Blythewood Online 691

Tag: Fairfield County Council

  • Green: Gorelick pulls out of Teacher Village

    EDITOR’S NOTE: Minutes before press time, The Voice was notified by Fairfield County officials that Fairfield School Superintendent Dr. J. R. Green had informed County Administrator Jason Taylor that Gorelick Brothers Capital, developer for the Teacher Village, announced the company is withdrawing from the project. The Voice will update the story online as information becomes available. The following story reflects events prior to Green’s announcement.

    WINNSBORO – A North Carolina hedge fund seeking generous tax breaks to build a controversial “Teacher Village” housing project won’t budge on a stipulation that would protect Fairfield County from future lawsuits.

    In an email obtained by The Voice, a representative of Gorelick Brothers Capital of Charlotte, North Carolina, said investors won’t move forward unless Fairfield County shares in the legal risk.

    “The reason why indemnification is an issue is that we are not willing to bear the risk of indemnifying the County,” the memo says. “There is an unpredictable liability for us and we also want the County to be ‘invested’ in this project.”

    Dated Aug. 30, the memo was addressed to Dr. J.R. Green, superintendent of the Fairfield County School District; and Sue Rex, chair of the Fairfield County School District Education Foundation.

    The school district’s board of trustees created the foundation to facilitate development of the Teacher Village, which seeks to build affordable rental homes catering to teachers.

    In the email, the Gorelick representative proposed telephoning Green and Rex to further discuss possible options. He suggested a date of Sept. 4.

    “Do you have some time on Wednesday morning for a call? Maybe 10 am?” the email states. “We received feedback from the County and are at an impasse on one business point (indemnification), but there may be a solution that you could provide for the project.”

    Green said he’d not spoken with Gorelick and could not confirm he had seen the email. He wouldn’t comment further on most other aspects of the email or indemnification.

    “It’s Gorelick’s decision on how they want to handle that with the county,” Green said.

    A Gorelick official couldn’t be reached for comment as of press time.

    Rex affirmed that Gorelick adamantly opposes adding an indemnity clause to any Teacher Village deal.

    “The Gorelick Brothers will not sign an agreement that requires them to indemnify,” she said. “They want this to happen but if that’s the final straw, they’ll walk away.”

    Rex added that the foundation would bear some financial risk with the Teacher Village. If occupancy falls short, the foundation would have to cover any rent shortfalls, she said.

    “We’re responsible after that occupancy rate to make sure that the rent payment [for unrented units] is made every month,” Rex said. “We’d have to still make the rent payment at the end of the month.”

    Teacher Village critics say the email from Gorelick and lack of transparency surrounding it serve as further proof that the county’s indemnification is necessary.

    “They [school officials] were still pressuring the county to make this thing go forward without telling the county they had received an email,” Fairfield County Councilman Douglas Pauley said. “For a year now, the thing we were most concerned about was indemnification for the county, and they knew that.”

    Clause common in county contracts

    Gorelick (pronounced guh-RELL-ick) wants the development designated as a multi-county business park to make it eligible for a tax abatement. The company is seeking a seven-year tax abatement totaling about $600,000 to finance the project.

    Fairfield County has said it’s open to those requests, but also wants an indemnification clause to protect taxpayers.

    County Administrator Jason Taylor said during the last council meeting 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 fear a similar suit could arise from the Teacher Village. For that reason, too, county officials say they are seeking 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.

    But Gorelick won’t budge, saying indemnification essentially is a deal-breaker.

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

    Gorelick rejects offer

    County Administrator Jason Taylor recently said the county pitched an alternative option establishing an escrow account into which Gorelick could periodically deposit funds to cover any possible future legal costs of the county.

    “We were told by Gorelick that they would not do that,” Taylor said at the Sept. 9 council meeting. “Then we reached out to the school district and the foundation. We have not found that’s going to happen either.”

    Green said Gorelick should ultimately decide whether or not to pay into an escrow account.

    “That’s [part of] negotiations between Gorelick and the county,” Green said. “The school district doesn’t have the authority to pay into an escrow account on behalf of Gorelick. It’s Gorelick’s decision.”

    Asked directly for the school district’s position on indemnification, Green said “that’s between Gorelick and the county.”

    The indemnification issue first arose at a special Fairfield County Council meeting in November 2018.

    At that meeting, Green called the inclusion of an indemnity clause to protect the county “not reasonable.” The county’s former council chairman felt otherwise.

    “If we are going to be the ones to accept the risk for what many of us see as [someone else’s] property, then there are some conditions that we’d like to talk about,” former council chair Billy Smith said.  “It’s not our project, we’re helping with someone else’s property. They should be willing to pay and hedge that bet on the risk.”

    Since then, several council members have also said any Teacher Village deal should include legal protections for Fairfield County. Council members Bertha Goins, Clarence Gilbert, Jimmy Ray Douglas, Neil Robinson and Pauley are among them.

    Email irks council member

    Some Teacher Village supporters, including education foundation vice-chair Shirley Green, think the county should approve the deal despite the risk.

