Blythewood Online 691

Tag: Fairfield County Council

  • County Candidates Face Off at Forum

    WINNSBORO – Candidates running in the Nov. 4 election for Fairfield County Council districts 3, 5, and 7 participated in a forum sponsored by the Fairfield Chamber of Commerce at the Winnsboro Women’s Club on Nov. 11. Mikel Trapp, incumbent for District 3, did not attend and current councilman for District 7, David Brown, did not participate since he is not running.

    Participants included retired Col. Walter Larry Stewart and Tangee Brice Jacobs (District 3), David Ferguson, Eugene Holmes and Marion Robinson (District 5) and David Brandenburg, Clyde Sanders and Billy Smith (District 7). Due to health issues, Brandenburg had to leave, assisted by his wife, about half way through the forum. Candidates answered prepared questions as well as questions submitted by citizens in attendance.

    The moderator, Ron Smith, first asked the candidates to share information about their background, education and training. All but Brandenburg and Holmes said they were raised in Fairfield County.

    At one time or another during the forum all of the candidates, except Ferguson, called high taxes the County’s number one problem and the biggest impediment to growth and an improved quality of life in the County. In most of her answers, Jacobs reiterated her desire that Council listen to the community.

    Asked if they thought Council did the right thing by issuing the $24 million bond and if they thought the bond should have been put to a vote by the citizens, all of the candidates, except Ferguson, agreed that the $24 million bond was a bad idea and that it should have been put before the public for a vote. Smith added that the issuance of general obligation bonds (to pay off the $24 million bond) could drive the ultimate cost of the $24 million bonds to $50 million. Sanders at first said he could see both sides of the issue, but concluded that the bond should have been voted on by the public. Ferguson defended the $24 million bond saying “it was borrowed for infrastructure. The folks who do economic development said Fairfield County lacked an industrial park and that type stuff.” But he said the industrial park had to have sewer and water to make it grow. Robinson criticized the $24 million bond, saying, “All these years we’ve been getting money from the nuclear plant and we should have been putting some money aside. The County has not been smart in spending.”

    Asked how they thought the $3.5 million in recreational funds should have been spent and distributed in the County, again, all but Ferguson objected to how Council disbursed these funds.

    Stewart said, “I went to the County Council meeting, and I heard only one (recreation) plan presented for a vote. There should have been more than one. There are many organizations out there, like the YMCA, that already have programs on the shelves that they could put in place here, probably at less cost.”

    Robinson said he was “not in favor of (the newly approved) mini parks that have no water, no restrooms and not enough parking space. Many of the mini parks we have now have no maintenance.” Robinson, Stewart and Sanders said they favor three or four nice community centers distributed throughout the county. Both Robinson and Sanders also called for better utilization of the county’s transit system in transporting residents to those centers. Robinson also noted that J. R. Green, Superintendent of Fairfield County Schools, had opened up the school gyms for youth recreation and he called on the County to better staff those recreation opportunities.

    Holmes criticized Council members for “not touching the rec center still in the box.” He also said the Council’s presentation for its new recreation plan was “a sole source presentation, not applicable to what we need in Fairfield County.”

    Asked about their long-range goals for the County, Smith said, “Simply to move it forward, to get it to a place where good businesses and good people want to come here and where they can afford to come here. We need to improve the quality of life for our citizens and assure positive opportunities. We need good paying jobs.” He said to accomplish this, the citizens will have to make changes on County Council.

    For his long-range goal, Ferguson said, “We must work together in a civil manner. Seeing everyone trust and work together is my prayer and vision for Fairfield County.”

    Jacobs called for “a sustainable water supply to attract businesses and improve quality of life for our residents. Our leadership has to be held accountable.”

    Robinson said his long-range goal is to lower property taxes. He also wants a detailed plan for how the V.C. Summer money will be used as well as a contingency plan for essential county services should the nuclear reactor revenue not materialize.

    Holmes also wants to see property taxes lowered and wants to see a better recreation plan and more input from citizens.

    Sanders said his long-term goal for Fairfield County is to establish an educated, skilled and trained workforce. “We’re working toward that but we can do better.”

