Blythewood Online 691

Tag: Fairfield County Council

  • County tax incentives retain Mekra Lang

    WINNSBORO – In a special called meeting Monday evening, county council passed second reading on two economic development incentive agreements.

    With a vote of 6-1, with Councilman Mikel Trapp against, council authorized a fee in lieu of tax agreement with Mekra Lang for the expansion of the truck-mirror manufacturer’s facility which is located in the Walter Brown Industrial Park.

    “This is an existing company effected by the tariff increase,” the county’s Economic Development Director Ty Davenport explained. Some of the parts they use in making truck mirrors are under the tariff and since they have a facility in Mexico that they could move to, we are offering them a tax incentive for them to stay here. We will be keeping the employees here and Mekra Lang will be adding 15 more plus they will be making a $7.7M investment instead of us losing them.”

    The vote unanimous, however, for a second ordinance authorizing the execution and delivery of a fee in lieu of tax agreement for a company code-named New Nightingale, LLC. Because the county was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, neither the company nor the project will be identified until after the third and final vote, according to County Administrator Jason Taylor. That vote is expected to be taken Monday, Nov. 11.

  • Board’s Promise vote leaves some unfunded

    Green: School Board will revote Promise funding issue next month

    WINNSBORO – All Fairfield County high school graduates are not currently able to receive free college tuition funds contributed by the Fairfield County School District as promised last summer under the newly minted Promise Program.

    A school board vote last week left Promise Program tuition funding for private, charter and home schoolers to the county.

    As initially conceived, the Promise Program called for the school district and county council each to pledge $75,000 annually, or $150,000 altogether, to the program administrated by Midlands Technical College.

    In September, Green announced that the district moved forward with its version of the Promise Program, noting that 24 students made up the initial group of students receiving free tuition.

    While the school district opted for lump sum payments to Midlands Tech, some council members, saying they desired greater accountability, preferred to be billed after qualifying students successfully met eligibility requirements.

    Thus, the school district and county ended up signing separate Memorandums of Understanding agreements with Midlands Tech. There was no indication in either agreement, however, that any of the designated graduates would not be allowed to draw funds from both contributors.

    Last week, during its regular monthly board meeting, the Fairfield County School District board of trustees voted 6-1, with trustee Paula Hartman against, to revise its Memorandum of Understanding. One of the revisions eliminated previously eligible graduates of private schools, charter schools and home schools from receiving tuition from the portion of the Promise Program funded by the Fairfield County School District.

    The revised agreement states, under Student Eligibility: “Must be a Fairfield County resident with a valid high school diploma (or GED) from Fairfield County School District,” with no mention of funding for the private, charter and homeschooled students.

    The change in the district’s funding contradicts initial promises from District Superintendent Dr. J. R. Green that graduates of private, public and home schools as well as Fairfield County School District graduates (and with GEDs) would be eligible for free tuition to attend Midlands Technical College.

    Asked by The Voice why the district had decided to reserve its funds for Fairfield County School District students, Green replied via email, “The Promise Initiative still accommodates charter school, home school, and private school students in the county.  As you know there are now two separate agreements with MTC.  One with the county and one with the school district.  Funding for those students is covered in the county MOU.”

    While those students would be eligible for funds contributed to the program by county council, the contract signed by the county and submitted in July to Midlands Tech has not yet been ratified by Midlands Tech. Without that ratification the county’s agreement is invalid, essentially leaving the private, charter and home schooled graduates currently with no Promise funding.

    When contacted on Monday, County Council Chairman Neil Robinson, County Administrator Jason Taylor, Headmaster of Richard Winn Academy (Kristen Chaison) and Midlands STEM Institute Principal Cynthia Prince said they were unaware of the revision in the district’s agreement.

    “I have not discussed that specific change with Dr. Green,” Taylor said. “I wasn’t aware that a change had occurred, but that’s the school district’s choice.”

    In addition, the county is still waiting on feedback and final signoff from Midlands Tech, Taylor said.