    At the Sept. 9 council meeting – 10 days after the Gorelick email was sent – Green urged council meetings not to be deterred by potential litigation.

    “Are we afraid to take a chance with someone else’s money? Are we afraid of failure or are we afraid of success?” Shirley Green said. “Don’t let the fear of a lawsuit or failure as it’s known to hold you back from the opportunities for success.”

    Green didn’t mention the Gorelick email in her remarks.

    Pauley thought it was particularly disturbing that neither the district nor the foundation officially disclosed the memo prior to the Sept. 9 council meeting.

    “They are not even considering the taxpayers of Fairfield County. It is very disturbing to me that they were still willing to pressure the county go to forward,” Pauley said.

    “At best,” he continued, “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.  If Council is the least bit sane, this will end the circus act,” Pauley said.

    The Teacher Village proponents propose offering rent reductions for educators of about $300 a month. Phase I calls for 30 homes with up to 70 homes constructed if the development reaches 100 percent build out.

    If teachers don’t fill the homes, first responders would receive dibs on housing followed by district staff. If empty houses still remain, the general public would be allowed to rent them according to Rex.

    Only teachers, however, would qualify for the rent subsidy.

    But school board trustee Paula Hartman doesn’t think teachers will flock to the Teacher Village as backers hope.

    “I personally don’t think this is going to bring teachers here,” Hartman said. “There’s no proof anybody’s given us that teachers will be the ones in there.”

    Gorelick anticipates spending up to $3.6 million on the development, contingent upon receiving a $600,000 tax abatement from the county. The proposal also includes at least $100,000 from a proviso in this year’s state budget, which would help fund the $300 rent subsidies.

    Green, the school district superintendent, has said he thinks the proviso will be renewed in subsequent years, ultimately becoming permanent, though he acknowledged at a past council meeting there’s no guarantee.

    Rent increases in subsequent years are also possible. In October 2018, Green told council members that rent could increase up to 2 percent a year.

    Gorelick Letter

  • Teacher village hits a snag

    WINNSBORO – The proposed Teacher Village is still on summer break.

    Fairfield County Council has already passed two readings to award tax breaks to Gorelick Brothers, a North Carolina hedge fund, to build the proposed subdivision catering to Fairfield County teachers.

    But third reading remains on hold due to disagreements over inserting an indemnification clause, a sticking point with the county.

    The county wants indemnification to protect taxpayers from potential litigation, but is encountering resistance from Gorelick Brothers and the Fairfield County School District, which is heavily marketing the Teacher Village.

    The Teacher Village wasn’t on the agenda for Monday night’s meeting, but it was a hot topic.

     “In the end, after a year of effort, time and money, the other parties in this potential project have been unwilling to help the county mitigate and manage its associated risk,” Councilman Douglas Pauley said. “So don’t point the finger at the county.”

    Councilman Clarence Gilbert also lamented the apparent lack of cooperation on the indemnification issue. He noted that something as simple as a construction worker accident could expose the county legally.

    “It’s like a contractor telling me he’s going to build a $3,000 house and the only way he’s going to build that house is if I don’t take out insurance on that house,” Gilbert said.

    “It really kind of concerns me that the developer doesn’t want to work with us,” Gilbert continued. “In the nine months that I’ve been here on council, not once have we met with Gorelick Brothers. We have some questions and concerns that we want to ask them, but from what I gather they refuse to talk with us.”

    Clause is common

    County Administrator Jason Taylor said indemnification clauses protecting the county are common to any contract the county enters into.

    One time, when Providence Health and the county couldn’t agree on indemnification, Taylor said that as an alternative, Providence agreed to make annual payments into an escrow account. The account’s purpose is to cover county legal costs should litigation arise.

    Taylor said the county proposed a similar workaround for the Teacher Village, but Gorelick and the school district declined to participate.

     “In using these tax incentives for residential [development], it’s a little bit of a stretch of the law,” Taylor said. “Maybe in the end it will be fine, and we hope it will be fine, but right now it’s an unsettled issue legally. So there’s a little bit more risk for the council in that respect.”

    Developers have also asked for a seven-year tax abatement totaling about $600,000.

    Earlier, during public participation, Lake Wateree resident Jeff Morris spoke supportively of past proposals to include an indemnity clause.

    He also suggested if the Teacher Village doesn’t fill with teachers, tax abatements to Gorelick should prorate downward accordingly.

    “By the time the abatement period runs out, they’ve got 22 acres, a bunch of homes they can do with whatever they want,” Morris added. “The county should be careful about this, thoughtful about it.”

    The Teacher Village also drew two supporters to Monday’s meeting

    Winnsboro resident Shirley Green, who has previously spoken in support of the Teacher Village, urged the county to not let litigation become a roadblock to economic development and teacher recruitment.

    “Are we afraid to take a chance with someone else’s money? Are we afraid of failure or are we afraid of success?” Green asked. “Don’t let the fear of a lawsuit or failure as it’s known to hold you back from the opportunities for success.”