    Stewart said he would like to streamline government, improve the county’s infrastructure and quality of life and create a system that produces sustainable jobs for the community. “We can do that by effectively using the resources we have now,” he said. “We have to operate more like a business, and when we offer a company incentives, those incentives need to be commensurate with what we expect to get back in return.”

    Other areas touched on: Smith said if he is elected he will call for a reduction in Council’s salaries. Both Jacobs and Stewart said it was time for members of County Council to stop playing the race card. “I went through the ‘50s and ‘60s and the civil unrest and being sprayed with a fire hose, etc.,” Stewart said. “I lived that. But it’s time to move on and start working together. It’s time to put away the race card.”

    A report on the forum held for candidates for District 1 – Dwayne Perry, Dan Ruff and Michael Squirewell – will appear in the Oct. 10 issue of The Voice.

  • How the Bond Works

    What Else We Learned from the County’s Sept. 22 Presentation

    WINNSBORO – Parker Poe bond consultant Ray Jones was the bond council who worked with the Fairfield County Council and helped draft the legal documents for the $24 million bond issuance in March 2013, and for the smaller general obligation (GO) bonds issued in February and August of this year.

    After The Voice first revealed last March that the County was issuing GO bonds to make installment purchase payments on the $24 million bonds, on Sept. 22 Jones, at the County’s request, explained the bonds to the public during a County Council meeting.

    During his presentation, Jones identified meetings in which he claimed  the issuance and financing of the $24 million bonds were fully and publically explained. But digital recordings of those meetings obtained by The Voice from the County through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests do not bear out those claims.

    Not only were the bonds not fully and publicly explained, but the public was fed misinformation by then County Administrator Phil Hinely  and some Council members that may have impeded the public from taking advantage of a 60-day window in which they could have forced a referendum (vote) on Ordinance 614 which provided for the future issuance of an unlimited number of GO bonds. [Note: SC Statute 4-9-1220 provides that “Within sixty days after the enactment by the council of any ordinance authorizing the issuance of bonds, notes or other evidence of debt the repayment of which requires a pledge of the full faith and credit of the county…a petition signed by qualified electors of the county equal in number to at least fifteen percent of the qualified electors of the county…may be filed with the clerk of the county council requesting that any such ordinance be repealed.]

    Instead of explaining to the public on April 15, 2013, that Council had on that date passed Ordinance 614 which set the GO bonds in motion (and which could have been repealed through petition within 60 days), it was reported in the newspaper that both Hinely and Council members said Council had acted at that meeting (April 15, 2013) to issue the $24 million bonds. But the $24 million  (IPRBs) had actually been issued on April 7, and not by the County but by the Fairfield Facilities Corporation (FFC), a non-profit corporation created by the County with a resolution passed two weeks earlier, on March 25, 2013.

    At last week’s meeting, Jones explained to the public for the first time much of the plan behind the bond issuances, how the bonds work, what role the FFC played in the bond financing plan and what options are available to the County for paying off the bondholders.

    Jones said the first goal of issuing the $24 million IPRBs was to finance certain projects such as its industrial parks, other facilities in the county and recreation facilities. He said Council wanted to “keep the millage steady so as to protect the County’s debt capacity.” To that end, in 2013, both Hinely and Council Chairman David Ferguson insisted that the $24 million bonds would not increase the County’s ad valorem tax rates, but stopped short of explaining that, instead of letting the County’s 10.4 debt service millage decrease to zero in 2019 when the County’s 2009 $6.5 million bond is paid off, Council made provisions to issue semi-annual GO bonds that would keep the debt service up at a 10.4 millage rate for up to 22 years with decreasing millage for another five years.

    That level of millage would bring in approximately $1.3 million in property taxes per year, or about $35 million total over the life of the $24 million bonds. A chart provided by the County through a FOIA request, and which was printed in the Sept. 19 issue of The Voice, graphs this debt service tax revenue.

