Blythewood Online 691

Tag: Fairfield County Council

  • County proceeds with referendum

    WINNSBORO – With minimal discussion, the Fairfield County Council moved forward at this month’s meeting with plans to put a wastewater treatment plant referendum on November’s ballot.

    If given final approval next month, the ballot question will ask voters to authorize a one percent sales tax in the county, and the county would issue bonds, if needed, which would be paid back with revenue generated by the tax. The money would be earmarked for capital projects, specifically the wastewater treatment plant and other needed wastewater infrastructure.

    “Once you get to a certain point as far as capacity with sewer, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) does step in. They put you in a moratorium situation, which means basically you can issue no more building permits; you can’t issue anymore connections to the sewer plant,” explained County Administrator Jason Taylor.

    “You do get in a position where you can’t accept any additional growth, and DHEC will shut you down,” he said.

    “The county is not in that position yet, but it only has 32,000 gallons of available wastewater capacity remaining for industrial development,” Taylor said. “Due to small sized lines, that is all that is available for the commerce park or mega site, which is not nearly enough. One company could take all of that.”

    While Winnsboro does have roughly 100,000 gpd of capacity available in town, adding more capacity for the county has come to the forefront as a priority.

    The anticipated revenue from the tax, which will expire after eight years, is $11.5 million – a bit more than the $9.35 million that would be authorized for a bond issue.

    The meeting, which was held in person but with several participants calling in by phone or video, began with a public hearing, in which the one comment that had been received was read by Clerk to Council Patti Davis. The comment, from District 1 resident Randy Bright, was in favor of the proposal.

    “Building water and wastewater infrastructure in rural and urban communities creates jobs, stimulates the private sector, and increases a community’s tax base,” Bright wrote, citing a Duke University study. “For each dollar spent building water or wastewater infrastructure, about $15 is created in private investment and $14 added to the local property tax base.”

    Most of the county council’s discussion was centered around questions clarifying the details of the proposal, including some hypothetical what-if scenarios and the reasoning behind why the proposal is structured the way it is.

    Attorney C.D. Rhodes, who is assisting Fairfield county with the referendum, said in response to council members’ questions that if something were to change, enabling the project to be funded by other means, the revenue from the one percent sales tax would still be earmarked for capital projects.

    Council would then have to initiate another referendum for voters to approve its use for specific projects. To designate projects without a referendum would require waiting until the end of the tax’s eight-year term.

    Rhodes also explained the likely need for a bond issue: Unlike counties that use a tax of this type to fund a list of projects, which can be done on a pay-as-you-go basis, Fairfield County doesn’t have the luxury of waiting eight years to build the wastewater treatment plant; the urgency of the project means that ideally it should be built in two or three years.

    “You would have, at the very least, a year’s worth of tax collections to prove to yourself and the public and everyone else – and banks, honestly – to prove that those collections were going to come in as expected,” Rhodes said of the situation prior to any bond issue.

    “If we get a year into this thing, and for instance the Covid situation hasn’t improved, then it may make lots of sense for you to wait until you’re two years out and you have two years of tax collections and you increase your level of certainty,” he said.

    “The good news is that, as you wait, those taxes keep coming in and they keep getting deposited into your bank, and so the amount of the bonds that you have to borrow keeps going down and down and down, and you have cash on hand that you can use for the plant whenever the time is right to build it.”

    While a couple of the council members expressed distaste for the idea of borrowing money, the majority supported the project as a whole, and the council voted 5-2 to approve offering the referendum, which would allow the voters to decide.

    Chairman Neil Robinson, Vice Chair Bertha Goins, and council Members Clarence Gilbert, Jimmy Ray Douglas, and Doug Pauley voted in favor.  Council Members Moses Bell and Mikel Trapp were opposed.

    Vice Chairman Bertha Goins said it’s important to get information about the project and the referendum out to the voters, and she urged her fellow council members to share information in their districts.

    “We need to… get an understanding to the citizens of the value of this one percent sales tax and what they’re going to reap long-term,” Goins said.

    “If we do this and we do it right and we’re successful with it, by the grace of God, once the wastewater treatment plant is in place, the lines are in place, [and] we begin to get an influx of businesses and people, we won’t have to worry about bonds, we won’t have to worry about levying taxes or any of that, we’ll just be growing what we’ve already invested in.”

  • County encourages use of facemasks

    WINNSBORO – A Fairfield County council resolution encourages but won’t require people to wear masks during the coronavirus pandemic.

    In a unanimous vote Monday, council approved the resolution. It asks residents and visitors to wear “face coverings when in public locations where social distancing is not possible.”

    “The main thing is that we can do our part to promote safety. That’s the way I look at it,” Council Chairman Neil Robinson said.

    Council’s action comes as Fairfield County’s total reported cases hit 381 as of Tuesday, according to the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control.