    Chanda Jefferson, a Fairfield County teacher and the state’s teacher of the year, said the county lacks convenient housing for teachers.

    “The time I commute can be time spent in the classroom,” she said.

  • Teacher Village door remains open

    Dr. J.R. Green, superintendent of the Fairfield County School District (right), urges Fairfield County Council to support the Teacher Village as Council Chairman Neil Robinson looks on. | Photos: Michael Smith

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County is one vote away from approving tax abatements for the Teacher Village, a proposed Fairfield County School District housing project intended to cater to teachers.

    But what agreement Fairfield County may ultimately reach with the school district still remain under wraps.

    After spending 20 minutes behind closed doors Monday night, County Council voted 7-0 to move forward with an ordinance that provides economic development incentives to Gorelick Brothers Capital, a Charlotte, North Carolina investment firm interested in building the Teacher Village.

    Council members did not publicly discuss the Teacher Village agreement. Council Chairman Neil Robinson told council members not to discuss specifics in open session.

    Seeking to assure residents over the lack of details, Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas said full disclosure of the agreement would come before final reading, which could be scheduled as soon as the Sept. 9 meeting.

    “This will be explained in full before we have third reading,” he said.

    In its current form, the proposed Fairfield County Teacher Village would consist of 30 homes constructed on 22 acres the district owns behind the district office in Winnsboro.

    Teachers would receive first priority, followed by school district employees, then first responders. Another 30 homes would be built if the first phase is successful.

    Rent subsidies of $300 per month would be reserved for teachers only, with monthly rent ranging between $600 and $900, depending on the home. The subsidies would come from funding included in a state budget proviso.

    Gorelick is also asking Fairfield County Council for a seven-year tax abatement totaling about $600,000.

    The final percentage of the tax abatement hasn’t been decided. Gorelick and the county are currently haggling over what the final percentage should be.

    Another major sticking point for the county is the inclusion of an indemnification clause.

    At a joint meeting in November 2018, former Council Chairman Billy Smith pushed for verbiage that would indemnify Fairfield County should any litigation arise relating to the Teacher Village.

    Smith also wanted an agreement to cover Fairfield’s legal expenses should any arise. It was unclear as of press time whether or not either condition found its way into the agreement now under consideration.

    At the November 2018 meeting, Superintendent Dr. J.R. Green said he didn’t think the Teacher Village would drag Fairfield County into litigation. He voiced concerns that delaying action might jeopardize the project.

    “If that’s the takeaway, that’s not reasonable,” Green said. “I don’t know how Gorelick is going to respond to this. The longer this stretches out, the more the likelihood Gorelick pulls out.”

    Supporters plead for Village

    Councilwoman Bertha Goins, a major supporter of the Teacher Village, said the project is needed for economic development and also to provide adequate housing in Fairfield County.

    Fairfield County Councilwoman Bertha Goins expresses her support for the Teacher Village at Monday night’s council meeting.

    “Without going into detail, I’d say we’re looking at the finish line. I did not take this project lightly, I did not take this decision likely,” Goins said.

    Five of the six area residents speaking in public input spoke in support of the Teacher Village.

    Fairfield Elementary teacher Theresa Wiggins told council members the commute from her home in northeast Columbia to work is long, but Winnsboro lacks adequate housing.

    Dr. Jim Rex, former S.C. Superintendent of Education, whose wife serves on a Fairfield County school district foundation that worked on the Teacher Village, also spoke in favor of the housing project.

    “You have the opportunity tonight to do something truly historic,” Rex said. “I urge you not to let this opportunity pass.”

    Lisa Ellis, board member of S.C. for ED, a teacher advocacy group, spoke earlier in the week with The Voice. Ellis said she thinks the Teacher Village and similar teacher housing projects may be more valuable to younger teachers saddled by student loan debt.

    A former Fairfield County teacher now working in Richland Two, Ellis said higher pay is generally more important to veteran teachers than publicly funded housing. Ellis also thinks housing subsidies might make more sense in high cost of living areas, such as California or New York.

    “Ultimately it depends upon where you are in your teaching career,” she said. “If you’re brand new, out of college, it may be a pro for you. (Veteran teachers) have a house, have a mortgage.”

  • Residents call out Trapp’s absences

    WINNSBORO – He represents Fairfield County’s largest council district, but Mikel Trapp has been spending the least amount of time at council meetings. 

    Mikel Trapp

    Re-elected in 2018, the District 3 Councilman has been absent for six council meetings or budget workshops so far in 2019, according to County Council minutes.

    Trapp has also left early on another six occasions, his departure times ranging from 6:43 p.m. to 7:01 p.m., including Monday night when he left before the council discussed revisions to the county administrator’s contract.

    Trapp hasn’t attended a full council meeting since May 14, council minutes show. He couldn’t be reached for comment Tuesday.

    The public is taking notice of Trapp’s truancy.

    Three residents took to the podium Monday night to voice disapproval of Trapp’s absences. 

