Tag: Jenkinsville Annexation

  • Voters reject Jenkinsville annexation

    Turnout was High: 34 of 54 registered voters

    JENKINSVILLE – Annexation appears to be off the table in Jenkinsville.

    The controversial measure, which would have annexed 143 properties into the town limits, failed by a 19-15 vote, according to unofficial results.

    There were 36 ballots cast, but two under-votes – one absentee and one in-person – were discounted, said Debby Stidham, the county’s director of voter registration and election.

    Certification of election results is scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday, June 8 at the Fairfield County Voter Registration and Elections office at 315 S. Congress Street in Winnsboro.

    Turnout was comparatively high, with 34 ballots counted out of 54 registered voters.

    Only registered voters living in the proposed annexation area were eligible to vote Tuesday. There will be no mandatory recount.

    Contested ballots, allegations of voter intimidation and even threats of legal ac tion emerged during the election process, according to observers.

    Jenkinsville Mayor Gregrey Ginyard, who supported the ballot question and was present at the polling location Tuesday, said in a brief interview Wednesday that he doesn’t anticipate filing any election protests.

    Ginyard also couldn’t say whether or not Jenkinsville Town Council would consider pursuing annexation in a future referendum.

    “The outcome of the election is the outcome of the election,” he said. “As far as I’m concerned, the people spoke. It is what it is.”

    Others in attendance, however, said moments after election results were announced, Ginyard spoke openly about filing a protest and consulting a lawyer.

    “He was shocked, upset. He got loud,” said Fairfield County Councilwoman Bertha Goins, who was also present at the polling location and opposed annexation.

    “It was unbelievable. He said, ‘I’m going to protest, I’m going to call a lawyer.’ He was beside himself,” Goins added.

    The Voice was unable to ask Ginyard about Goins’ remarks because the call ended Wednesday before press time.

    Election controversies

    Unless a protest is filed, the 19 votes against annexation mean the measure dies. Stidham said according to state law, a majority of votes counted is required for a referendum measure to pass.

    In the case of the Jenkinsville vote, the magic number was 18, since 34 votes were counted, Stidham said.

    Tuesday’s election didn’t come without controversy. Several sources confirm at least one ineligible voter, who didn’t live in the proposed annexation area, cast a ballot. It’s unclear how that person voted.

    In addition, Ginyard spent most of the day at the polling location.

    At times, the mayor called voters over so he could speak with him before they could sign in with poll workers, Goins and Stidham said.

    State law prohibits public officials from campaigning inside a polling location, but the law does permit officials to have casual conversations. It’s unclear what Ginyard discussed with the voters.

    A state election official said Ginyard calling out to voters before registering would be questionable.

    “That certainly would not look good and could be construed as campaigning, interfering, or intimidating voters,” said Chris Whitmire, spokesman with the S.C. Election Commission.

    “In that case, the managers could ask him to stop that activity or leave the polling place,” Whitmire said.

    Stidham said she spoke to Ginyard about calling out to voters. She also said at least one voter telephoned her office to complain about the activity.

    “I just asked him to let people come into the precinct,” she said. “He was telling them if they could or could not vote.”

    Goins said she was angered by the mayor’s conversations with voters.

    “He was on the side and he would call them over to the area before they came in to vote,” she said. “It was not professional and it was not right.”

    There were also reports of Ginyard jokingly asking poll workers to count the ballots quickly.

    If the results are challenged, Goins said she’d file a counter-challenge.

    Contested ballots?

    Goins and Stidham both said Ginyard did verbally dispute a vote cast by a woman living outside of the proposed annexation area.

    Stidham said the woman’s name appeared on a voting list, but it shouldn’t have been there. She didn’t know how the woman was able to vote.

    Ginyard, observers say, claimed the woman voted against annexation because she sent him a letter stating that was her intention.

    Stidham said strictly looking at ballots, there’s no way to know how any person voted.

    There was no mistaking Ginyard’s reaction to the vote, with Stidham and Goins saying he was shocked. Stidham said Ginyard raised the issue about the woman’s address.

    “The mayor was standing there saying she shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but he didn’t challenge the ballot,” Stidham said.

    Stidham added that she doesn’t know whether any formal election protests will be filed. Any protests must be filed by noon Monday, June 11, she said.

    Goins said she was thankful the measure failed.

    “Thank God and thank the people,” she said. “I thank them for responding the way they did, for stepping up to the plate and did what needs to be done for the good of the community. It makes me very proud to be a representative in this area.”

  • Goins blasts JV annexation vote June 5

    JENKINSVILLE—A controversial effort by the Town of Jenkinsville to annex 143 properties is drawing the ire of at least one Fairfield County Council member.

    District 4 Councilwoman Bertha Goins, whose district includes Jenkinsville, issued a scathing indictment of the town’s government and the Jenkinsville Water Company, both of which are run by Greg Ginyard.

    During the council comments portion of Tuesday night’s meeting, Goins urged residents to reject the annexation measure.

    “Enemy and evil took it [Jenkinsville] over and took it down,” Goins said. “Twenty years of hate and bitterness should be enough for Fairfield County.”

    Ginyard couldn’t be reached for comment Tuesday.

    The Voice did ask Ginyard about the annexation vote following the Jenkinsville Water Company meeting in May. His only response was, “It’s in your paper.”

    If the annexation vote passes and is ratified, the town’s borders would grow by a factor of four and the value of taxable property would multiply fivefold, from $2,467,200 to $12.3 million, an analysis of public records found.