    Over the course of several email exchanges on Monday between The Voice and Green, he did not change his position on the revision.

    By Tuesday, however, Green told The Voice via email that the school district would revisit the MOU at the board’s next meeting which is set for Nov. 19, according to the district’s website.

    “I will present the Fairfield County School Board of Trustees with a revised MOU that includes home school, charter school and private school students from Fairfield County,” Green wrote.

    Endowment Option

    In addition to restricting who is eligible for free tuition, the district inserted verbiage into the MOU that alters the Fairfield Promise from a pure scholarship program to an endowment.

    Green said doing so creates tax benefits for businesses that may wish to contribute. It also allows the district to use interest earned to further subsidize the program.

    “We would use interest to help fund the program. Therefore you don’t need to count on a line item in the budget on a year-to-year basis,” he said.

    Under the new MOU, the district can make annual contributions of $75,000 for five years up to $350,000.

    “We have the option to continue contributing up to $75,000 a year. Or if the district decides somewhere between now and the conclusion of those five years, that they want to pay the balance of the $375,000, they have the option as well,” Green said. “That just gives the district flexibility to fund it differently.”

    The deal commits Midlands Tech to raising at least $125,000 over five years to augment the endowment. Midlands Tech is designated as the fiscal agent for the endowment.

    “An endowment provides for long-term sustainability as we strive to establish the Promise initiative to students who are in kindergarten now,” Green said. “We need to provide long term funding for those programs.”

    Midlands Tech must submit a report at the end of each academic term stating the name and number of recipients and “other reportable information (in compliance of applicable laws) that is agreed to by the district and the college,” the MOU states.

    Barbara Ball contributed to this story.

  • Council OKs, then denies library funds

    WINNSBORO – They actually did vote for the $521,000 before they voted against it.

    At its Oct. 14 meeting, the Fairfield County Council inadvertently voted to award $521,000 in matching funds for the Fairfield County library in Ridgeway.

    Later in the meeting, the council voted to reconsider the library vote, meaning the county now is not awarding any funds. The do-over vote passed 5-2, with council members Moses Bell and Mikel Trapp opposing.

    The library vote paradox unfolded when council members considered a proposal to spend $521,000 to match a Community Development Block Grant, or CDBG, for the “purchase, renovation and future operations” of the Ridgeway library.

    The county’s administration and finance committee had recommended disapproval of spending the money.

    When Council Chairman Neil Robinson asked for a motion, Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas promptly stated, “I make a motion that we don’t do it.”

    A few minutes of discussion followed.

    In calling for the vote, Robinson simply asked “all those in favor?” Nobody replied.

    “Opposed?” Robinson asked.

    “Nay,” all seven council members answered, a majority of them believing they were voting against the money. In reality, they voted for it.

    “That’s a win,” Trapp stated.

    “That’s a win,” Bell affirmed. “It makes no difference, we’ve taken that vote.”

    “The nay was a winner,” Trapp added.

    A period of confusion followed before the meeting continued. Councilman Douglas Pauley introduced the motion to reconsider later in the meeting.

    Pauley’s motion came following a legal opinion from Tommy Morgan, the county’s attorney, who said any council member was entitled to bring the matter up for reconsideration.

    “There was a double negative that was used, ergo the seven nay votes that all voted against not taking action ended up voting to take action,” Morgan said.

    As it stands, the money is not being awarded.

    County Administrator Jason Taylor said conditions of the CDBG match would have required the county to keep the library open 40 hours a week, which is not currently the case. Taylor said finances proved problematic as well.

    “We also had a situation where the library had committed to a portion [one half] of the purchase,” Taylor said. “We’d have to purchase the building for $180,000, and they withdrew that support of $90,000, or half. That left us with a situation where we had to pay $521,000.”

    Robinson said he reconsidered approving the money until the library backed off its commitment to pledge $90,000 toward the project.

    “When the library withdrew their $90,000, it kind of led me to a little hesitation as far as, ‘do we need to go through this project?’” he said.