    An empty chair marks where Fairfield County Councilman Mikel Trapp normally sits during council meetings. Trapp left early for the third meeting in a row, drawing objections from Fairfield County resident Chris Griffiths (standing), who during public comments asked council members to reprimand Trapp. Seated at left is Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas. | Michael Smith

    One of those residents was Chris Griffiths, who expressed frustration that some county residents essentially aren’t being represented. Griffiths called upon the remaining council members to hold Trapp accountable.

    “There’s nothing that anybody can do other than contacting the governor’s office and getting that elected official removed,” Griffiths said. “I find it very offensive that the chair for the District 3 is empty right now and it’s consistently empty. I feel this is extremely wrong.”

    “The gentleman who came up here before, I agree with 100 percent,” added county resident Jeff Schaffer. “Do something about it. You can’t have a council member who does nothing, gets elected to sit here, doesn’t vote, doesn’t participate and gets paid. People have to go to work every day; if they don’t go to work, they get fired.”

    Ridgeway resident Randy Bright suggested docking council member pay as a deterrent.

    “This is an embarrassment to the county,” Bright said. “I’ve attended far more meetings. I’m a senior citizen who had a total knee replacement earlier in the year and have missed only one council meeting. I can’t imagine any excuse for this. You guys are too good, too smart to let it continue.”

    Fairfield County Council’s rules of procedure address attendance, but don’t mention any penalties for violations.

    “Fairfield County Council respects the State of South Carolina’s Constitution as it relates to fulfilling the duties of office as an elected representative of Fairfield County and our oath of office,” the policy states. “Each member of Council should attend every public meeting as scheduled by a majority of Council.”

    Other South Carolina counties are conspicuously mum on how they address chronic absenteeism as well.

    In Berkeley County, excessive absenteeism is reviewed on a case-by-case basis, though the council “reserves the right to take any action it deems appropriate at that time,” according to that county’s rules of procedure.

    Georgetown County Council doesn’t specifically address attendance, but council members can be censured for violating decorum and debate rules. 

    Florence’s attendance policy merely states members shall attend meetings and that only the chairman may excuse an absence.

    Aiken County’s rules only address long term absences of the chairman, merely stating that “state statutes” shall govern how to proceed following “his/her inability to perform the duties of the chair.”

    Traditionally, the governor may remove a council member for committing a felony or “crime of moral turpitude,” according to state law.

    S.C. Attorney General opinions generally state that local governments possess the power to discipline its own members, including by ejection.

    But the office also cautions city and county councils to strike a balance between enforcing the rules and not violating First Amendment protections.

    Here’s a rundown of Trapp’s attendance record for the last three months, according to council meeting minutes. The meetings start at 6 p.m. The time of Trapp’s departure and when the meeting adjourned are noted where relevant.

    Aug. 26 – Left 6:56 p.m.; adjourned 8:15 p.m.

    Aug. 12 – Left 6:25 p.m.; adjourned 8:45 p.m.

    July 22 – Absent

    July 8 – Left 6:43 p.m.; adjourned 8:10 p.m.

    June 24 – Left 6:52 p.m., adjourned 8:47 p.m.

    June 10 – Absent

  • Council raises pay for Admin, clerk

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County Council recently approved salary increases for the county administrator and clerk to council, though votes to do so were not unanimous. 

    At the Aug. 12 meeting, council members voted 4-2 to increase the pay of County Administrator Jason Taylor by 5 percent. In 2018, Taylor received a 3.44 percent increase.

    The council also voted to give Davis a 2 percent raise.

    Council members Douglas Pauley and Moses Bell voted against the increases. Councilman Mikel Trapp left the meeting prior to the vote.

    There was no discussion after the votes and the meeting adjourned.

    Reached by phone this past Monday, Pauley said his nay vote was not a reflection on either Taylor or Davis.

    Pauley said they’re both excellent employees, but noted Taylor and Davis already had received a 3 percent cost of living adjustment, or COLA, along with most other county employees in the 2019-2020 budget.

    The only exception was the sheriff’s office, whose employees received 6 percent.

    “I don’t like that they [Taylor and Davis] were compensated in the COLA raise, and then the council chose to vote for an additional raise,” Pauley said. “Last year we did a merit based system. That’s what I wanted to do this year.”

    Taylor’s base pay prior to July 1 was $129,297.52. The combined COLA and merit raises totaling 8 percent translates to $10,343.80, which would elevate Taylor’s pay to $139,641.32.

    Taylor’s base pay is slightly below the U.S. median of $142,674 for county administrators, according to a 2019 survey conducted by the International City/County Management Association, or ICMA

    The ICMA study found that the median salary rose 2.3 percent from 2018, and that more than 81 percent of county administrators received a merit raise, COLA or combination of both.

  • County, FCSD disagree on ‘Promise’

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County and the Fairfield County school district still have some homework to finish before a plan allowing students to attend college at no cost takes effect.

    County Council on Monday approved its version which would cover college costs for qualifying Fairfield County students enrolling in Midlands Technical College’s Winnsboro campus.

