Blythewood Online 691

Tag: Fairfield County Council

  • Gilbert appoints select councilmen to standing committees

    WINNSBORO – Following adjournment of the Feb. 10 Fairfield County Council meeting, Clerk to Council Kimberly Roberts handed out to all council members a list of the 2025-26 appointees to council’s five standing committees.

    County Council Chairman Clarence Gilbert made the appointments – a chair and two members for each committee – as required by the council’s bylaws.

    The lion’s share of Gilbert’s appointments, 14 out of 15 available seats, went to only four of the seven council members – Gilbert, Douglas Pauley, Carl Bell and Oren Gadson. The 15th seat, which is on the Presentation Committee, is not appointed, but rotates among all council members, depending on the district a presentation concerns.

    Gilbert appointed himself to three of the five committees and as chair of two of them.

    Gilbert did not appoint council members Dan Ruff, Peggy Swearingen or Don Goldbach to any of the standing committees. The three will only be eligible to serve on a session of the Presentation Committee if a citizen or organization from their district requests to make a presentation to council.

    Excluding certain council members from council’s standing committees comes at a time when both Bell and Gilbert have repeatedly made public calls for unity, cooperation, and collaboration among council members.

    Shortly before the list of appointees was distributed after the Feb. 10 council meeting, Bell stated during county council time: “We have to work with each other. It’s important we stay in tune with each other. We have to support one another in responding to the needs of our individual districts.  It is the reason we were elected.”

    However, for over a week, Bell has failed to speak out against Gilbert’s arbitrary exclusion of certain council representatives from being appointed to any of the standing committees.

    In answer to an email The Voice sent to Ruff, Swearingen and Goldbach on Monday, Feb. 17, asking why they were not appointed to any of the committees, Goldbach said he had specifically asked to be put on at least one committee and was hoping to be appointed to several, but was skipped over for all of them. He said there was no response to his request to be on a committee, and that he had not been contacted concerning the appointments before he was handed the list of appointments last week.

    Swearingen responded that she, too, had expected to be appointed to one or more committees and was not contacted by Gilbert prior to his release of the list of appointments.

    “It surprised me that I wasn’t listed on any of the committees, not even the ones I was already on.” Swearingen said. “I can’t recall a time when every council member was not appointed to at least one standing committee.”

    Ruff had served as chair of the Public Services and Development committee until Gilbert appointed Pauley as chair of that committee last week, leaving Ruff out. Ruff has not yet responded to The Voice’s email asking whether he declined to continue serving or was passed over by Gilbert for re-appointment.

    According to the council’s bylaws, “The chair of county council shall appoint the members and the chairs of the following standing committees: Administration and Finance Committee; Public Affairs and Policy Committee; Public Services and Development Committee; and the Economic Development Committee.”  The Presentation Committee is not mentioned in the bylaws.

    “Once appointed for the year, no member of a committee may be removed by the chair of council without the approval of council,” the bylaws state.

    Gilbert has not yet responded to an email sent from The Voice on Tuesday asking why Ruff, Swearingen, and Goldbach did not receive appointments to any of the standing committees.

    Gilbert’s 2025-26 Standing Committee Picks

    Administration & Finance

    • Clarence Gilbert – Chairman
    • Doug Pauley
    • Carl Bell

    Economic Development

    • Doug Pauley – Chairman
    • Clarence Gilbert
    • Oren Gadson

    Public Services & Development

    • Doug Pauley – Chairman
    • Oren Gadson
    • Carl Bell

    Public Affairs & Policy

    • Carl Bell – Chairman
    • Doug Pauley
    • Oren Gadson

    Presentation Committee

    • Clarence Gilbert – Chairman
    • Carl Bell
    • Rep. of District from which the request originates

  • Auditor issues county clean opinion and material weakness

    Audit Presented Late for Third Consecutive Year

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County failed to follow “certain accounting, reporting, and reconciling procedures,” resulting in incomplete and inaccurate financial reporting, according to the 2023 audit.

    Mauldin & Jenkins, the Columbia financial firm that conducted the audit, issued a “material weakness” in the audit.

    The material weakness stems from Fairfield needing to perform $28.7 million in adjustments across five county funds in order to close its books for 2023, resulting in an internal control breakdown, according to the audit.

    An internal control safeguards “assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition, and includes controls related to financial reporting and operational objectives.”

    “The County did not properly account for certain activities or prepare and review all reconciliations typically required as part of the financial close and reporting process,” the audit states.