    In his presentation, Jones pointed out that that millage revenue produced by issuing a number of new GO bonds (up to the County’s full debt capacity under the law without voter approval), along with some cash from the general fund, would be enough to make all of the County’s installment payments (totaling approximately $43 million) to the FFC over the life of the $24 million bonds. Jones said the County could make all of its payments to the FFC without tapping any of the revenue from the V.C. Summers Nuclear Plant.

    What are IPRBs?

    Because the County did not have a stream of revenue (toll road, water company, etc.) it could not issue traditional revenue bonds to pay for its desired projects. General obligation bonds require voter approval for amounts over the County’s bonded debt limit, which is about $4.5 million. So, to borrow $24 million, the County turned to what many lawmakers call a legal but unorthodox installment plan of finance. Jones explained the four elements that made this plan of finance work for Fairfield County.

    A nonprofit entity (the Fairfield Facilities Corporation) was created by Council on March 25, 2013, to issue debt on behalf of Fairfield County to finance and construct capital projects. The FFC leases those projects from the County while it improves them over the life of the bond.

    The County then acquires from the FFC incremental interests in the projects over time through installment purchase payments, which are in the same amount as the payments the FFC makes to pay off the $24 million IPRBs.

    As provided in this kind of financing, the County may use any funds available to make the installment payments (including GO bonds). Traditional revenue bonds can not be paid for with general obligation debt.

    The FFC pledges the installment payments it receives from the County as security for the debt (bonds) issued to finance the projects.

    When the County has made all of its installment purchase payments, the projects once again become assets of the County.

    What Does Ordinance No. 614 Say?

    • It provides for the County to issue GO bonds to make the installment purchase payments to the FFC and those payments also serve to purchase (buy back), incrementally, portions of the projects during the life of the $24 million bonds.

    • It identifies the projects the County wanted improved/purchased/constructed.

    • It allows the County to use a nonprofit corporation (the FFC) to assist with the construction and financing of the projects.

    • It authorizes the County to purchase the projects back from the FFC.

    • It secures revenue received from the nuclear plant for the purpose of funding infrastructure in the County, including the projects.

    Jones insisted that the IPRBs are a sound and legal financing structure, pointing out that the Internal Revenue Service recognizes the nonprofit (FFC) as a valid corporation, worthy of exemption from federal taxation; that national bond rating agencies have consistently assigned some of their highest ratings to this method of finance and that the S.C. Supreme Court upheld the structure and it has been utilized by at least seven other counties, including Lancaster and Chester.

    He did not mention, however, that IPRBs have been in the crosshairs of the General Assembly since at least 2006 when the Greenville School District ran up $1 billion in debt by financing school facilities in this manner. The General Assembly put an end to the practice for school districts by tightening up loopholes in the law that allowed this kind of high risk financing for them. State Rep. F. Gregory Delleney Jr. (R-43), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sponsored House Bill 3105 in January 2013 to end IPRB financing, which he calls a rouse. He says the nonprofit corporation is a shell. “The people should be able to vote on a bond referendum of that magnitude,” Delleney said.

    Next, a look at why the County issued a GO bond on Aug. 7 that was larger than needed to make its installment payment.

  • What Did We Learn from County Bond Session?

    Records Don’t Back County Claims

    PARKER POE REP DODGES MEDIA QUESTIONS

    WINNSBORO – A year and a half after $24 million worth of bonds were issued to finance an economic development plan for Fairfield County, County Council brought in Parker Poe bond consultant Ray Jones Monday night to explain for the first time to the public the two kinds of bonds that were issued, how they were issued and how they were financed.

    Left unanswered, however, were pertinent questions from the audience, including one from The Independent Voice regarding clarification of how much it will cost the taxpayers of the County if Council pays off the $24 million bonds by issuing a number of general obligation bonds over a 20-year period as Jones suggested is the plan. Jones cut the question short and said he would be happy to explain it after the meeting.

    Jones left the meeting early, but was tracked down by The Voice and again asked to explain the question. He refused, saying he would answer it later.