    The vote was 5-1 with Councilman Douglas Pauley opposing. Councilman Mikel Trapp left the meeting before the vote, which followed a 60-minute executive session.

    However, it is not clear exactly what the council actually approved.

    Council members voted to “approve the Promise Program agreement as amended,” according to the motion to approve.

    It was not disclosed in public session what those amendments are.

    Council Chairman Neil Robinson wouldn’t release a copy of the agreement or even a summary of the new amendments, saying after the meeting that the county’s attorney needed time to draft the formal document.

    The S.C. Freedom of Information Act states that negotiations incident to proposed contracts can be discussed behind closed doors, but contracts themselves become public once entered into.

    “These documents are not exempt from disclosure once a contract is entered into,” the law reads.

    The Promise Program’s reception has been mixed since the school district announced the proposal in May.

    A majority of school board and council members have touted the Promise Program as an opportunity for Fairfield students to receive a college education that otherwise would remain out of reach. They also see it as a way to facilitate economic development.

    Critics have raised concerns about cost, lack of course offerings and accountability.

    On Monday night, Ridgeway resident Randy Bright said while he supports the Promise Program’s general premise, the lack of course offerings at MTC concern him.

    “We need to leverage MTC. We need to offer enough classes to make this a viable situation for our Fairfield County students,” Bright said. “The last time I looked the Fall schedule had 12 entire classes. Most of them were germane to basic studies. It needs to be a more robust program.”

    Differences between the agreement signed by the school district last month and what some council members say they want to approve for the Promise Program were enough to concern Councilman Moses Bell, but not enough for him to vote against the deal.

    “Let me discuss my reservation to the new agreement. At this point we do not know whether they [school board members] agree. Do we give them a courtesy review?” Bell asked. “We may be looked upon as a group that can’t keep its word. Yes, I definitely want the promise program to educate the students of Fairfield County, regardless of circumstance.”

    While one council member told The Voice that the school district jumped the gun by signing an agreement last month that the county had not yet agreed to, Bell said he thought the school district should have been allowed to view the county’s modifications before it gave final approval on Monday night.

    Robinson said the county would share its version of the contract [with the school district] now that it is approved.

    “The reason they haven’t got any copies is because this is the official [document] we’ve agreed upon now … I’m sure they will view it and make notes as they see fit.”

    However, at least one council member disagrees that the council has actually approved an agreement at all.

    Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas told The Voice that council’s vote was only ‘approving’ that the Promise Program is a good thing, not a vote for approval of the agreement that was presented to them in executive session.

    The agreement that was included in the school board packet and voted on was identified as a Memorandum of Understanding.

    Councilwoman Bertha Goins said it is only natural that the agreement the council approved Monday night would evolve from the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed in July. But the July 8 MOU ‘agreement’ signed by representatives of the council, school board and Midlands Tech was half a page long and lacked specifications that were included in the three-page agreement approved later in July by the school board.

    “It’s my understanding this began with the [July 8] MOU to understand the process,” Goins said. “Both parties have the discretion of choosing their own avenue of how to do the proceeds.”

    The Fairfield County school board’s meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Aug. 20. It will be held at the District Office Auditorium, with executive session starting at 6 p.m. and the regular meeting following.

    An agenda for the meeting had not been published as of Tuesday, though the Promise Program is likely to be discussed.

  • County rebranding transit system image

    At Monday night’s council meeting, Demetria Holmes, director of the Fairfield County Transit System (seated), prepares to deliver a report about agency improvements. | Michael Smith

    WINNSBORO – Demetria Holmes wants to put Fairfield County in the driver’s seat when it comes to mass transit.

    Holmes, director of the Fairfield County Transit System, said at Monday night’s council meeting that the agency is launching a marketing plan to take back its role as public transportation for the county population as a whole. She plans to accomplish this by linking to more routes, expanding existing ones and partnering with The COMET, short for the Columbia Midlands Regional Transit Authority.

    Holmes told The Voice that, over the years, the public perception has developed that the county’s transit system is primarily intended for Medicaid patients.

    “That’s not the case,” Holmes said. “It is the county bus system for everyone in the county.”

    To change the public’s perception and the transit system’s image, Holmes has launched a plan to extend some routes and touch all areas of the county and beyond. That plan includes the joint venture with the COMET, called the Killian Road Express, that will link Fairfield routes with Richland and Lexington county routes.

    Holmes has also hired a marketing firm to come up with a new logo, perhaps a catchy phrase and even design a colorful wrap for at least some of the buses.

    Reviving Funding

    Holmes said expanding public transit is vital to the Fairfield system, which has faced federal funding roadblocks.

    Formed in 1988, the county system has traditionally relied on a combination of federal grants and state funds to keep operations rolling.

    In 2012, the agency started providing Medicaid transportation services, which have quickly loaded up passenger counts.

    Holmes said Medicaid passengers have accounted for 300,000 miles a year while public transit makes up only 34,000 miles. Medicaid passengers account for about 1,500 trips per month compared to a few dozen public passenger trips, she said.