    Taylor said the Ridgeway area has great potential, but noted that infrastructure remains the county’s top priority.

    “Water and sewer is one of those things we have to concentrate on. Growth follows water and sewer,” Taylor said. “The library is something we hoped we could do. It is an area we need to concentrate on.”

  • Video, documents contradict claims by council members Bell and Trapp

    WINNSBORO – On Feb. 11, at the third council meeting of 2019, County Councilman Moses Bell listened intently to a presentation about a new farmers market.

    When the presentation ended, Bell voiced his support for the farmers market work and praised County Administrator Jason Taylor for the county’s participation in it.

    “The building, Mr. Taylor, is a really nice building. I’ll tell you what, all that work that’s gone on at that building is just really representative… a really good job,” Bell said.

    “When I was talking to the people there, they were saying that it might be [used] for some other activities,” Bell continued. “Talk a bit about that piece because I think the county needs to know. That’s a good deal.”

    At Monday’s meeting, however, Bell’s tone shifted dramatically.

    Instead of showering the farmers market with praise, he sided with two former county employees, Jackie Workman and Tony Armstrong, calling for an investigation into how the market was funded and accusing Taylor of missuse of funds.

    The farmers market expenditures totaled about $162,000, though $30,000 came from a Walmart donation for economic development.

    Bell said he thought Taylor should have secured council approval before spending any county money. He accused Taylor of circumventing procurement rules by funding the farmers market incrementally instead of as a lump sum project.

    “It appears that our county administrator may have spent money on the farmers market, over $130,000, without council approval,” he said. “It appears our county administrator may have also violated procurement code policies right under the nose of this county council.”

    No Violation of Rules

    But according to documents obtained by The Voice through a Freedom of Information request and Fairfield County’s own procurement code, Taylor didn’t violate any rules.

    The procurement code does not require council approval for any purchases under $25,000. Only two farmer’s market-related purchases exceeded $10,000 and none came close to $25,000, documents show.

    “Purchases in amount [sic] up to $15,000 – can be approved by Director of Procurement,” the code states. “Purchases in excess of $25,000 must be approved by the County Council.”

    The code does not specify who’s responsible for authorizing expenditures between $15,000 and $25,000, nor does it prohibit the county administrator from unilaterally making individual purchases for the same project.

    “So the administrator can spend up to $25,000 without approval?” Trapp asked Council Chairman Neil Robinson.

    “We brought this up in the past, about two years ago to amend that [procurement code] to say ‘projects’ over $25,000 instead of ‘purchases’ over $25,000. We can clear up a lot of things if we want to change it,” Robinson said.

    “So you were within your authority according to the procurement manual?” Robinson asked.

    “Yes,” Taylor answered, “but I would suggest you might want to change that. We could recommend any project exceeding $25,000 has to come before council.”

    “Well, I guess we could get together and work on changing that,” Robinson said.

    Trapp Claims Racism

     Money wasn’t the only thing driving farmers market opposition Monday night.

    Councilman Mikel Trapp also attacked the farmers market, which he said had promoted racial profiling, though he did not elaborate.

    “It is not for everyone. It is for a select few,” Trapp said.

    Other council members disagreed, throwing their support behind the farmers market.

    “The farmers market is used by everyone,” said Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas. “It’s not used by a certain family or sect. It’s used by everybody, and everybody loves it. I don’t understand why such a big thing is being made of it. That’s not right. This thing needs to be put to rest.”

    Councilwoman Bertha Goins said uproar over the farmers market reminds her of verbal attacks made against Brandt Jean, the 18-year-old Texas man who hugged the police officer recently convicted of killing his brother.

    On both instances, she said, people are being unjustly attacked for doing the right thing.

    “I want to thank the administrator,” she said, turning toward Taylor. “Not long ago, people were saying ‘thank you. We appreciate you. You’re doing a good job,’” Goins said. “But when they don’t agree with you, the knives come out.”