    The explanation of the bonds and how they are financed was largely straightforward as Jones walked the Council and audience through what he called a very complicated financing process. In a power point presentation, however, he displayed quotes from The Voice that he labeled as “myths.” Those quotes criticized Council for not having explained the financing process to the public before the bonds were issued in March and April of 2013. Jones insisted there were nine instances during January, February, March and April of 2013 when the bonds were discussed thoroughly and in public.

    “I draw your attention to the meetings that were held on March 25, 2013; April 8 and April 15, 2013,” Jones said. “It was at those meetings that the documents associated with the installment purchase revenue bond financing plan were both discussed and approved by the Council.”

    While the bonds were indeed approved over the course of those meetings, digital recordings of those meetings offered no explanation or discussion by Council or then County Administrator Phil Hinely about the resolution passed that night, that it was establishing the non-profit Fairfield Facilities Corporation, the role of the Corporation or anything about how the bonds would be financed.

    While Jones said the information was included in the document Council passed, that information was not discussed by Council in open session. Instead, before the vote, Ferguson read only the title of the resolution: “To provide authorization for an installment purchase plan of finance for certain capital projects in the county and other related matters.” There was no discussion about the resolution.

    The County’s two newspapers did not print any information about any discussion by Council members regarding the contents of the resolution. Much of the discussions in those meetings that were referred to as “discussions of the bond” were actually presentations of the County’s economic development plan for projects.

    On Monday evening, Jones gave much emphasis to the fact that the meetings, votes and “public hearing (were) lawfully advertised and held regarding this financing and regarding the documents then before Council,” and that “in open session on April 15, 2013, a third reading of Ordinance 614, which authorized Council’s pursuit of this financing plan (was held).”

    Jones read from the documents that Council passed, but there is no record that the documents, the particulars of the issuance of the bonds or the plan for financing the bonds were discussed in open session at any of the meetings Jones listed.

    Jones shed new light on the financing of the $24 million bonds, saying that the County was not dependent on the revenue from the nuclear plant to pay off the $24 million bonds. Rather, he said, the County could continue to issue general obligation bonds over the life of the $24 million bond without going over the County’s current 10.4 debt millage. When asked by Tom Connor of Ridgeway if there was the possibility that there would ever be tax relief from the 10.4 debt millage over the duration of the payoff of the $24 million bond, Jones said, “This model says we will not go over 10.4 mills. That’s all I can tell you.”

    When asked by an unidentified woman in the audience, “How are we supposed to pay for this bond?” Jones replied, “The County is already levying a 10.4 millage debt service. As the (2009 $6.5 million) bond is paid down (in 2019), these new (general obligation bonds) will help the millage rate remain at 10.4 mills and that is sufficient for the County to repay the bonds in this model.”

    In his presentation Monday evening, Jones discussed five key points: the County’s goals, why the County pursued installment purchase revenue bond financing, whether it was explained to the public, whether it was a legal, sound financing structure and if it had accomplished the County’s goals. The document is on the County’s website. Read more on Jones’ presentation in the Oct. 3 issue of The Independent Voice.

  • Council Reinstates Leave Days

    WINNSBORO – In response to entreaties from County employees to reinstate leave days used this summer when a broken air conditioner forced the County Courthouse to close for three days, Council heard their pleas and on Monday evening voted unanimously to reinstate those three days. Council has scheduled a work session on Monday at 7 p.m. to discuss changing the County’s policy on inclement weather.

    Council also voted to immediately re-advertise the Community Enhancement Grant program and extend the deadline for submitting paperwork for grants until Dec. 30, 2014. The question about extending the application period came up earlier this month after Council awarded grant funds to find that about $6,000 had not been applied for.

    Council also OK’d second reading on Ordinance 641, which conveys a small piece of property owned by Fairfield County and located at 205 Means St. in Ridgeway to the Town of Ridgeway. The property originally was owned by Ridgeway and conveyed to Fairfield County for public use, but is no longer used by the County. In the past, Ridgeway Mayor Charlene Herring had asked for use of the property for a community garden.

    Council passed first reading of an ordinance to amend the master agreement governing the I-77 corridor regional industrial park to include property located in Richland County.