    The resolution stated Fairfield County reported 318 cases as of July 8, meaning the county added 53 new cases in the past six days.

    South Carolina added 2,205 new cases Tuesday, just shy of the record of 2,219 cases reported three days earlier. DHEC reported 23 confirmed deaths.

    The state’s percent of positive rate was 21.5 percent, according to DHEC reports.

    In spite of the continuing escalation of COVID-19 in the state, Fairfield County Council stopped short of mandating masks and face coverings as other counties and cities have done.

    The Town of Winnsboro adopted a mask mandate on 30. Richland County, the Town of Blythewood and the City of Columbia have also passed ordinances requiring masks.

    Counties have received conflicting messages from the state on whether or not they can legally adopt ordinances requiring masks.

    At a July 10 press conference, Gov. Henry McMaster expressed opposition to a state mask mandate, saying that task should fall to local governments.

    “Things like masks, there are over 5 million people in South Carolina. Cities, counties … they’re taking local action for the local people. That’s fine,” McMaster said. “But the state would have a difficult time enforcing a statewide mask order. One size doesn’t fit all.”

    On June 25, state Attorney General Alan Wilson released a statement saying cities have the power to adopt mask ordinances, but did not specifically say whether or not counties have the same authority.

    Can Counties Order Masks?

    “A city can pass this type of ordinance. Our state constitution and state laws have given cities the authority to pass these types of ordinances under the doctrine of Home Rule,” Wilson said. “The basic premise behind the Home Rule doctrine is to empower local governments (i.e., towns, cities and counties) to effectively govern themselves without interference from state government.”

    County attorney Tommy Morgan raised the ambiguity issue during Monday night’s council meeting, along with a litany of other potential legal issues. 

    Morgan said if a mask ordinance isn’t uniformly applied to all businesses and types of people, it could be challenged.

    “[Because] this would be something that impacts a person’s physical nature, that would probably lead a court to give a strict scrutiny to those types of ordinances,” Morgan said. “An ordinance that says one class of business has different restrictions than others, in my opinion, could be constitutionally challenged.”

    Enforcement Is Another Issue.

    The council cannot require the sheriff to prosecute mask ordinance violations because it lacks that authority since the sheriff is an elected official. Code enforcement officials could not handle enforcement either since they handle specific cases, such as animal control and litter, Morgan said.

    “The county could find itself with an inability to enforce it,” he said.

    Morgan went on to cite other issues, such as budgetary constraints and infrastructure. For example, the city of Columbia is using parking attendants to enforce mask violations, but Fairfield County does not have parking meter attendants.

    Also, the county would need a special ticket to serve as the charity document. A simple uniform traffic citation would not suffice, Morgan added.

    Council members did not push for a mandatory mask ordinance.

    Most said the most important thing they could do was to educate residents about the benefits of wearing masks, which health officials say help prevent passing the coronavirus to others. Council members also noted that in the media there’s a daily blitz about why masks should be worn when social distancing isn’t possible.

    “If individuals in the county are not encouraged by now to wear face coverings, then I don’t know what else to say,” Councilman Douglas Pauley said.

  • Council considers 1¢ tax for water, sewer

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County is bringing in more experts to help counter Richland County’s growing opposition to a proposed wastewater treatment plant. 

    Meantime, Fairfield County Council is also moving forward with a proposed capital project sales tax to help pay for the facility that’s seen as vital to recruiting more industry to Fairfield County. 

    On Monday night, the council voted 5-2 on the first of three readings to implement the sales tax. Council members Moses Bell and Mikel Trapp opposed. 

    There was no discussion during first reading, but later on Councilwoman Bertha Goins said the tax is needed to further develop Fairfield’s infrastructure. 

    “I know when you say taxes, people start fretting and they get excited. I can understand that but taxes are how counties and towns are built.”  

    County Administrator Jason Taylor said the county’s two existing treatment plants are nearing capacity, aren’t expandable and wouldn’t even be approved today by the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control. Additionally, existing underground lines are undersized, he said. 

    “While we’ve had a good run with economic development, if we don’t do something to address our infrastructure capacity, we won’t have anything left to sell to attract new industry,” Taylor said. 

    Goins also voiced reservations about Richland County’s efforts to block Fairfield’s wastewater facility. 

    “I was very disappointed with the action that Richland County took with the wastewater treatment plant. It was very discouraging. That’s not the way to build relationships,” Goins said.

    In May, Richland County submitted a report to the Central Midlands Council of Governments (COG) outlining the county’s opposition to the Fairfield facility. 

    The report, produced by Richland County Assistant Administrator John Thompson at the behest of recently defeated Councilwoman Joyce Dickerson, outlines well water contamination concerns of Richland County residents living along Cedar Creek, where wastewater would discharge. 