    Further, the audit recommended the county adhere to internal controls, provide education to accounting personnel, and cross-train staff in accounting practices “to make the accounting function stronger and more capable.”

    Audit findings were presented at Monday night’s Fairfield County Council meeting.

    Grant Davis with Mauldin & Davis told council members the county is still in a far better financial position than during the 2022 audit, when the county reported $95 million in unrecorded activities.

    “If you read it carefully as compared to last year, you’ll note some important differences from 2022 to 2023,” Davis said. “Even though we did have internal control deficiencies, things are much more positive from an accounting and financial reporting perspective than they were as part of that 2022 report.”

    Davis said the material weakness noted in this year’s audit stems from the “over-recording” of debt payments associated with the Fairfield Facilities Corporation Fund.

    “There were some things that were recorded out of an abundance of caution to not be back where we were in 2022,” he said.

    The “over-recording” issue stems from bonds the Fairfield Facilities Corporation issued in 2013. Proceeds from additional bonds issued in 2021 were applied to repay debt on the old bonds.

    Davis said once debt payments are deposited with a trustee, it’s no longer the county’s money, though the payments were recorded as such.

    “The county recorded the proceeds of those cash accounts and we had to take them off,” Davis said. “That debt is not debt to the county anymore. The debt for all purposes is diffused.”

    Fairfield Responds to Audit

    Fairfield accepted the findings of Mauldin & Jenkins, attributing to negative findings to “numerous changes and challenges” in the county’s finance department that delayed the audit’s completion.

    “We will continue to review and improve internal control policies and procedures in an effort to eliminate errors and identify deficiencies from both operational and financial perspectives,” the county said in a statement.

    Fairfield has been tardy in completing its annual audit in 2022 and 2023.  State law requires counties to submit annual audits to the state Treasurer’s Office by December 31.

    For the 2023 audit, the state granted Fairfield an extension without penalty, moving the deadline to March 31. In 2022, the state withheld about $5 million in state funding from Fairfield County because of the late audit.

    Davis added that the negative findings in the 2023 audit weren’t serious, noting the audit document was completed before the extended March 31 deadline.

    “We tried to reword the verbiage in this controlled deficiency to reflect that there have been improvements,” Davis said.

    Councilwoman Peggy Swearingen asked if the audit would be published on the county’s website. Interim administrator Clay Killian said that it would be, and the document was accessible online later Monday night.

    Councilman Dan Ruff asked whether the 2024 audit would be completed on time.

    “Going forward into next year, are we going to be able to start on time to be on time? I was promised it [being late] wasn’t going to happen this time and it did,” Ruff said.

    Davis expressed confidence the audit would be done on time.

    “Given the time frame that we’re at now, there’ll be plenty of time to get any changes from 2023 closed out and be ready to rock and roll for 2024,” Davis said. “Of course, we’re open to starting sooner if the county is ready. I don’t see any issue with starting sooner and having it issued before December 31.”

    The audit reported the county’s fund balance at about $16 million, a decline of about $1.9 million from 2022.

    Davis attributed the decrease to several unspecified transfers between county funds. He noted the county has about five months of operating revenue in reserve.

    “Your expenditures for FY 2023 amounted to about $34.5 million, or about five months of fund balance in June 2023,” Davis said. “If you didn’t take in another dollar after June 30, you could operate for five months spending at 2023 levels, which is a pretty healthy place to be.”

    It remained unclear whether or not the $16 million included any restricted funds. Davis left the meeting after his presentation, and Killian said he’d inquire whether restricted funds were included in the balance.

    Other Business

    Council voted to purchase a new car for the Sheriff’s office for approximately $47,000. An additional $8,200 will be needed to upfit it for service.

    Council also voted to contract to pay the county’s auditing firm, Mauldin & Jenkins, $40,000 to help the county appeal some of the$1.4 million of fines and penalties levied on the county by the IRS.

    Deputy Administrator Synithia Williams said the short term rental issue update is being delayed until a new director of the county’s planning department is hired. Interim Administrator Clay Killian said he expects a director will be hired soon.

    Gregory Sprouse with Central Midlands Council of Government gave an update on the Comprehensive Plan.

    Councilwoman Peggy Swearingen questioned whether there is a timeline for implementing the plan.

    Don Goldbach, resident from District 2 said the Comp Plan is a big wish list of things the county wants to do, but said it lacks smart implementation guidelines.