    Trapp said he didn’t even know about the farmers market until the ribbon cutting ceremony in May. But that’s also not true.

    He can be seen in attendance on the video of the Feb. 11 council meeting when the farmers market was discussed for approximately 15 minutes.

    Trapp also attended a county council retreat on April 13, where Taylor gave another report about the farmers market, and members of council also discussed it at length. There are other videos of council meetings as well where the renovation of the market building was discussed openly.

    “Economic development brings jobs. Community development makes people who get those jobs want to stay here and spend their paychecks here. And that’s what the Farmers Market and the Market parking lot are about,” Taylor said at the retreat.

  • District 7 Cookout

    Gilbert serves up fried fish box lunches to: (from left) County Tax Assessor Gary Hensley and his wife Kay and Michelle and Jason Taylor, County Administrator. | Photos: Barbara Ball
    Darreyl Davis, Sr. dishes up

    WINNSBORO – Two District 7 elected officials, County Councilman Clarence Gilbert and School Board member Darreyl Davis, Sr. took advantage of a warm fall day to host a fish fry for their constituents in the pavilion at Fortune Springs Park last Saturday.

    More than 150 people turned out for the event.

    “We just wanted to thank our constituents for having the faith in us to elect us and to spend some time talking to them to find out what they want for our district and our county,” Gilbert said. “It was a wonderful day and we enjoyed seeing everyone.

    Vincent Smith, Associate Minister at St. Luke Baptist Church, assisted with the cooking.

    Randy Bright and Sheriff Will Montgomery sit down to golden fried French fries and fish fillets.

  • County Promise awaits MTC’s OK

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield Promise, a program designed to allow qualifying students to attend college at no cost, is moving forward without participation from Fairfield County Council — at least for the time being.

    At last week’s Fairfield County school board meeting, Superintendent Dr. J.R. Green announced that 24 students are participating in the inaugural Promise Program class.

    Twenty-one graduated from Fairfield Central High School. Two from Richard Winn Academy and the other from a virtual charter school.

    “I anticipate we’ll see the number of students [attending] even higher next year,” he said, calling this year’s class “an excellent start.”

    Green has previously estimated that it would cost $150,000 to launch the Promise Program. The initial vision was for the county and school district to each pitch in matching $75,000 appropriations.

    On July 8, the school district, the county council and Midlands Tech signed a Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, pledging to work together to craft a formal joint agreement.

    In the end, however, the school district and county signed separate agreements with Midlands Tech.

    The school district had already put together its version of the Promise Program agreement, voting June 4 to fund it and finalizing its approval on July 16.

    Fairfield County approved its version of the contract on Aug. 12, voting to “approve the [school district’s] Promise Program agreement with amendments,”

    The county’s contract has not yet been approved by Midlands Tech.

    Neil Robinson, chairman of Fairfield County Council, said that while the school district is doling out a $75,000 lump sum payment, the county has asked to be billed as needed.

    “We’re pulling money from two different pots (the school district and the county},” Robinson said. “From the council’s perspective, a majority of us wanted more accountability.”

    “The main thing here is kids are going to school for free,” Robinson said.

    The Voice sought a copy of the county’s version of the contract under the state’s open records law, but the county said it couldn’t comply, citing the lack of final approval [by Midlands Tech.] 

    “The Promise Program contract has not been executed by all parties,” County Attorney Tommy Morgan wrote in a response letter. “Therefore, the County is unable to provide those documents at this time pursuant to [state law].”

    Councilman Douglas Pauley said he supports the pay-as-you-go method as opposed to paying a lump sum.

    “We have not given our $75,000 yet,” Pauley said. “When they send us a bill with how many kids they’ve got, then we’ll cut them a check.”

    Green said the district moved forward on its own. He wouldn’t discuss the school district’s position on the county’s amendments, but acknowledged the county isn’t yet bound by the contract until it is approved by Midlands Tech.