    Richland County submitted its report despite DHEC recently telling The Voice that the agency has no record of wastewater contaminating water wells in South Carolina. Most contamination of private water wells is caused by nearby septic tanks, an agency representative said.

    In response to the Richland vote, Fairfield County is retaining an additional engineering and legal firms to counter opposition to the wastewater plant.

    At last week’s Fairfield Joint Water and Sewer Commission meeting, the group voted to retain American Engineering. Commissioners said American has more experience working on local projects, which they said would be needed when Fairfield pitches the plant to the Central Midlands Council of Governments.

    Winnsboro Mayor Roger Gaddy, who chairs the joint water-sewer panel, also voiced disappointment in Richland County’s opposition. He said having an engineering firm who has experience presenting to the COG would be beneficial in explaining the project and countering misinformation.

    “We have to have someone help us educate people with opposition to help them understand the sophistication for the wastewater treatment plant and the negligible impact it will have on the environment,” Gaddy said. 

    The water-sewer commission later voted to retain Willoughby and Hoefer law firm for the same reason. Fairfield County has previously budgeted $100,000 to cover anticipated increases in legal fees associated with the wastewater facility.

    “I think a lot of this is an emotional issue. We’ve got to have some folks who can explain to Richland County, the citizens and the politicians there, that we’re not trying to do anything detrimental to the environment,” Gaddy said. “It really isn’t going to be how people have it pictured in their minds.”

  • County approves $46.4M budget

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County moved forward with final reading of its $46.4 million budget, but not without drama.

    On June 9, council members voted 4-3 to approve the budget that does not include an increase in the base millage rate, but does dig into the county’s cash reserves.

    Council members Bertha Goins, Clarence Gilbert, Jimmy Ray Douglas and Chairman Neil Robinson voted to approve. Moses Bell, Mikel Trapp and Douglas Pauley opposed.

    Trapp didn’t comment on why he opposed the budget, but Bell and Pauley gave differing reasons for dissenting.

    Both Bell and Pauley expressed reservations that the budget increases spending, but it’s the exclusion of a $400K community center he wants in his district (Ridgeway) that Bell bemoaned.

    Bell also took issue with cutting outside agency funding by 10 percent, adding more police cars, giving the economic development director a car allowance, raising deputy coroner pay and $40,000 in extra funding for the Drawdy Park parking lot paving project, but continued to criticize council’s failure to spend $400K on the community center.

    Bell went on to read a prepared statement in which he invoked Mahatma Gandhi and former President Barack Obama, and blasted The Voice for reporting that he had pitched a fit at the last budget meeting.

    “Something is extremely wrong with this budget,” Bell began, prompting Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas to interject.

    “How many times are you going to go over this?” Douglas asked.

    Unfazed, Bell continued, alluding to racial disparities he said exist in Fairfield County.

    Pauley objected to the budget on more philosophical grounds, saying it relies too much on using the fund balance to offset increased spending.

    “This budget would be like taking 20 percent of your life savings to spend more than you did last year for no reason except that you want to,” Pauley said. “Sooner or later, if you keep this up you’re going to run out of money.”

    A review of the FY 2020-21 budget reveals only a 2-1/2 percent increase in this year’s budget over last year’s budget.

    Taylor said the county’s budget is higher compared to other similarly sized counties because of the Jenkinsville nuclear plant, which generates more tax revenue.

    However, the plant is expected to generate less revenue in the coming budget year, which Taylor said is negatively impacting both the county and school district budgets.

    “We also have to suffer with the fluctuations of what goes on out there,” Taylor said. “When they sneeze, we get a cold.”

    In this year’s budget, the county is pulling $5 million from the fund balance, up from roughly $3 million in previous years.

    Taylor said the difference is largely due to $1.8 million the county is spending on land purchases to support industry. Another $100,000 has been added to help cover anticipated legal costs.

    Taylor said the key to reversing the county’s budget issues lies in attracting new industry and investing in infrastructure needed to support that industry.

    “You can’t tax your way to prosperity nor can you cut your way to prosperity. What we have to do is grow our way to prosperity,” he said. “It’s not something where we’re squandering money; it’s an investment. Without a sewer plant, we’re really dead in the water with economic development.”

    Councilwoman Bertha Goins agreed. Underfunding infrastructure would hurt the rural areas much more, she said.

    “If you don’t have it in place, you get passed over,” Goins said. “We will be sitting in the dark while counties around us prosper, grow and increase.”

  • County, Providence mend rift on ER sale

    WINNSBORO  – A resolution passed by Fairfield County Council Monday night has headed off a rift that developed between the county and Providence Health over Prisma’s proposed purchase of Providence Health-Fairfield Emergency Room.

    Following Prisma Health’s surprise announcement in March that it had signed a deal to acquire the ER along with three other Midlands hospitals, Fairfield County officials – not having been informed of the sale – requested the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), which signed off on the deal, to pump the brakes on the proposed purchase agreement.