  • Tax Break Clears Final Hurdle

    WINNSBORO – County Council Monday night gave the final OK to an ordinance to offer a one-time tax credit in order to attract an international company. The ordinance amends the fee-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement between the County and Lang Mekra North America, LLC, offering them a one-time tax credit of $35,000 in exchange for Lang Mekra lowering its sales price on a building they own in the Walter Brown Industrial Park, Tiffany Harrison, Director of Economic Development, explained. Lang Mekra reduced its asking price for the building by more than the $35,000 tax credit, Harrison said, and the deal would result in more than what the one-time credit is worth in annual property taxes from the proposed new company slated to purchase the building. Lang Mekra, Harrison said, currently pays approximately $220,000 a year in county property taxes.

    Harrison said the undisclosed company plans to make a $1.5 million investment in the County that would result in approximately $36,000 a year in annual property taxes. Harrison said the company plans to create 25 jobs over the next five years.

    The ordinance passed on a 5-1 vote (Councilman Mikel Trapp [District 3] was absent), with Councilman Kamau Marcharia (District 4) voting against.

    “Year after year, we’re giving these companies all these tax breaks, I just need to understand specifically what are we getting and what are we getting in return,” Marcharia said after his vote.

    Marcharia also cast the lone dissenting vote on the final reading of an ordinance to expand the I-77 Corridor Regional Industrial Park to include property in Richland County.

  • SLED: No Criminal Violation in County Porn Probe

    Coleman: Emails Did Not Meet ‘Obscenity’ Threshold

    WINNSBORO – A final report issued by the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) has closed the case against former Fairfield County Administrator Phil Hinely, who was accused last summer of disseminating pornographic images from his county computer. Sixth Circuit Solicitor Doug Barfield, who has been weighing SLED’s findings for months, told SLED in a letter dated Oct. 20 that Hinely had not violated the state’s obscenity laws and that, therefore, there would be no criminal prosecution in the case.

    “I examined the contents of the hard drive pursuant to Section 16-15-305 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina,” Barfield’s letter states. “That statute and its subdivisions first require that for the material to constitute a violation, the material must be obscene under very detailed and specific definitions. That statute also requires that the material be disseminated.”

    “To determine whether Hinely violated the (obscenity) statute, I needed to know whether Hinely disseminated any of the questionable items on the hard drive (seized by SLED on June 28) as that term is defined in the statute,” Barfield’s letter states. “I asked Agent (Britt) Dove to answer that question for me. He reexamined the files using another software program and responded to me that he could not find that Hinely sent the files to anyone else after he received them. Therefore, I conclude Hinely did not violate Section 16-15-305 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina by merely having this material on his computer.”

    This marks the second time SLED has closed the case file exploring questions of pornography being sent from Hinely’s computer. On Feb. 21, SLED also closed the case after receiving information on Feb. 5 that Hinely had been “disseminating pornography to a number of people via the Fairfield County computer system,” according to the original case file report. Barfield reviewed a collection of printouts, allegedly sent from Hinely’s computer, and determined then that the images were not illegal. A SLED spokesperson later told The Voice that SLED had not conducted an investigation into the accusations at that time, and that Hinely’s computer had not been examined, nor had anyone been interviewed in the case. That left the door open for rampant speculation and rumors in Fairfield County, and only a few short months later a second envelope of alleged email printouts appeared and began making the rounds throughout the county. During a June 24 County Council meeting, Kevin Thomas, Chairman of the Fairfield County Republican Party, publicly presented Vice Chairman Dwayne Perry (District 1) with what he said was a second set of pornographic emails sent from Hinely’s county computer.

    Perry later said the Thomas packet contained images more graphic than those in the original SLED packet, but that he was still unsatisfied with their authenticity.

    “The whole thing has become a wildfire,” Perry said last June. “People are taking these emails as gospel, as factual. I feel like I have an obligation to make a good decision and not be influenced by people in the room telling me what I should and shouldn’t do. I do want to know if he (Hinely) did it.