    “I will defer to the county on their positions on specific amendments,” Green said.
    A recent Fairfield County school newspaper article stated that Green said the Promise Program wouldn’t require taxpayer support. 

    Green said the school newspaper was in error.

    “A student journalist covered the meeting and incorrectly stated that tax dollars would not be used to fund the program,” he said via email.

    At the May 14 school board meeting, during second reading of the 2019-2020 budget, the district announced the inclusion of $75,000 for the Promise Program, according to school board documents.

    Green has previously said he hoped the district could establish an endowment to fund the Promise Program. 

    “Ultimately, we may try to get to that point,” Green said. “But initially we [the school district and county] are funding it through our respective budgets.”

  • Burning Issue

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County Council passed a resolution last week to recognize Oct. 6 – 12 as National Fire Prevention Week. The county’s fire chief, Jason Pope, accepted the resolution from County Council Chairman Neil Robinson and reminded council and the audience of ways to prevent fire injuries and deaths. At left is Councilman Moses Bell and at right, Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas. For home fire inspections, call Pope at 803-712-1070.

  • Bell casts blame for Teacher Village failure

    WINNSBORO – Although a proposed deal with a North Carolina hedge fund to build a “Teacher Village” appears dead, Fairfield County Council hopes the proposed subdivision catering to teachers can still be built. 

    At Monday night’s council meeting, several council members said the project might find success with another developer.

    Gorelick Brothers Capital had planned to invest $3.6 million to build the subdivision in exchange for a seven-year tax abatement of up to $600,000. But the hedge fund pulled out when it and the county couldn’t agree on an indemnity clause the county wanted in the deal. 

    “I’m saddened the Gorelick project fell through,” Council Chairman Neil Robinson said. “You don’t just lay down on the ground, you get back up on the horse and ride again. Gorelick isn’t the only developer we can depend on.”

    While several council members expressed optimism about finding another developer to revive the project, one council member blamed the media for the Teacher Village deal falling through. 

    Bell accuses media

    Councilman Moses Bell took issue with The Voice’s reporting of an email from Gorelick that spelled out the hedge fund’s objections to the indemnity clause.

    A Gorelick representative authored the email on Aug. 30.

    The Voice obtained the email, addressed to Fairfield School’s Superintendent Dr. J. R. Green and the district’s Foundation president Sue Rex, on Sept. 13, or about two weeks after its origination. It had been shared as information to multiple county officials according to Rex. The Voice obtained the email in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

    “The puzzling thing to me was a letter shared with the press and not shared with me and some members of the council knowing we were in negotiations,” Bell said. “How did [The Voice] know the letter was there and its contents?”

    Rex told The Voice in an interview last week that Gorelick’s objections have been common knowledge for some time.

    Rex said in a statement that the email “that was reported in the press, was shared on the day it was received from investors, August 30th, with both the County Manager and the County Council Chair.”

    The email was not labeled confidential, though Bell said he considered the email sensitive and part of ongoing negotiations.

    Developer was not all in

    Councilman Clarence Gilbert said Monday night that the county shouldn’t be blamed, because it was the developer who pulled out.

    “The developer was not all in,” Gilbert said. “In every major deal if there are differences, you meet and talk about those differences. Gorelick wouldn’t meet with us. So those of you accusing council of sabotaging this project, let’s get our facts together. We did everything we could to make this project work. The only thing we refused to do was to sign a blank check that may or may not have caused the county problems in the future.” Gilbert said. “If you believe strongly in something, and it didn’t work out, don’t blame someone else because it didn’t work out the way you thought it did. If Plan A doesn’t work, find a Plan B.”

    Indemnification not new

    Indemnification has not been new in the Gorelick discussions. 

    Fairfield County has been publicly pushing for an indemnity clause since at least November 2018, when former Council Chairman Billy Smith raised the issue at a joint county-school board meeting. 

    The issue arose again two weeks ago, at the Sept. 9 council meeting, when County Administrator Jason Taylor said Gorelick did not support the indemnification clause, but that indemnification clauses protecting the county are common to any contract the county enters into.

