mixed-use plan would require rezoning.
At its Sept. 3 meeting, the Blythewood Planning Commission
voted to recommend rezoning of the property to D-1, a zoning designation for
large parcels on the fringe of urban growth where the character of development
has not yet been determined.
The commission was acting on a town ordinance that requires
rezoning to be initiated when projects with PD zoning do not move forward after
two years. The Town officials did not appear to be aware at that time that the
property, which was owned by Arthur State Bank for several years, had recently
changed hands.
“A rezoning of this property has been discussed ad nauseum
over the past 2-3 years,” said Town Council Member Donald Brock, a former
planning commission chairman who recalled some of the meetings leading up to
the commission’s recent recommendation.
During a public hearing on the rezoning at Monday’s town council
meeting, town resident Marshall Dinkins spoke on behalf of the property owners,
his parents, Byron and Susan Dinkins, asking that council defer the vote for 90
days to allow them to decide how they wanted to develop the property.
Dinkins suggested the family might want to rezone the
frontage along Blythewood Road as commercial and the rear of the property D-1.
Town Councilman Eddie Baughman expressed support for the
Dinkins family’s request, citing their history as longtime residents of
Blythewood.
“I think the Dinkins have always been fine businesspeople in
this town, always cared about this town,” Baughman said. “I think we need to
work with them.”
Mayor Bryan Franklin agreed with Baughman.
Brock argued that, nonetheless, rezoning to D-1 would put
the property in an appropriate holding pattern and establish a “clean slate”
upon which to make a plan for rezoning. This, he said, would be preferable to
leaving a long-defunct mixed-use development plan sitting on the books.
He assured the Dinkins family that, despite the coincidental
timing, the rezoning was not personal – and the intent of an approval of D-1
was for them to come back before the planning commission with a fresh plan and
a fresh zoning request of their town.
Town administrator interjected that if the Town voted to
rezone the property to D-1 as recommended by the Commission, that it would take
a couple of for a second reading and
then for the Dinkins to come back to the planning commission for a new zoning
designation. If they denied the recommendation to rezone to D-1, the family
could apply to the commission next month (or the next) for the zoning they want
and move on, then for a decision of the town council, saving them two to three
months of time to be rezoned.
Mayor Bryan Franklin, noting Cook’s timeline involved with
rezoning to D-1, agreed that it would delay the opportunity for the Dinkins
family to work with the planning commission, requiring them to wait months
through the process before their work could begin.
“What we’re talking about is saving time,” he said,
insisting that rezoning to D-1 is not necessary to create a “clean slate,”
which can instead be accomplished with a rezoning request initiated by the
Dinkins family based on how they’d like to develop the land.
The council voted 4-1 to deny the rezoning recommended by
the planning commission, indicating an expectation that the Dinkins family
would work with the planning commission on a new rezoning request. Brock voted
against.
BLYTHEWOOD – As was expected, the Blythewood planning commission voted 5-0 Tuesday evening to recommend that Town Council rezone the Red Gate property and a smaller adjoining property from Planned Development (PD) zoning designation to Development (D-1) zoning.
But the properties’ owners, who sat in the audience during
the commission’s proceedings, say they are not happy with the commission’s
recommendation, and that it will keep them from developing their properties as
they had planned.
The rezoning of the 143-acre property has been discussed by
Blythewood town government for the last couple of years. Annexed into the town
in 2007 from Richland County where it had been zoned Planned Development
District (PDD), the property was subsequently zoned PD by the Town. Before it
could be developed, however, the property went through several transitions.
After the larger parcel (Red Gate) went into bankruptcy, its ownership was
assumed by Arthur State Bank. It was purchased last month by Blythewood
resident Byron Dinkins.
The 2.41-acre corner parcel was purchased by Larry Sharpe,
who said he had planned to construct a service station and convenience store on
the property.
“I don’t know what’s been going on over the years. It seems
like it’s always one thing or the other,” Sharpe told the commission.
“At first, Winnsboro couldn’t supply us with water. Now we
don’t have the sewer. We’re trying now to work with DOT (SC Department of
Transportation). The curb cuts have already been approved, but they can’t tell
us exactly where the new road is going to be,” Sharpe said. “I’ve already
cleared the property and brought it up to subgrade and built a detention pond
off site according to the recommendation of the engineers. Everything is
approved on that site, except we still don’t have sewer. That’s the only thing
that’s actually holding us back – that and the DOT recommendations. So, if
those things were in place, I would be ready to move forward.
“I would like to see the zoning stay as it is, because the
property is already predesigned for that use,” Sharpe said.
But the Town of Blythewood code of ordinances places a
time-specific condition upon the established PD zoning district, with a mandate
for the planning commission to initiate a rezoning under certain circumstances.
The commission determined at its Aug. 3 meeting that the Red Gate property
fails under those ‘certain circumstances,’
Town Administrator Brian Cook confirmed that if the zoning
were changed to D-1, and Sharpe planned to construct the service station and
convenience store, he would have to apply to rezone that corner parcel.
Dinkins attended the meeting with commercial real estate
broker Tom Milliken, who told The Voice following the meeting that Dinkins had
purchased the property with the intent of developing it according to the
original PD plans, and that the rezoning to D-1 would make it impossible for
him to do that.
The original PD zoned property was to be comprised of 232
single family units, 300 multi-family apartment units and 36 acres of general
commercial.
The D-1 zoning designation provides for large tracts of land
located primarily on the fringe of urban growth where the predominant character
of urban development as not yet been fully established, but is predominately
residential or agricultural with scattered related uses.
Council will met at 7 p.m., Monday, Sept. 28, at Doko Manor
for the first of two votes on the zoning fate of Red Gate.