    The county’s concerns were numerous – foremost was their concern about the continued delivery of quality health care for Fairfield residents. The county was also concerned about the effect the sale would have on its financial investment in the ER – $10 million the county had agreed to pay Providence over 10 years to be used for operation of the ER as well as $4 million the county had been required to escrow as assurance those ten $1 million payments would be made.

    Fairfield County and (the former) Fairfield Memorial Hospital questioned the legality of the DHEC staff’s approval of an amended Certificate of Public Advantage (COPA) that cemented the deal between Prisma and Providence Health.

    Through its attorneys, the county formally requested in March that DHEC conduct a final review of the decision that allowed Prisma Health to acquire the four health care facilities.

    A resolution passed Monday evening by Fairfield County Council and agreed to by Providence appears to have alleviated the county’s concerns by authorizing an amendment to the original transformational agreement (between Fairfield and Providence Health) in which both Fairfield and Providence agree that if Prisma does carry through with the purchase of the ER in Winnsboro, Prisma will return $3.5 million of the cash currently held in escrow, back to the county. The remaining $500K balance of the escrow will then be credited to the county’s next $1 million annual payment (which is paid quarterly).  In return for that financial concession, the resolution states that the county agrees to withdraw the appeal it has before the South Carolina administrative law court and then, going forward, to provide support in favor of Prisma’s acquisition of Providence.

    “Everything else stays in place – negotiated term of providing care to the citizens, keeping the ER open, indigent care issues and other things,” County Attorney Tommy Morgan said.

    “That’s all good news,” Council Chairman Neil Robinson said before gaveling the meeting to a close.

    “The material change to benefit the county,” County Administrator Jason Taylor told The Voice, “is that the $3.5 million we had tied up in escrow is now back in the general fund for our use, and our residents will continue to receive quality health care through the ER.”

  • Council considers citizens review board

    WINNSBORO – During county council time Monday evening, a time when council members speak their mind, Councilman Clarence Gilbert suggested council should look into a review committee for certain situations that might occur between citizens and local law enforcement.

    “Considering what’s going on in our country now, I’d like to propose that our council look into forming a citizens’ review board,” Gilbert said. “It would review situations [that might arise] in our local law enforcement departments.”

    Council Chairman Neil Robinson agreed, saying council should take a proactive approach to initiate a citizen’s advisory board to give citizens a voice.

    “We actually had a meeting with the Sheriff today,” County Administrator Jason Taylor said. “The Chairman and I had kicked this idea around earlier. We thought we need to do something to be proactive, to give people a voice with the sheriff’s department if needed. It’s a way to address issues citizens may have,” Taylor said.

    “The Sheriff said he had already started reaching out to some people for this. And we – the Chairman, Sheriff, Ms. [Assistant County Administrator Laura] Johnson and myself – are looking to develop that further,” Taylor said.

    Gilbert asked if the county would have a say in who is appointed to the review board.

    “Or is it something the sheriff does?” he asked.

    “With the sheriff and you all being elected officials, we’ll see how we can put that together,” Taylor said. “It makes sense for it to be a joint effort.”

    “Not to say (Sheriff) Will (Montgomery) would be impartial about who he might put on the board,” Gilbert said, “but I just think the county or the citizens should have a little say in who sits on the board.”

    Taylor agreed and said he would look into such a proposal.

  • Land buy paves way for jobs, industry

    WINNSBORO – In its quest to attract and expand industry, Fairfield County is scooping up more property.

    In May, Fairfield County Council gave final approval to purchase 66.67 acres from Weyerhaeuser at $6,000 an acre, or about $400,000, giving the county another location to recruit new industry. 

    The land is located off Peach Road about four miles from I-77. It’s a distinctly different tract than the one designated for a wastewater treatment plant.

    Ty Davenport, the county’s economic development director, said the Weyerhaeuser purchase agreement includes an option for Fairfield County to buy up to 500 acres. 

    “We can purchase the rest in the future as we need it,” he said.

    Virtually no county money was used to buy the land. The bulk of the money ($300,000) came from a state Department of Commerce grant. 

    Additional funding came from Fairfield Electric Cooperative. The property falls within the co-op’s territory. 

    Partnering with Fairfield Electric Co-op has additional benefits in that it opens doors to additional grant and funding opportunities, said County Administrator Jason Taylor.

    “The county for some time has been looking to diversify the industrial property we have,” Taylor said. “Everything we have currently is in Dominion’s territory which is great, but it’s also nice to have another partner.

    “There’s certain advantages that you get to have properties in the co-op territories,” Taylor added. “You get to pull down grant monies that they have available.”

    The property’s specific location wasn’t disclosed until third reading of the purchase agreement on May 26, prompting a question from Councilman Douglas Pauley. Pauley said several constituents had reached out to him, asking why there wasn’t greater transparency any sooner.