    The county is a co-defendant in a similar multi-county business park lawsuit filed over a student housing project in downtown Columbia. The county is incurring no legal cost on the lawsuit, however, because it has an indemnification clause in the deal that protects the county from liability. County leaders feared a similar suit could arise from the Teacher Village. For that reason, county officials sought similar protection with Gorelick.

    County Attorney Tommy Morgan said at a recent council meeting that legal bills stemming from any Teacher Village litigation could cost “six figures” without an indemnification agreement.

    Gorelick opposed indemnification, saying that it was already bearing the brunt of the risk. The hedge fund also wanted Fairfield County to be “invested” in the Teacher Village. 

    “If they [the county] believe in this project, they should be willing to bear some of the risk,” Gorelick stated in an email obtained by The Voice. “If we are forced to bear the cost of indemnification the risk-reward equation is too negatively skewed for us to continue.”

    Rex, Green respond to Pauley

    In her statement, Rex said that Gorelick’s withdrawal was a serious blow to Fairfield County. 

    Rex and Green also responded to past comments from Councilman Douglas Pauley, who’s previously questioned the Teacher Village.

    On Sept. 9, Pauley read a prepared statement in which he said, “other parties involved have been unwilling to help the county mitigate and manage its associated risk.”

    In a subsequent statement to The Voice, Pauley was even more blunt.

    “At best, it [the email from Gorelick confirms our concerns. At worst, it exposes those we considered partners trying to pull the wool over our eyes and over our citizen’s eyes, all for public risk and personal gain,” the statement said. “If Council is the least bit sane, this will end the circus act.”

    On Monday night, Green responded to Pauley’s remarks, claiming they were directed at him, although Pauley did not mention Green in his remarks.

    “I generally don’t comment on those things unless they assassinate my character or question my integrity, accuse me of being duplicitous,” Green said. “When those things occur, I am compelled to address them.”

  • Council cuts comments, raises ire

    WINNSBORO – It’s not against the law, but the decision to delete a public comments period from the agenda didn’t sit well with several Fairfield County residents attending Monday night’s County Council meeting.

    Moving forward, the council is restricting public commentary to items on the agenda. Residents are not allowed to discuss non-agenda topics as was customary in the second public comment period.

    Instead of a second comment period, residents can now schedule “Citizen Concern Appointments” with County Administrator Jason Taylor.

    The appointments would take place every Tuesday starting at 9:30 a.m. Residents who register would be allotted 30 minutes to address issues of community concern.

    “We’d be glad to talk to you about any issue you’d like to talk about,” Taylor said.

    In a related move, the council is also reducing the number of meetings it holds during November and December. Instead of meeting the second and fourth Monday, the council is only scheduling once-a-month meetings until the end of the year.

    Council Chairman Neil Robinson said the reason for the move is that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to identify enough agenda items to justify holding two meetings a month.

    Ridgeway resident Randy Bright said he planned to praise the council during the second comment period, but he couldn’t because of the new policy restricting public comments to agenda items.

    As for cutting back on monthly meetings, he said Fairfield is a county that can hardly afford to cut back.

    “We have the sixth worst unemployment rate in the state. We have a declining population. We have a $50M weight of debt thanks to the Fairfield County Facilities Corporation, and our taxes are still going up. We have too much work to do to cut back on meetings,” Bright said.

    “If the football team is down 30-0 at the halftime, is that the time you put in the subs and give up? No. This is not the time to give up on Fairfield County. If I were you guys, I’d schedule more meetings. Don’t give up on the county, don’t give up on us,” Bright said. “A public that’s kept in the dark will give up on the county themselves.”

    Ten speakers took to the podium, the vast majority addressing the agenda controversy.

    No speaker supported reducing the number of public comment periods. One person even waived a handheld sign that read “Forget citizens. The chair rules. ‘No’ 2nd comment session.”

    Sue Rex, chair of the Fairfield County School District Education Foundation, came to speak about the Teacher Village. She submitted her comments instead.