    “The implementation has to do with who, what and when to do these things,” Goldbach said. “We need to transition from just a wish list to the specifics of implementing the plan.”

    Sprouse said the plan lays out goals for short term (up to 2 years), middle term (2 – 5 years) and long term (up to 10 years).

    While speaker Randy Bright, a resident from Ridgeway District 1, praised Sprouse’s presentation of the plan, he, too, called for the specifics of accountability – the who, what, when – of carrying the plan out.

    “It’s the same problem Fairfield County has always had with implementing the Comp Plan,” Bright said. “There’s no accountability.

    “For example, last year’s plan for population was the same as this year’s plan. The last one said, “Grow the population with economic activity and other stuff. But there were no specifics about how to do that. So, we shrunk the population and our economic activity was such that we still remain in the bottom 30% [of the unemployment rate] of all counties in the state.”

    A public hearing for the Fairfield County comprehensive plan, originally scheduled for March 25, has been rescheduled for the April 8, 2024, County Council meeting. This will also push back the tentative date of the final reading to April 22, 2024, for county council to adopt the Comprehensive Plan.

  • Subdivision of more than 1,000 homes proposed for Fairfield County

    FAIRFIELD COUNTY — As many as 1,000 to 1,600 residential units could be coming to Fairfield County if Fairfield County Council approves a request from Haven Homes to rezone 392 acres from Industrial (I-1) zoning to Residential 2 (R2) zoning.

    The property, bordered by Gum Springs Road, Devil’s Race Track and Highway 34, was rezoned just over a year ago from Rural Residential District (RD-1) zoning to Industrial zoning despite an outcry against the industrial zoning from residents in the area. 

    Some of those same residents now worry that R2 zoning could bring what it allows – higher density with duplexes and triplexes as well as single-family homes. Homes in the surrounding area are mostly high end homes on large acreage parcels.

    According to officials knowledgeable of the proposed project, the buildout could take 10 years or longer.

    The developer is looking to Winnsboro for water and sewer, according to Winnsboro Town Manager Jason Taylor.

    “We have sufficient capacity to provide service out there,” Taylor said. “But we do have limited capacity and would have to review the project and look at how it will affect our capacity moving forward.”

    Two other developers are also looking at property for subdivisions in Fairfield County. Officials say the homes are following Scout and could bring growth to the County.

    Council’s next regular meeting will be held on Sept. 25 6 p.m. at 250 North Walnut Street in the new county government complex.

  • Election tilts council’s balance of power

    • From left, Clarence Gilbert (Dist. 7), Peggy Swearingen (Dist. 3) and Doug Pauley (Dist. 5). Not pictured, Dan Ruff (Dist. 1). | Barbara Ball

    WINNSBORO – Voters sent a clear message to the Fairfield County Council Tuesday night as they turned out County Council Chairman Moses Bell (Dist.1) and long-time Councilman and Vice Chairman Mikel Trapp (Dist. 3), leaving council with a new majority vote.

    Dan Ruff

    Voters returned Dist. 5 representative Douglas Pauley and Dist. 7 representative Clarence Gilbert to their seats to each serve their second full terms.

    The two had faced a fierce, months-long campaign from a few residents from the Center Creek and the Cedar Creek area who supported Pauley’s and Gilbert’s opponents, Kirk Chappell and Lisa Brandenburg, respectively, and Bell.

    In Council Dist. 1, former Councilman Dan Ruff with 555 votes (48%) ousted Moses Bell with 381 votes (33 %) in a three way contest with political newcomer Kennedy (Kenny) Robertson who garnered 227 (20%). There were two write-in votes.

    In Dist. 3, Peggy Swearingen with 583 votes (57%) won over Mikel Trapp who had 446 votes (43%). There were 7 write-ins.

    In Dist. 5, incumbent Douglas Pauley won by the largest margin of all the county council candidates with 536 votes (59%) Kirk Chappell who had 379 votes (41%). There were 16 write-in votes.

    In Dist. 7, incumbent Clarence Gilbert with 589 votes (57%) bested Lisa Brandenburg who had 442 votes (43%). There were 6 write-in votes.

    At press time, neither Bell nor Trapp had responded to The Voice’s requests or comments. However, Bell made the following post on Facebook shortly after the election results were announced:

    “I want to thank you all so much for your support and votes. We were able to accomplish much together in these 4 years…continue to be very proud of that record.  I will be talking more in next weeks and months.  The odds were against me and I was not able to bring it across the finish line.  I called Dan Ruff to congratulate him on his victory…I had to leave a message since he did not pick up.”