    Davenport said secrecy is often needed in land deals to prevent another entity from buying the property out from under the county, costing taxpayers more in the long run.

    “If a speculative land buyer were to come in and put it under contract or buy it out from under us, we would lose the opportunity,” Davenport said. “Somebody could offer Weyerhaeuser more money than us, knowing that it was a good site, and then turn around and sell it back to us for more than they paid for it.”

    Something similar occurred in another economic development project, said Council Chairman Neil Robinson.

    Robinson said that because a council member leaked information about a planned county land purchase associated with a proposed wastewater treatment plant, the property’s price was driven up to $1.8 million.

    Robinson didn’t name the council member. The budget council members approved Monday night included the $1.8 million.

    “The land purchase, if you guys remember, wouldn’t have been $1.8 million if a council member hadn’t gone out and broadcast that information,” Robinson said. “It would’ve been far less than $1.8 million. It is a must that we get it. We are dead in the water without progress if we don’t get it.”

    Elsewhere in the state, premature disclosure about prospective land buys has torpedoed entire economic development projects, Davenport said.

    “In the past, there are other counties where that happened, where a speculative land buyer came in and bought the land from under the county and they lost their project, employment opportunities, and so forth,” he said.

    As to which industries are targeted for the Weyerhaeuser tract, they haven’t been specifically decided at this point.

    Davenport said he anticipates the site is suitable for advanced manufacturing, which lends itself to greater job creation. A targeted industry study is currently underway, which should help identify which industries.

    “We’re going to do it in a first class manner. We’re going to be attracting bigger and higher end companies,” Davenport said.

  • Richland votes to stop Fairfield’s wastewater plant

    COLUMBIA – In what Fairfield officials say was an unprecedented action, Richland County Council voted unanimously on May 5 to direct staff and technical committee appointees to vote in opposition to Fairfield County’s plans to construct a wastewater treatment plant that they say would bring industry, jobs, housing subdivisions and general prosperity to Fairfield.

    The three-page document, produced by Richland County Assistant Administrator John Thompson at the behest of Councilwoman Joyce Dickerson, outlines the concerns of Richland County residents who live along Cedar Creek where Fairfield’s treated effluent will be discharged. Dickerson, who is battling for her council seat in the June 9 Democratic primary, said many of the Cedar Creek residents live in her district.

    Thompson sent the document along with letters urging denial of the treatment facility to the Environmental Planning Advisory Committee (EPAC), the Bureau of Water for S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), and the Central Midlands Council of Governments (CMCOG) which is the governing authority that allocates capacity for the wastewater treatment facilities in the midlands.

    Should these agencies bow to Richland’s directives, Fairfield County Administrator Jason Taylor said it would be devastating for Fairfield. Fairfield County has had recent success in recruiting new industry. With only 34,000 gallons per day left, a single small employer could consume the remaining capacity.  

    “Without a new wastewater treatment facility, economic and community development would stop,” Taylor said. “We would not be able to recruit new industry, new housing subdivisions or other commercial development. It would bring future growth to a standstill. This wastewater treatment facility is absolutely critical to the future of Fairfield County, without it there would be no new jobs.

    Later in the summer, Fairfield will present its proposal to the EPAC (Environmental Planning Advisory Committee), a recommending body to the COG board which will have the final say on whether to allocate capacity for the proposed facility.

    In the document, Thompson includes an extensive excerpt from DHEC’s web page that DHEC acknowledges is outdated. The document also lists what he says are reservations expressed by Cedar Creek residents – primarily that the wastewater effluent will contaminate the creek water as well as the aquifers that supply their water wells, their only source of drinking water,

    Fairfield County Director of Economic Development Ty Davenport said the document is based on fears, not facts.

    Chuck Williams with SCDHEC, told The Voice that there is no record of any water wells in South Carolina being contaminated with wastewater, that most contamination of private water wells in the state is caused by nearby septic tanks.

    Engineers and SCDHEC refute the assertion that the effluent discharged into the creek will impact aquifers and resident water wells. They say Fairfield’s proposed facility will not impact the aquifers.

    “If the community ‘just doesn’t want it,’ the 208 Plan is the venue to hear those concerns,” Thomas & Hutton senior Engineer Jeff deBessonet said. “A new state-of-the-art facility would open the door for the elimination of the older Ridgeway treatment system and provide a high-quality treatment facility to manage growth in Fairfield County.”

    County Administrator Jason Taylor said the county is going to great expense to be sure they have a system in place that will discharge the highest quality effluent into the creek.

    John Culbreth, with Thomas and Hutton engineering consultants, said at the Jan. 13 Fairfield county council meeting that the treated effluent discharged from Fairfield’s facility would be processed by a state-of-the-art treatment system – a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system – that would not contaminate the creek. He said it is an advanced level of treatment that would discharge water of near drinking water quality. He said that discharge is frequently used to irrigate golf courses and crops and for other similar uses.