    On June 27, SLED, at the request of State Sen. Creighton Coleman (D-17), reopened the case and that afternoon agents were dispatched to the County’s Administration Building to interview Hinely and collect his computer hard drive. According to SLED’s investigative report, however, agents found that Marvin Allen, the County’s IT Director, had, under the direction of County Council, already removed the hard drive and had mailed it to Santa Maria, Cal., to be analyzed. SLED contacted the Post Office and had the package put on hold. Allen, meanwhile, was interviewed by SLED. Allen reported that he had never removed or deleted any files, including pornography, from Hinely’s computer, nor had he been asked by anyone to remove any files from Hinely’s computer.

    On June 28, Allen and a SLED agent met at the Post Office. Allen retrieved the package containing the hard drive and turned it over to SLED. That same day, another SLED agent met with Sen. Coleman, who provided SLED with a sealed envelope that Coleman reported “contained printed photos that were sent from Hinely’s work computer.”

    Barfield’s conclusions, however, based on the forensic examination of Hinely’s hard drive by Agent Dove, indicate that, while Hinely received “questionable items,” he did not forward those to anyone.

    But Coleman, reached for comment Tuesday morning, said Barfield’s letter only indicates that Hinely did not forward illegal material. Coleman maintains that Hinely did forward pornographic material, and noted that, in law, there was a difference between pornographic and obscene.

    “He sent stuff out,” Coleman said. “You know it and I know it.”

    Phone calls to Barfield, as well as to Capt. Tommy Robertson, who supervised the investigation, were not returned at press time. The Voice’s FOIA request for the full contents of the SLED case file is still outstanding.

    “If that’s the standard we’re using – the criminal standard – on whether or not to employ somebody, we’re in bad shape,” Coleman said.

    At a June 1 wok session, Council Chairman David Ferguson (District 5) announced Hinely’s resignation, effective June 28.

  • Receipts Required: Council OK’s New Reimbursement Policy

    WINNSBORO – County Council Monday night unanimously passed a revised policy governing how Council members would be reimbursed for mileage and other expenses.

    Prior to Sept. 23, when Council voted to rescind the policy that had stood since July 2010, Council members had been receiving a flat monthly allocation of $795 for expenses. Those expenses included $195 a month for their “computer fund,” $210 a month for mileage, $125 a month for office expenses and $265 a month for a “Blackberry allowance.” That monthly allowance was paid in addition to Council’s base salary of $15,000 a year (plus an additional $4,800 for the chairmanship and an additional $3,000 for the vice chairmanship).

    Monday night, Council adopted a new policy, which Interim County Administrator Milton Pope said would be based on receipts of actual expenses.

    Council members will be reimbursed directly for expenses incurred, Pope explained, with claims for payment submitted at the end of each month to the County Administrator’s office. Receipts, invoices and mileage logs must accompany the claim or payment will be delayed until such items are provided. Expenses submitted 90 days or greater after occurrence will not be eligible for reimbursement. One monthly check will be issued to each council member on the 15th of following month. Expenses covered under the new policy include:

    Communications, to include internet connectivity and smart phone, up to $175. Rates for internet service will vary based on where a council member lives, Pope said, as more rural areas incur a greater fee.

    Business miles logged in a Councilperson’s personal vehicle will be reimbursed using the IRS rate of 56.5 cents per mile. Miles to be recorded on a mileage log.

    Up to $75 a month for office supplies, to include ink, paper, envelopes, stationary, constituent non-political postage or other office supplies, with documentation.

    Council passed the measure 6-0. Councilman Mikel Trapp (District 3) was absent from Monday night’s meeting.

  • County Budget Clears Second Reading

    FAIRFIELD – County Council held a public hearing and passed second reading Monday night on a 2013-2014 budget that is nearly 11 percent leaner than the previous year’s budget. The County is working with a general fund budget of $22,645,189 for the coming fiscal year, down from the 2012-2013 general fund of $24,508,004. The capital fund for 2013-2014 is down more than $2 million from last year, at $10,795,568 versus $12,944,909 last year.