    Pauley also thanked his supporters on Facebook for his win.

    “Thank you for believing in me, thank you for voting for me, and thank you for allowing me to serve District 5 in our great county for four more years!,” Pauley wrote. “I will continue to work on improving Fairfield County to make it a great place to live, work, and visit!”

    Gilbert said he already feels a new openness coming back to the Fairfield government.

    “I’m truly grateful to my friends, family and supporters who voted for me in this election. And I pledge to serve with openness and dignity and to help this county and its people prosper. We can’t shut out the people. We can’t censor employees from talking to our councilmen. We can’t have a guard always on duty to be sure the citizens don’t find out what we’re doing,” Gilbert said. “Our business is the people’s business and we want them to be part of the discussion.”

    Pauley and Gilbert had been at odds with Bell and his majority on council for the last two years over the issues of government openness and Bell’s spending priorities, among other issues.

    Related: County election results are in

  • Council passes 2nd vote to rezone Gum Springs property for industry

    FAIRFIELD COUNTY – Again Monday night, for the second county council meeting in a row, a group of residents in the Gum Springs Road area addressed council members, begging them not to rezone a large tract of land on Gum Springs Road near their homes for industrial use.

    The 392-acre parcel, owned by Gum Springs, LLC, sits along SC Highway 34 between Gum Springs Road and Devils Racetrack Road and currently has a rural residential zoning classification. The property owner is requesting council to approve Ordinance 795, which would rezone the parcel to I-1 (Industrial.)

    The residents who oppose the rezoning say they have lived in the area most of their lives or have recently moved to the area for the peace and quiet of the heretofore rural countryside. Some families have lived there for generations.

    The most recent adaptations to the county’s comprehensive plan assigns industrial corridor status to the 11 miles that stretches along Highway 34 between Winnsboro and the Town of Ridgeway. The mostly straight leg of highway is intersected by Interstate 77, nine miles east of Winnsboro and 2.3 miles to Ridgeway from the 34 exit ramp. 

    The Simpson/Gum Springs community members have asked for the rezoning to be put on hold until the community has more input into the modification of the plans for zoning categories.

    Peter Gainey, a Gum Springs resident, said he has lived there for 15 years, moving there for the peace and quiet.

    “Don’t do this,” Gainey implored council, referring to the rezoning. “I’ve been told that you want to do it because you have existing utilities already along Highway 34, and that other areas don’t have that,” Gainey said. “Don’t blame us for it.

    “This is my generation and I deserve to live in peace and quiet. When this meeting is over, you will go to your homes where it’s peaceful, quiet, and where you don’t have hanging over your head whether or not the tract of land across from where you live will soon become industrial. You don’t have that worry. I do.”

    Gainey implored council members to consider the citizens’ concerns before making their third and final vote at the next meeting.

    “This type of spot zoning to industrial development status could result in unplanned and undesirable growth incompatible with the surrounding rural, agricultural and residential development uses that exist along the Highway 34E corridor,” said Pelham Lyles, a longtime property owner in the area.

    “Property owners should have a reasonable expectation that existing land uses will not change and negatively impact their property and residences.

    “The development of the county’s existing and proposed industrial parks should restrict the location of industry to those sites, rather than to allow the disruption of longstanding residential and agro-industry uses of our rural and natural resource areas,” Lyles said.

    “Highway 34 between Ridgeway and Winnsboro should be promoted as the scenic route between I-77 and the two largest and designated historic towns,” Lyles said. 

    “I fear that the present comprehensive plan’s designation of Highway 34 as an industrial corridor means that large mega industry could eclipse the existing community, its naturally beautiful resources and its settled people.”

    Donita Harris, a small farmer who also has a full time job to support her farm, said her farm is almost entirely eclipsed by the proposed industrial site.

    As a small farmer, Harris said she provides eggs, milk, goats, honey and other products for her neighbors and the community where she lives.

    “I have spent blood, sweat and tears trying to make a go of my little farm. At my age I can’t start over on another piece of property.

    “I am asking you to please not rezone the area industrial,” she said. “I know that industry is big and important. But small people are important too.”

    But for the second time, the Gum Springs residents’ pleas to council fell on deaf ears for the most part.

    While the Fairfield County Planning Commission voted in support of the residents last month, recommending against the rezoning, county council voted 5-2 on first reading to rezone the land, with Councilmen Douglas Pauley and Clarence Gilbert voting against the rezoning.