    As public transit dropped off, so did the federal rural transportation grant that Fairfield had received, with funding dropping from $300,000 to $129,000.

    In addition, Medicaid revenues have been relatively flat, fluctuating between $318,000 and $360,000 the past three years. Expenses, however, have continued to rise, causing Medicaid transportation to operate at a deficit the last two years, Holmes said.

    “It’s not paying for itself,” she said. “But it’s a service that I do think that residents need. That’s why we’re turning it back to public [transit] so we can draw more money from the [federal] grant. That’s why we’re rebranding the system so it’s not just Medicaid.”

    COMET Connection

    On Aug. 5, Fairfield County launched its Killian Road Express (COMET) service. Buses leave Fairfield County Transit and stop at 10 locations around town before proceeding to the Killian Road Superstop.  The Killian Superstop is located in Walmart parking lot. From there, passengers can transfer to The COMET bus or patronize businesses in the surrounding areas.

    Fairfield County pickups start at 7 a.m., and include locations such as the Bi-Lo Plaza, the old Walmart Plaza, Winnsboro Plaza, and other spots around Winnsboro.

    Fares are $3 one-way and busses operate Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

    County Administrator Jason Taylor said partnering with The COMET doesn’t come with any additional costs while also increasing transportation opportunities.

    “I think we’ve come up with a very good solution,” Taylor said.

    In coming days, Fairfield County Transit plans to accelerate marketing of the new services.

    “It’s really just getting started,” Holmes said.

    Councilwoman Bertha Goins praised Holmes and the agency for pursuing a partnership with The Comet.

    “Kudos, that’s all I can say. Any time you can connect with someone to make quality of life better, that’s a good thing,” Goins said. “That’s what the future is all about. Never be afraid to partner with other people to try new ideas.”

    Transit-Go Route

    Another new service, Holmes said, is the Transit-Go route, a demand response service, which also launched Aug. 5.

    “Transit-Go is a general public dial-a-ride service that offers curb-to-curb transportation beyond the usual routes, but within specific areas of the county and beyond,” Holmes said.

    Fees are based on mileage, starting at $5 for zero to 10 miles, and increasing incrementally by $5 every 10 miles. All the fares are one-way rates.

    Transit-Go will operate Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m., excluding certain holidays.

    New Winnsboro Local Route

    Also new is a deviated fixed-route service that operates around the Town of Winnsboro and outlying areas.

    The route is an extension of the regular Winnsboro Local service’s hours of operation and coverage area. It will operate on a fixed schedule, but offers up to a two miles deviation off a route, Holmes said.

    “If residents want a deviation from the service on their route, they will need to call the transit office ahead of time,” Holmes said.

    “Because of the deviation of service and because the drivers are required to operate the lift for mobility aid securement for some riders, this can cause some delays.” Holmes said.

    The new fare for the extended service is $1, and deviations are .25 for the first mile and .50 for the second mile.

    Future Routes Planned

    Holmes said she plans to initiate more new routes throughout the county during the next three to six months. Those routes include a Ridgeway Express, Greenbrier Express, White Oak/Blackstock/Woodard Express, Blair/Jenkinsville/Monticello Express and a revised Columbia 1X (will go to Providence Northeast, Providence Downtown, Prisma Health Richland, Prisma Health Baptist, and the Dorn VA Hospital.)

    A full list of pickup locations, fares and departure times can be found online at www.fairfieldsc.com/residents/transit-system.

  • Council OKs zoning for land for incinerator despite heated opposition

    WINNSBORO – A Fairfield County incinerator proposal remains a hot topic between Winnsboro area residents and county leaders.

    Over the objections of residence in attendance, Fairfield County Council voted 5-2 Monday night to rezone 11 acres off Old Airport Road as part of a plan to replace a wood chipper with an incinerator.

    Council members Moses Bell and Mikel Trapp voted against the rezoning.

    Those voting in the majority said the incinerator represented the cheapest and most environmentally viable option. They also said the rezoning vote doesn’t mean the incinerator is automatically a done deal.

    Others weren’t convinced.

    Shirley Seibles, an opponent of the incinerator, questioned whether it really falls outside a 500-foot buffer zone with residents’ homes. She said true distance is closer to 387 feet.

    “It is not 500 feet unless it goes into someone else’s property,” she said. “We think that’s a matter of environmental concern.”

    William Ott, an engineer with Davis and Floyd, Inc. of North Charleston, said measurements show the incinerator does lie at least 500 feet from the nearest home.

    Ott added that state and federal regulators would closely monitor the incinerator, especially in the early months, to ensure it complies with regulations. He said environmental impacts on residents would be minor to nonexistent.

    “These same pollutants are emitted out of your car,” Ott said. “These standards are set so that they will not be a hazard or health concern to the community.”

    Seibles and others pressed the council to consider acquiring property located behind the site and locating the incinerator there, further shielding residents from its impacts.

    “We are asking again you not put our property in jeopardy by voting for this air burner,” Seibles said. “Are you financially ready to accept the liability that will come from the citizens of Airport Road and the surrounding area for health concerns that may come, that will come, from being exposed to these kind of carcinogens?”