    Shawn Goff, who lives on Cedar Creek and opposes the discharge into the creek, agreed that the MBR technology, from his research, is the best of the best.

    “If you have to have one, this is the one you want,” Goff told his fellow Cedar Creek residents at a community meeting held at the community center in Cedar Creek in January. “I can’t tell you that it’s the devil, because it’s the most advanced wastewater treatment facility that’s available. There are no open pools. It’s all contained and it has a small footprint, about seven acres. Anyone can Google and do the research. I was trying my darndest to find some piece of bad press or something that has happened at one of these plants, and I can’t,” Goff said. “They say the creek will be cleaner than it is now.”

    Davenport said that any Fairfield industries producing high levels of contaminants would be required by law to pre-filter those contaminants out of the water before it is sent to the Fairfield wastewater facility.

    While Thompson acknowledged that the proposed plant would use MBR tertiary treatment technology, he listed two links that he said referenced several failures of MBR technology

    Davenport pushed back, noting that the two references dealt primarily with failures that could be caused from neglected maintenance of the system.

    “If you don’t maintain an airplane, it will fall out of the sky,” Davenport said. “There are no references in either of these sources to downstream impacts on the environment, other facilities and jurisdictions as the Richland document suggests.”

    “We are proposing a treatment process that will be as good if not better than any other facility in the midlands,” Taylor said. “To deny us without looking at all the facts is short sited.  Our proposed facility is a win for all of us. Quality treatment is a win for the region it’s in and for the state.”

    Thompson also objected to the Fairfield facility because he said it will affect the permitting of Richland County’s Broad River wastewater treatment plant, resulting in Richland spending more money to treat their effluent.

    Thompson put it this way: Richland’s “concentration of impurities will have to be curtailed to minimize our impact on the environment. Removal of contaminants such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia, phosphates, and pathogens will necessitate the installation, operation, and continued maintenance of complex components if we are to maintain the same biological cumbering at the discharge of the Broad River WWTP.”

    Davenport said that’s actually a good thing. With the Big Cedar Creek discharging into Richland’s Broad River plant’s effluent, it would, he said, cause Richland to have to clean its effluent to a higher degree.

    Richland’s County Council Chair Paul Livingston wrote in his letter to the Bureau of Water that Fairfield has other options such as connecting to the City of Columbia or even expanding and/or upgrading the existing Winnsboro wastewater plant. Neither are viable options, Taylor said.

    “Winnsboro discharges into Jackson Creek which is already at capacity and therefore is not allowed by DHEC to take more effluent,” Taylor said. “And connecting to the City of Columbia is a financial impossibility for Fairfield.

    “The cost to the tax and rate payers would be insurmountable. It would cost twice as much money just to run lines and, in the end, we would not create new capacity or control our own capacity,” Taylor said. “After reviewing a number of different options, we have come to terms with discharging into cedar creek. All other options studied didn’t work for financial, permitting, or engineering reasons.”

    News Commentary: It’s What Fairfield Needs

    by Randy Bright

    A recent article on the front page of the Post and Courier highlighted the success of Fairfield County government’s aggressive efforts to develop Fairfield into a rural industrial powerhouse.

    The article helps to remind us the county is not sitting on its industrial laurels. In fact, the county is working to expand and update its water capacity to attract more industry, peripheral suppliers and other businesses. This will attract more jobs and more tax dollars.

    It will also improve living conditions to mitigate the county’s reliance on Columbia labor instead of Fairfield labor.

    The county’s plans to upgrade Fairfield’s aging and limited capacity sewer system is an imperative to improving Fairfield’s citizens’ future health, prosperity and general welfare. As if to highlight Fairfield’s needs, Duke University’s Kenan Institute for Ethics delivered the following message as part of their Investing in Rural Sewage Infrastructure for Economic Growth study in 2018:

    “Building water and wastewater infrastructure in rural communities across the U. S. creates jobs, stimulates investment from the private sector and increases a county’s tax base. For each dollar spent building water or wastewater infrastructure, about $15 are created in private investment and $14 [added] to the local property tax base.”

    Supplying rural areas with wastewater infrastructure has the potential to increase economic activity in a number of ways, including reducing out-migration of [county] residents and attracting industry to generate jobs, which would attract residents.

    Out-migration, which could partly be driven by a lack of wastewater services, further exacerbates the problem because it decreases the tax base on which a county can draw to provide such services. When this happens, counties either remain in the same position (at best) or their circumstances worsen because they cannot generate enough revenue to expand their wastewater infrastructure. Rural communities are thus trapped in a Catch-22.

    Nothing improves living conditions and retains population like an adequately functioning sewer system.