    Dr. J.R. Green, superintendent of the Fairfield County School District, was nearly ruled out of order while attempting to deliver a rebuttal to comments recently made by a council member.

    Winnsboro resident Thomas (Tony) Armstrong was ruled out of order and cut off when he wouldn’t follow the new rule.

    Armstrong commented on a proposed Zion Hill/Fortune Springs revitalization project, which was on the agenda, but also veered into the council’s decision to cut meetings down from twice to once a month for the rest of the year.

    “Hopefully you’ve decided to reduce your pay, too, because you’re only doing half of the work,” Armstrong said. “You all are elected to represent the people. When you get too much power, you forget to whom you belong. You abuse power and allow administrators to abuse power.”

    Council members didn’t specifically say why the change was made, though Councilwoman Bertha Goins said the policy would help curtail divisive rhetoric.

    “I think the decision is just an awesome thing. When I think all of the violence going on in the world, until we get to the point where we can’t sit down and reason together, we are in a terrible place. If we could just learn how to reason together, maybe we can stop some of the violence.”

    At least two council members appeared to reverse course on the decision later in the meeting.

    After participating in a 6-0 vote to accept the agenda, which included only one public comment period, council members Moses Bell and Jimmy Ray Douglas signaled support for reinstating the second comment period.

    Council Chairman Neil Robinson said he wasn’t opposed to reinstating the public comment period.

    “I know a lot of people are a little irritated, a little in an uproar about it. A lot of counties don’t have a public comment session,” Robinson said. “Some have one, some have two. I’ve called around to different councils, spoke to different chairmen on how they do things. Nothing is in stone, but we are trying to make things better.”

    At one point, Robinson deferred to County Attorney Tommy Morgan, who said there’s no law requiring public comment periods at government meetings.

    “It is common across the state to have differences,” Morgan said. “The allegation that there’s been a constitutional violation by the removal of the second public comment session is an incorrect assertion.”

    Bill Rogers, executive director of the S.C. Press Association, agreed that including public comment periods is not a legal requirement. But he also said deleting them erodes public confidence in government.

    “I don’t think it serves the public well if they shut out discussion,” Rogers said. “These people are public servants. They need to listen to their bosses.”

  • Millage stays the same, but Fairfield bills rise

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County’s millage rate will remain unchanged for the 2019-2020 budget year, though payers will likely still see a slight increase as the county’s millage rate remains among the highest in the state.

    At the Sept. 9 meeting, County Council passed a resolution setting the millage rate at 181.8 mills, the same as the past year.

    The county’s $26.15 million budget, according to council documents, and associated millage is broken down four ways:

    • General Fund – $23,417,841 (160 mills)
    • Hospital/Emergency Room – $937,000 (7.8 mills)
    • County Debt Retirement – $1,247,184 (10.4 mills)
    • Library Operations – $548,108 (3.6 mills)

    Fairfield County’s millage is the fourth highest in the state, trailing only Bamberg (231.1) and Allendale (224) and Hampton (196.8), according to a 2018 report by the S.C. Association of Counties, the most recent available.

    Berkeley is the lowest at 50.5, the report says.

    With that in mind, Ridgeway resident Randy Bright said during public comments that Fairfield County is already seeing its population decline and raising property taxes would accelerate that decline.

    “I fully understand that you guys are boxed in by the plethora of mistakes made by preceding councils,” Bright said. “And I’m not asking for a reduction in the millage rate, but I implore you to hold the line. Do not raise property taxes.”

    County Administrator Jason Taylor said the current budget does hold the line on taxes, but noted what taxpayers pay this year will be “slightly higher” due to declining sales tax collections.

    Taylor said local option sales tax revenues ordinarily provides a credit to property taxes, but sales tax revenues continue to plunge.

    “That credit has come down and down and down because our retail base has eroded,” Taylor said. “As we have less retail base here, the local option sales tax credit decreases for us.”