    County leaders, however, said acquiring the eight acres wouldn’t be economically feasible.

    “I really don’t want to be a part of something that’s going to add to their illness. Have we looked at a plan B?” Councilman Clarence Gilbert asked.

    “Your concerns are valid. We should have a plan B, we do not have at this point,” County Administrator Jason Taylor answered. “It’s expensive to do that.”

    Councilwoman Bertha Goins didn’t think purchasing the property was even possible since it’s owned by Dominion Energy, which acquired the eight-acre parcel after acquiring SCANA.

    “My understanding is the county does not own that property,” Goins said. “The previous contract has expired. What they allow to go into that particular area will not be up to us.”

    Council members were originally set to approve third reading on June 24, but deferred the matter so residents and elected officials could tour a similar, but substantially larger incinerator in Richland County.

    Residents and opposing council members said the Richland County incinerator emitted large amounts of smoke, affirming their opposition to the Fairfield County incinerator.

    “The one in Richland County was old and smoking from everywhere,” Bell said.

    Ott said the Fairfield County incinerator would limit smoke emissions.

    “The one in Richland County was overloaded. That’s going to cause smoke to release,” Ott replied, noting that with the rezoning, the county would still need to obtain air quality and solid waste permits, offering residents further opportunities for public comment.

    Ridgeway resident Randy Bright said just because a facility is permitted doesn’t mean it’s right for the community.

    “When it comes to the environment, even though you get a permit, you’ve got to be doubly sure that that’s correct,” Bright said. “How many EPA things have been approved in the past and turned out to not be so good?

    “Let’s not rush to a site, let’s pick a site that won’t bother anybody.”

  • County, School District promise free MTC tuition

    A memorandum of understanding to create a Promise Program was signed Monday by Midlands Tech President Ron Rhames, Fairfield County School Board Chair William Frick and County Council Chair Cornelius Robinson. | Barbara Ball

    WINNSBORO – Providing free technical college tuition to financially struggling students is noble. Supporters say the Fairfield County taxpayer-funded Promise Program initiative will open college to more students and boost the local workforce.

    On Monday, representatives from Fairfield County, the Fairfield County School District and Midlands Technical College inked a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), pledging their commitment to the Promise initiative.

    “This is a wonderful program and a way to move our county forward,” County Administrator Jason Taylor said to those gathered at the signing. “A good education is one of the surest ways to guarantee that our children will have access to good jobs and the opportunity for a better future.”

    Later that night, Fairfield County Council discussed in public, and also behind closed doors, its role in the Promise Program, recently pitched by Dr. J.R. Green, district superintendent.

    “Any kid in Fairfield County could go to Midlands Technical Institute at no cost,” Green said. “Students have to apply for financial aid. They’ll look at all the federal and state aid, and Promise revenue will cover the difference. But no one will be required to pay any tuition.”

    Similar programs exist in Kershaw, Sumter, Lee, Green wood, Clarendon and Williamsburg counties, according to the S.C. Technical College System, which governs the state’s technical schools.

    Most counties make free tuition available, but not unconditionally. The only conditions of note in the Fairfield MOU are that recipients must live in Fairfield County and graduate from a public or private school, approved homeschool or have a GED.

    Greenwood prorates tuition aid based on a student’s length of residency, according to the Greenwood Promise Program website.

    Sixty-five percent aid is offered to students attending grades 9-12, but students attending two years or less receive nothing. Full aid only goes to lifetime residents.

    In Sumter County, qualifying students can attend Central Carolina Technical College at no cost provided they maintain a 2.0 GPA and remain enrolled for six consecutive semesters, according to the CCTC website.

    Aid only covers tuition, however. Books, lab fees and other miscellaneous costs aren’t covered, the website states. What the funding covers is not made clear in the Fairfield Promise MOU.

    Promise creates confusion

    There’s some disparity between how some council members, the school district and MTC perceive the Promise Program arrangement.

    The MOU signed Monday describes the deal as a “nonbinding Memorandum of Understanding to announce their intent and purpose to work together to establish the Fairfield County Promise Program.”

    An MTC media advisory announcing the signing states that dignitaries “will sign an agreement that allows 2019 high school and GED graduates living in Fairfield County to attend MTC at no cost.”

    Both the school district and county have budgeted $75,000 for the Promise Program, but neither body has formally voted to authorize any expenditures for the program, though approval is likely.

    At Monday’s council meeting, Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas repeated prior assertions that MTC doesn’t attract enough students to its Winnsboro campus to justify holding classes there.

    “I’m not against educating children, I’m all for it,” Douglas said. “I’ve been trying to get Midlands Tech to teach classes in the last five years, yet they’ve had no classes whatsoever. It’s a shame we have to pay them $75,000 to start a class.”

    Speaking to The Voice on Tuesday, Councilman Douglas Pauley identified several elements that concern him, namely cost and accountability.