  • County sues over failed roads, bridges

    RIDGEWAY – As Fairfield County plans a major economic development investment by building a water and sewer plant, pending litigation has complicated another multi-million dollar infrastructure project.

    Fairfield County says an engineering firm and general contractor are responsible for the failure of several support walls at the Fairfield County Commerce Center in Ridgeway, according to pending lawsuit.

    Filed February 10, the suit names Alliance Consulting Engineers, Wiley Easton Construction Company and Mutual Casualty Company as co-defendants.

    The suit seeks actual, incidental and consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial. It also seeks legal fees and interest.

    “As a direct and proximate result of design and construction defects at the Project, the County has suffered and will continue to suffer numerous damages,” the suit states.

    Those damages, according to the suit, include “water infiltration and resultant property damage to the retaining walls, standing walls, asphalt degradation and separation, erosion, costs to repair the defective conditions and damaged property, and additional maintenance expenses.”

    Alliance, Wiley and Mutual Casualty have filed responses denying most of the assertions in the litigation.

    Alliance and Wiley have also filed counterclaims against F&ME Consultants, a subcontractor working for both firms, naming the company as a third party defendant.

    Wiley has filed two additional counterclaims against subcontractors S&ME, Inc. and Soil Reinforcement Contractors; and a fourth counterclaim against Fairfield County, according to court documents.

    No court date has been set. A deadline of September 7 has been set for pre-trial mediation.

    Fairfield County says in its lawsuit that it contracted with Wiley for $6.54 million to build a road and perform water and wastewater improvements at the Fairfield County Commerce Center in Ridgeway.

    Alliance provided some design and construction administration work related to development and construction of the commerce center. Mutual Casualty provided a performance bond to Wiley for the contract amount, court documents state.

    The work involved building mechanically stabilized earth walls, or MSE walls. The walls were built in pairs at three drainage crossings at three culvert locations along a new access road, according to the suit.

    Fairfield County says that in January 2019, it learned the walls were exhibiting evidence of severe failure, and that the defendants knew about the failures as early as November 2018.

    “The excessive deformation and strength failures will require extensive remediation and stabilization to satisfactorily perform for their intended service lives,” the suit states. “The defective conditions are a result of design and construction errors related to storm water management and site drainage.”

    The county also said that the initial contract required substantial completion within 436 days from the Notice to Proceed. However, various change orders pushed the substantial completion date to 836 days.

    The commerce center issue crept into budget discussions during a county budget workshop Monday night.

    “We need those sites open in the industrial park. Those roads and bridges and stuff that need to be redone, what’s been done to Alliance to make them get off their behinds and go to work?” asked Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas.

    Taylor pointed to the ongoing litigation, noting it would likely impact next year’s budget. The county anticipates spending at least $100,000 extra in legal fees, according to draft budget documents.

    “That’s one of the things that you’ll see reflected in the budget. We do have considerably more in legal fees this time,” Taylor said. “That’s one of the main reasons we do, we do anticipate having to fully go to court with Alliance.”

    In its response, Wiley denies most of Fairfield County’s allegations, including the allegation that Wiley knew about the wall failures weeks before notifying the county.

    “Defendant asserts that it has learned of potential wall failure and has been working with contractors, engineers and architects in an effort to try to repair the issues with the wall,” the response states.

    Alliance’s and Wiley’s counterclaims assert any deficiencies in the walls is the responsibility of F&ME, citing negligence, breach of contract, warranty breaches and other breaches.

    “F&ME undertook and had a duty to Alliance to exercise and use due care in design, construction, inspection, maintenance, management and/or repair of the Project and to avoid injury or damage to Alliance or the work,” Alliance’s counterclaim states.

    Wiley’s counterclaim also blames the other subcontractors, too.

    “The damages alleged by Plaintiffs, if any, were due solely to the actions of S&ME, Inc., F&ME Consultants, Inc. and Soil Reinforcement Contractors, LLC and were not caused by any act or omission on the part of the Defendant,” the countersuit states.

    Neither F&ME nor Soil Reinforcement Contractors had filed a response as of press time, according to the Fairfield County Public Index.

    On April 7, S&ME filed an answer that denies most allegations in Wiley’s countersuit.

    S&ME says it was retained by Soil Reinforcement Contractors to perform some professional design services for the project, and that Soil Reinforcement Contractors build the walls.

    S&ME’s reply also blames Wiley for the wall failures, saying the contractor “contributed to more than fifty percent (50%) to the cause of the damages,” the response states.

    “The intervening and superseding acts of third parties over whom S&ME had no authority, responsibility, or control” were also responsible, the response continues.

    S&ME has asked that the litigation filed against it be dismissed and seeks court costs and other relief deemed proper.

  • County revenue down, expenses up

    WINNSBORO – After a year of robust industrial growth and budget surpluses, Fairfield County’s outlook is much more conservative in 2020-2021.