    “The planning commission voted unanimously not to rezone the property and this council should do the same,” Councilman Douglas Pauley said. “We have plenty of other areas that are designated for commercial and industrial use. In the last 10 years, Fairfield County has lost over 3,000 residents. We cannot afford to lose anymore due to us not considering their feelings when it comes to their residential communities.”

    Chairman Moses Bell said he had wrestled with the decision of how to vote, but this property could bring a $100 million to $2 billion investment.

    “I have always fought for protecting residential areas, but I have to vote on what I believe is best for this county to grow and prosper,” Bell said.

    Council voted 4-2 to rezone the property with Pauley and Gilbert voting against rezoning.

    The next council meeting and final vote on the rezoning is set for Monday, July 13 at the new County Government Complex.

  • Gilbert: Council salaries should be cut in FY 22-23

    Councilman Trapp: ‘I Don’t Think That’s Legal.’

    WINNSBORO – Fee increases, adding new positions, and cutting council member salaries are among the last minute alterations under consideration in Fairfield County’s proposed $41.3 million budget.

    But it was an existing budget item that would fund Fairfield County Sheriff’s Office raises that’s giving at least one council member heartburn.

    At a budget work session Monday night, Council Chairman Moses Bell questioned why the proposed budget includes $59,000 for sheriff’s office raises, but not for other county departments.

    Bell directed much of his frustration toward County Administrator Malik Whitaker.

    “We gave them an extra bonus this year, and then on top of that they’re getting regular raises,” Bell said. “[The sheriff’s office budget] went up 3.4 percent when we took 10% from everyone else, from the departments. I don’t know how you did that.”

    Whitaker said the sheriff’s office is different because most employee salaries are linked to rank. He said as deputies and corporals are promoted to sergeants and lieutenants, their salaries increase accordingly.

    “It’s just two different systems from my perspective,” Whitaker said.

    Whitaker offered to restructure the budget to not include raises, but Bell signaled he’ll probably still vote for the budget as presented.

    “If council is OK in doing this, I’m OK. But I don’t understand how their budget increased $159,000 when we have department budgets decrease.”

    No votes were taken during Monday’s work session. Third and final reading of the budget is tentatively scheduled for Monday, May 23.

    Fee increases

    From the outset, the 2022-2023 proposed budget has called for a 10 percent cut to all county departments.

    The budget also freezes spending at 2021-2022 levels.

    To help compensate for falling revenues, county staff rolled out a series of proposed fee increases.

    Fairfield County Airport plans to increase its overnight ramp fee from $40 to $50.

    The Clerk of Court plans to institute a $25 recording fee for any plat.

    The coroner’s office has requested to increase autopsy report fees from $250 to $300.

    Parks and recreation, the following fee increases were proposed:

    • Tackle Football – Increase from $20 to $35
    • Baseball – Increase from $20 to $35
    • Softball – Increase from $20 to $25
    • Gymnastics – $25 monthly fee for ages 6 and up
    • Afterschool – Increase from $30 for first child and $15 per additional child to $35 and $25, respectively
    • Summer Camp – Increase from $45 for first child and $25 per additional child to $60 and $30, respectively
    • Boykin Rec Center – Removed fitness room fee

    Fairfield County Public Works is also planning to charge $125 per eight-foot stick of concrete culvert per personal drive to cover rising costs of materials, said Finance Director Anne Bass.

    Motions List

    Council members also developed a draft motions list, which traditionally consists of line items requested by individual council members.

    One motion of note proposed cutting council member salaries by 10 percent per member.

    Councilman Clarence Gilbert, who proposed the idea, thought it was only fair given the cuts being made elsewhere.

    “We’ve asked every department to help with cuts, but we as a council haven’t done anything to make cuts in our budget,” Gilbert said.

    Gilbert’s idea, though, didn’t seem to gain traction. Councilman Tim Roseborough chuckled while Councilman Mikel Trapp said he didn’t think the idea was legal.

    “Check to make sure that’s legal. I don’t think it’s legal to do that,” Councilman Michael Trapp said.

    Trapp also recommended increasing spending from $10,000 to $15,000 for a County Council newsletter.