    Pauley said MTC needs to more clearly state how many students plan to attend and what classes will be offered. He said county’s $75,000 share should be doled out in quarterly installments based on MTC’s ability to meet those standards.

    “To give a lump sum of money with no accountability to the taxpayers how that $75,000 is specifically going to be used, I’m not in favor of that,” he said.

    In addition, Pauley said students should be required to take more classes than the six-credit-hour minimum he said other council members support.

    Many traditional student loan programs require students to register for at least 12 credit hours to receive full financial aid.

    Pauley also said students should meet specific academic standards to qualify.

    “To me, with a C average, you’re just kind of coasting along,” he said. “If someone else is paying for your college tuition, you can do better than a C average.”

    Other council members embraced the Promise Program.

    “This is a huge deal to be able to allow our students to go to school tuition free,” Councilman Moses Bell said. “This is big, this is a good thing. This is something we ought to be jumping up and shouting about.”

    Council Chairman Neil Robinson also supports the Promise Program.

    “I just think investing in our future for the kids is definitely something that’s needed in this county so we can have a stronger workforce, a better quality of life,” he said. “We’d be bridging that gap for the workforce.”

    Robinson said the Promise Program would likely receive further discussion at the next meeting set for July 22.

    Transparency concerns

    Government secrecy is also throwing cold water on the initiative for some.

    On Monday night, council members retreated behind closed doors to further discuss the Promise Program. Ridgeway resident Randy Bright chided the council for doing so.

    “You’ve taken a slip back with this Promise Program. There’s lots of confusion, lots of secrecy,” Bright said during public comments. “Why are you talking about this in executive session? This is between governments. You shouldn’t need to talk about this in executive session. It should be open.”

    An agenda for the meeting stated the executive session was for a “contractual matter” to discuss and receive “legal advice regarding [an] agreement between Fairfield County, Fairfield County School District and Midlands Technical College as to the Promise Program.”

    Pauley said he didn’t agree with discussing the Promise Program behind closed doors.

    “I thought that matter pertaining to the Promise Program could’ve been done in an open forum,” he said. “I didn’t see a need for it to be in executive session.”

    Monday night’s executive session was improper because the county had already signed an MOU, said Jay Bender, an attorney with the S.C. Press Association, of which The Voice is a member.

    Bender also called the receipt of legal advice explanation “vaguely worded.”

    “The MOU sounds like a contract to me,” Bender said. “If there’s an MOU, which is a contract, you can’t go into executive session under the rubric of contractual matters.”

  • County delays action on library purchase

    The county recently renovated this building for the Ridgeway library, located on Palmer Street in downtown Ridgeway. The county is currently leasing it with an option to purchase.

    WINNSBORO – Plans to purchase a permanent home for the Fairfield County Library branch in Ridgeway are on hold for now.

    At a recent administrative committee meeting, council members voted unanimously to table a proposal to buy property the library is currently leasing on South Palmer Street.

    It was not immediately clear when the matter would return for a vote, though it will likely be later this year.

    That’s because the county wants to pursue federal grant opportunities that could potentially unlock more money to help cover costs of buying the property at 235 S. Palmer Street in Ridgeway.

    County Administrator Jason Taylor said up to $500,000 is available through the Community Development Block Grant, or CDBG, program.

    “It would be beneficial for us all if we try to secure the grant,” Council Chairman Neil Robinson said.

    Grant money would be especially helpful since the sale price is substantially higher than the property’s estimated value.

    Eric Robinson, the county’s library director, said at the June 24 committee meeting that the property owner is asking $169,900.

    Fairfield County property records, however, list the property’s fair market value at $66,700.

    The property last sold for $85,000 in June 2005 and was then deeded over to the current owner, Lok-Yan Yip Patterson for $1 in 2008, records state.

    “Has anyone tried to bargain with the lady?” Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas asked.

    “Feel free to do so. She’s a shrewd business person,” Eric Robinson, the county library director, answered.

    “I know she is. She’s had the place remodeled and now is trying to sell it for three times what it’s worth,” Douglas replied.

    Robinson said he and the board prefer to remain in the existing building since the South Palmer Street is an ideal location. He said the library would incur additional costs if it had to move, citing the integration of technology in the current facility.

    “If you read the history on this, we’ve bounced around Ridgeway. We’re into our sixth different building,” Robinson said. “Because we’ve sunk so much money into it and the county has sunk so much money into it, we would like for this to be our permanent location.”

    At present, the library board has said it’s willing to offer about $90,000 to buy the facility, which is essentially half the current asking price plus any rent remaining on this year’s lease.

    Library officials, however, said the owner signaled she’s not interested in that amount because she would lose rent revenue in the long term.

    County attorney Tommy Morgan said there’s no harm in delaying action on buying the property. He said the lease agreement allows the county to renew for another two years, with rent only increasing from $850 to $892 a month to account for Consumer Price Index increases.

    In the meantime, negotiations over a final sale price can continue. The CDBG avenue also requires multiple appraisals, and would also work in the county’s favor.

    “The county is pretty much in the cat-bird seat when it comes to that,” Morgan said.