    The largest drop in the general fund, in terms of dollars, is in the “General Fund Distribution” line item, which is down nearly $2 million from last year. Hinely said that drop reflects one-time expenditures from last year’s budget, such as $350,000 for construction at the library, $125,000 for construction of the new Board of Disabilities and Special Needs facility and more than $1 million to prop up Fairfield Memorial Hospital.

    Percentage-wise, the biggest dip in the general fund can be found in the “QuickJobs Training Facility” line item, which has fallen 49 percent. Hinely said the drop doesn’t represent a decrease in actual financial support, however. Previous budgets, he said, had not been based upon historical data, as the QuickJobs Center was a new facility. Now that it has been operational for a few years, he said, the budget has been adjusted to reflect their actual needs.

    The County plans to spend more than $80,000 less on attorney’s fees in the coming year, as well as more than $400,000 less on general operating expenses. The Capital Improvement fund and the Building Contingency fund both fell by more than $400,000 each, while Recreation Capital fell from $300,000 to zero. The Data Processing fund is up more than $175,000 from the hiring of a Database Manager and the purchase of new software applications, and the Department of Planning, Building and Zoning is up $167,079 from the hiring of new Code Enforcement Officers and the promotion of the Deputy Director.

    There were no public comments or comments from Council during Monday’s public hearing. Council will hold their next work session on the budget on May 6.

  • Future of Landmark in Doubt

    Council considers fate of former offices

    FAIRFIELD – Although 117 E. Washington St. was on its last legs long before the County Coroner, the Fire Marshall and Voter Registration moved out in July of 2011, suggestions of its imminent demise at Monday night’s County Council meeting stirred an emotional, heartfelt reaction from one Fairfield County resident – Terry Vickers, President of the Chamber of Commerce.

    Vickers said the Chamber has only now gotten the OK for a $40,000 grant to implement a farmer’s market in downtown Winnsboro, and that she envisions the former Voter Registration building as part of the finished product.

    “I know the Council has been very lenient with that building,” Vickers said. “I know that building is not in good shape. But we still have dreams of using that building, because it is an historic building.”

    Phil Hinely, County Administrator, said it was a miracle that the building was still standing at all.

    “Several years ago, we abandoned the Voter Registration building. It had fire code violations, electrical code violations, public code violations. It had about every kind of code violation you could think of,” Hinely said. “It’s a safety hazard, it’s a fire hazard. I’m really kind of surprised it made it through the winter. We didn’t have any snow, but a heavy snow could have crashed that roof down.”

    Hinely recommended that the County move forward with razing the structure and replacing it with a building to be used for housing records from the County Courthouse, as well as evidence from past criminal cases, all of which he said the County was required by law to maintain.

    Vickers asked Council to consider an historic façade for any new building, so that it might fit in with the surrounding aesthetic of Winnsboro’s downtown historic hub.

    “I hope we can work together so we can still have a piece of history,” Vickers said.

    Chairman David Ferguson said preserving the building would not be cost effective for the County, essentially sounding the death knell for 117 E. Washington.

    “I think the best thing to do is to tear that building down and try to build something that would be accommodating for folks to use (as part of the farmer’s market),” Ferguson said. “It would cost us more to bring that building up to any kind of standard than it would for us to build a new building on that site.”

    Council took no action on the fate of the building, but Ferguson said it was something that would require a vote in the not too distant future.

  • County Hosts Second Meeting on Water Alliance

    With a little more than two weeks remaining on a deadline to either pony up to join a regional water authority or risk being left in the lurch on future water sales, Fairfield County Council hosted a work session Sept. 5 to gather information from Margaret Pope. Pope is an attorney with the Pope Zeigler law firm, which, along with the Santee Cooper energy company, is assisting the Town of Winnsboro in forming the authority.

    Pope addressed a similar meeting July 9 hosted by the Town of Winnsboro, but scheduling conflicts prevented County Council from attending as a whole. Two County Council members – David Brown and Carolyn Robinson – did attend the July 9 meeting in an unofficial capacity.