    Other items added to the motion list include:

    • Funding for a deputy director at the Fairfield County Detention Center
    • Funding for another corrections officer at the detention center
    • Adding a full-time custodian at the new county administration building
    • Reopening county recycling centers on Monday
    • Providing a $21,000 match for the Transit Department

  • MTC president questioned on how county funding is spent

    WINNSBORO – With Fairfield County considering tax increases and agency cuts to balance the budget, questions arose during a work session Tuesday about how the county funds Midlands Technical College.

    MTC president Ronald Rhames acknowledged this year’s $155,100 funding request – up from about $143,000 last year – would be spent not only in Fairfield County, but also Richland and Lexington counties.

    “It’s used for all of our physical plant operations,” Rhames said.
    Pauley questioned other aspects of MTC funding that he said is often vague.

    This year’s request of $155,100 is characterized as “Other.” In prior years, MTC classified its requests to the county as “building maintenance.”

    Pauley found that odd, noting that the county fully maintains the MTC building in Winnsboro, a process that involves trimming bushes and removing bird nests. Then the county also provides MTC with funding for maintenance.

    “I’m pretty sure it doesn’t take $155,000 to do those things,” Pauley said. “You could offer a whole lot more in Fairfield County. Two academic classes, I feel, is not enough.”

    Rhames suggested that the Fairfield money helps backfill MTC’s overall budget, thereby saving students money in the long run.

    “The money you provided helped lower the costs of students attending MTC when they come to Columbia to attend one of our campuses,” he said. “We have a number of Fairfield citizens taking advantage of those courses.”

    Pauley also stated that MTC’s Fairfield campus is only offering two courses – English 101 and History 201 – in the upcoming fall semester. There was conflicting information about whether MTC-Fairfield offered one or two courses this past spring.

    “With the amount of money that Fairfield County has given, we’re not getting the best bang for the buck,” Councilman Doug Pauley said.

    Moments earlier, Rhames extolled how 25 Fairfield County high school students were slated to receive associate’s degrees or certificates this week. He said county funding helped make that happen.

    “These students have a head start. Your investment allows this,” Rhames said. “These students are saving their parents a tremendous amount of money.”

    MTC is one of 22 outside agencies that have requested county funding to help subsidize their 2022-2023 budgets. Tuesday’s work session gave those agencies a forum to formally request funding.

    Most presentations wrapped up in a few minutes with council members asking few to no questions. MTC’s request, however, garnered considerable commentary.

    Pauley pressed Rhames about whether MTC students really attended spring classes for free as the state had promised.

    Rhames responded that while the governor’s office recently pledged free technical college education for eligible students, the state only provided 20 to 25 percent of the necessary funding.

    MTC covered what the state didn’t fund, Rhames said.

    “For the students who qualified for it, the institution made up the difference to make sure we honored the commitment the governor made,” he said.

    Not all council members contested MTC finances.

    In spite of scant academic offerings at the Winnsboro campus and most of Fairfield’s funding being spent in other counties, County Chairman Moses Bell applauded the college system for its efforts.

    “You and I have talked about those courses, those free courses, those community courses,” Bell said. “That’s been a success for this county.”

    No decisions were made on any of the outside agency requests.

    The county will likely hold second of three readings on the budget in two weeks. A third budget work session is tentatively set for Monday, May 16.

  • Ridgeway rec center sign defaced

    RIDGEWAY – The sign announcing the location of the new $2.5M recreation center to be built in Ridgeway was defaced last week with the words: “Stop wasting our $$.” The location is on Highway 21 between Ridgeway and Blythewood.

    During the county council meeting Monday night, Chairman Moses Bell addressed the incident.

    “I was saddened by the defacement of the sign at District 1 recreation community center location. Not so much for me, but for the citizens in the area. But I’m also very hopeful,” Bell said.

    He said he received a call from someone who stated, ‘Mr. Bell, you are doing the right thing to grow this county. But many don’t want to see you and this county be a part of the wealth that will come to the county for your work.’  He said the caller stated, ‘ We are trying to build the infrastructure in a way that gives us  sustainable growth in the future.”

    “There are many who are working to incite others, with many others granting permission,” Bell said. “It (the sign) is the property of Fairfield County and once the investigation is done by the Sheriff’s office, Fairfield County will erect a new sign.”

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

    WINNSBORO – Winnsboro is taking Fairfield County to court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Winnsboro Town Manager Jason Taylor could not be reached.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Taylor has denied ever creating or lobbying for the fee.

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

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

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

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

  • County didn’t know its financial status for months

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Bell casts blame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Greene vs. Pauley

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

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

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

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

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

    “Did you find this unusual?” Greene pressed.

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

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