    Declining tax revenues partially tied to the transfer of lands associated with the collapse of SCE&G and the new arrangement between Dominion and Santee-Cooper, looks to pinch next year’s budget, which council members discussed at a workshop Monday night.

    “We do anticipate revenues being down considerably, by a million to a million and a half potentially,” County Administrator Jason Taylor said.

    Taylor said the county will need to replenish reserves it typically spends on incentives and also matching state funds, further cramping the budget.

    “We’re going to have to be more fiscally conservative this year,” Taylor said. “We are not proposing any capital investments of a large magnitude nor any large projects this year.”

    Fairfield County’s net position surged by $1.9 million in the 2019-2020 fiscal year. Revenues alone were up about $507,000.

    But with the budget tightening, next year’s budget will be heavily focused on providing essential services.

    “It is always important that we protect our revenues so that we can provide our core services that keep people safe, our fire, our EMS, our sheriff’s department. We have to support those services,” Taylor said.

    Monday’s budget workshop was live streamed via YouTube due to the coronavirus pandemic social distancing requirements. Another budget workshop has tentatively been scheduled for Monday, May 4 at 5:30 p.m.

    At Monday’s workshop, some council members asked about the fund balance. Comptroller Anne Bass said the total fund balance has about $22 million, up about $1.33 million from last year.

    However, the county expects to spend roughly $5.5 million from the fund balance to help meet expenses. It’s a practice the county otherwise prefers to avoid.

    “We’ve been very fortunate in the past where we didn’t have to pull from it,” Bass said. “We certainly don’t want to make that dependence greater.”

    Salary increases are a priority in next year’s budget, with an emphasis on lower tier employees, such as mechanics, corrections officers, dispatchers and heavy equipment operators, said Brad Caulder, the county’s Human Resource director.

    Those positions, Caulder said, are extremely hard to fill because comparable positions in the private sector offer considerably higher pay. Offering higher raises to lower wage earners costs about the same as offering more modest increases across the board and is more appreciated than occasional one-time bonuses, he said.

    “You’ve got a lot of industry paying $14, $15, $16 an hour. Our maintenance positions are nowhere near that,” Caulder said. “We can’t fill temporary spots. We would achieve a lot more this way.”

    Council Chairman Neil Robinson and Councilman Moses Bell both liked the tiered approach to raises, with Robinson noting “It brings them up to a level playing field.”

     Lawsuit lifts legal costs

    The proposed budget also includes an additional $100,000 in legal expenses, mostly in relation to a pending lawsuit at the Fairfield County Commerce Center.

    In February, Fairfield County sued Alliance Consulting Engineers and Wiley Easton Construction Company relating to failed road and bridge work at the Commerce Center off Peach Road.

    Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas raised the issue early in the budget meeting.

    “We need those sites open in the industrial park. Those roads and bridges need to be redone.” Douglas said.

    Taylor pointed to the ongoing litigation [See ‘County sues over failed roads, bridges,’ p1], noting it would likely impact next year’s budget.

    “That’s one of the things that you’ll see reflected in the budget. We do have considerably more in legal fees this time,” Taylor said. “That’s because we anticipate having to fully go to court with Alliance.”

     Bonuses, solicitor office salaries

    In other budget matters, council members questioned two other compensation related proposals — longevity bonuses and solicitor’s office salaries.

    The early budget draft calls for $50,000 for longevity bonuses to be divvied up among veteran employees.

    Caulder said the bonuses have historically been written into past budgets and are paid out around Christmastime. He said some employees with two years of experience who technically didn’t qualify for the bonuses felt left out.

    Councilman Douglas Pauley noted that longevity bonuses should only be paid to workers with longer tenure.

    “I don’t see one year as longevity. I would ask that council consider a period of 10 years or five years,” Pauley said. “If you’re here a year or six months, you’re on probation. I would like to see that restructured.”

    Council members also seemed lukewarm over a request from Solicitor Randy Newman, who’s requesting a $25,189 (28 percent) budget increase, according to budget records. The solicitor’s office also represents Chester and Lancaster counties, and receives additional funding from the state.

    County leaders said the solicitor wants to establish a drug court and also create a salary ladder.

    “This is something he brings up every year. The solicitor has been an advocate for his department, and he’s asking for additional wages to attract qualified applicants,” Taylor said. “That’s what he’s trying to do, to move people up as they prove themselves. We have pushed back on it in the past.”

    Robinson was skeptical of the request.

    “We’re cutting county agencies almost to the bare minimum and we have outside agencies coming in and requesting [funds],” he said.

    Pauley agreed.

    “It’s not the county’s fault that the state isn’t funding him like it should be,” Pauley said. “The state had a huge surplus this year. It’s not the county to pick up what the state’s not funding.”