    Since the July 9 meeting, the Town has received positive responses from the Town of Ridgeway and Mid-County Water to joining the Town of Winnsboro in the Regional Water Supply Authority for Fairfield County. The Town of Blythewood, according to Winnsboro Mayor Roger Gaddy, has also come on board, even going so far as to send in their $5,000 fee, which buys them a seat on the charter committee. The Jenkinsville Water Company, meanwhile, has indicated no interest in participating, while the Mitford Water Company is locked into a 40-year contract with Chester County for the purchase of their water supply.

    A lack of total unity on the water front is something County Council Chairman David Ferguson said could be problematic.

    “According to our representatives in Washington, until we get one entity that supplies water for this county the grants would not be forthcoming,” Ferguson said at the Sept. 5 meeting. And grants and low interest rates are essential, Ferguson said, for growing and maintaining any water system.

    “Unless we could get specifically low rates, we would be hard pressed to run lines to the entire county,” Ferguson said. “We would have to know we could get those lower costing loans.”

    The chances of gaining access to those grants and low-interest loans, Pope said, would be greatly increased through a central water authority.

    “I promise you, your chances of doing so are greater together than alone,” Pope said.

    The Town of Ridgeway, although represented at the July 9 meeting, did not attend the Sept. 5 meeting. Ridgeway Mayor Charlene Herring, reached by phone last week, said a last minute scheduling conflict prevented her from attending and added that Ridgeway Town Council was to vote on the issue at their Sept. 13 meeting. Herring echoed Pope’s assessment of the need for a central entity in order to secure funding.

    “We are very interested (in joining),” Herring said. “We do need this water authority, so we can have more power to get grants and loans.”

    But in order for Ridgeway to pay its way into the water authority, Herring said the Town would have to dig into its savings.

    Under the proposed plan, members will be expected to contribute $5,000 to a Charter Committee bank account to raise capital for incorporating costs. If at least $15,000 hasn’t been raised by the Sept. 30 deadline, the entire project goes up in smoke.

    “If we haven’t raised that money by the September deadline, then the Town will probably have to look at phasing distributors off the system,” John Fantry, special counsel to the Town of Winnsboro, said last month. “It is a ‘pay to play’ system. If Winnsboro is the only one putting up any money to do this, if other people aren’t committed, then we’re going to have to take care of ourselves, and that means cutting people off of wholesale water.”

    Mid-County Water, while they have expressed an interest in joining the authority, is currently unable to do so under their current structure, Pope explained.

    “You must be a political subdivision in order to join a water authority,” Pope said, “so Mid-County would have to convert to a Special Purpose District.”

    And that is not as difficult as it sounds, Pope said.

    Once everyone has paid into the authority, Ferguson wanted to know how the benefits would be meted out and how capital costs would be divided among the membership.

    Pope said part of forming the authority would include each entity outlining how much water they would require. The contract would include how much water the plant could pull and how much water the plant could deliver in a 24-hour period.

    “If you owned a third of the capacity, then you paid for one-third of the cost,” Pope said. “Whether you used it or not. It is a great way for everybody to take a good look at themselves in the mirror and say ‘How much capacity do I really want?’ because it’s ‘how much do I really want to pay for’.”

    Operational costs, Pope said, are usually divided according to how much water any one entity is pulling out of the system, compared to how much total water is being pulled from the system by all entities combined.

    “If you buy a lot, but initially you don’t pull a lot, your operational costs may be smaller and your capital costs may be larger,” Pope said.

    The most difficult part of the process, Pope said, was hammering out the contract between the participants. And the contract, she added, is where all the assurances are as to how much water members can look forward to. For example, Pope said that in Anderson County – a water authority she also helped guide into existence – a member has a right to a certain percentage of water. The member can sell that water to other members freely, but to sell it to someone outside of the authority it must first offer that water to the other individual members.

    Water authorities are on the rise in South Carolina, Pope said, with at least 100 of them across the state, and the bylaws governing them can be as restrictive or as broad as the membership desires.

    “A water authority is a great way to share costs,” Pope said, “and a great way to have an investment in something that is going to benefit many people beyond just one entity.”