    Goins didn’t identify any Jenkinsville officials by name Tuesday night, but her disdain for the JWC and town leadership was made perfectly clear.

    “I’m going to stand against the annexation. I’m going to encourage people to vote against it. We’re divided enough by it,” Goins said. “I’m really ticked off about evil in the community.

    “Twenty years ago a snake came in the community and poisoned the community. I’m going to leave it at that,” Goins continued.

    Goins’ address comes on the eve of the June 5 vote.

    The town is utilizing the “25 percent” method to attempt the annexation, requiring the least amount of public support. Under this method, the vote can proceed with only 25 percent of the 143 property owners petitioning town government.

    In a prior interview, Ginyard declined to say why the town is utilizing the 25 percent method.

    Ginyard did say he supports annexation because he thinks a larger town will make it easier for Jenkinsville to generate economic development.

    The vote was originally scheduled for May 1, but was rescheduled to June 5 since state law mandates that annexation votes be taken within the boundaries of the municipality seeking annexation, said Debby Stidham, the county’s director of voter registration and elections.

    Stidham said the May 1 vote was previously scheduled to be held at the town’s volunteer fire department. But, she said, the town’s traditional voting hub technically lies outside Jenkinsville town limits.

    Now the election will be held at the old volunteer fire department and EMS station on S.C. 213. Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

    Stidham said her office hasn’t received any complaints or concerns from voters. She said communications with town officials have been strictly logistical in nature.

    “It’s actually been quiet. So far I’ve not had anybody calling and asking anything,” Stidham said. “I hope that means people are interested and know what they need to know.”

    The deadline for voters to cast absentee ballots by mail expires June 1 at 5 p.m.

    After that, voters can cast absentee ballots in person at the Fairfield County Voter and Registration Office through June 4.


    Related articles:  Jenkinsville prepares to annex 143 propertiesLetter to the Editor: No to Annexation June 5,  Notice of Annexation Election: Town of Jenkinsville,

  • Jenkinsville prepares to annex 143 properties

    JENKINSVILLE – An annexation vote scheduled for May 1 could literally quadruple the size of Jenkinsville town limits. And chances are most of the affected property owners don’t even know the vote is taking place.

    That’s because Jenkinsville is utilizing the “25 percent petition and election method” in state law to annex 143 properties into the town of 46 residents.

    Passed in 1988 and enacted in 2000, the 25 percent method would allow annexation of the 143 properties to move forward with only 25 percent of those 143 properties’ owners petitioning the town government. It requires the least amount of public support to pass.

    Jenkinsville Mayor Gregrey Ginyard deferred comment about why the 25 percent method was selected to Columbia attorney Christopher Archer, who’s representing the town.Archer couldn’t say why the 25 percent method was chosen, nor could he say exactly how many people signed the petition, only that there was a door-to-door effort to solicit signatures.

    “I can’t really speak to the history that much. All I can tell you is that the 25 percent of the names are considered qualified electors,” Archer said. “There was an effort to go door to door to ask them if they were in agreement with the petition.”

    Debby Stidham, director of Fairfield County Voter Registration and Elections, said state law doesn’t require Jenkinsville to submit the list of names signing the petition.

    “He does not have to give that to me,” Stidham said.

    All that’s required is a letter stating the town met the 25 percent threshold. That letter was written March 21. According to the letter, obtained by The Voice, the Jenkinsville Town Council on March 15 adopted a resolution “certifying that a proper petition has been received for annexation of the area described in the resolution,” the document states.

    Archer said state law generally doesn’t require notification of individual property owners that they might be annexed into the town. He said that’s accomplished through public notices or media coverage. That notice has appeared twice in The Voice.

    “You would be notified by local media,” Archer said.

    Exceptions exist for properties greater than 10 acres or if a property exceeds 25 percent of the territory to be annexed. In those cases, qualifying property owners would be notified via certified mail that they could opt out.

    Polling will occur at the new Jenkinsville Fire Department at 7104 Highway 215, and polls will remain open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

    Only registered voters within the territory proposed for annexation are eligible to cast ballots May 1. Stidham estimated there are at only about 53 eligible voters in the annexation territory, meaning annexation of the 143 properties could pass with as few as 27 votes in favor.

    Massive growth

    If the annexation is adopted, the town’s geographic boundaries would grow at least fourfold, and its taxable property value would surge by a factor of five, according to Fairfield County property records.

    A review by The Voice of the 143 properties on the annexation ballot found they have a cumulative fair market value of $12.3 million. Parcels currently making up the Town of Jenkinsville have a total fair market value of $2,467,200, nearly five times less, land records show.

    Ginyard said the annexation effort is not a money grab. Rather, he said growing the town’s population would make it easier for Jenkinsville to attract new businesses.

    “We’d like to be able to have a Dollar General and things like that,” Ginyard said. “We’re not trying to be a Columbia, we’re trying to be a community that has a few amenities.”

    Jeff Shacker, field services manager for the Municipal Association of South Carolina, said municipalities usually spend new tax revenue from annexation on operations, such as police or parks and recreation. Some towns, however, choose to apply the money toward matching grants, Shacker said.

    “Jenkinsville has been pretty successful with that,” Shacker said, citing streetscaping and adding sidewalks as examples. “I’ve talked with Mayor Ginyard about interest in building a new town hall.

    “I’m not sure what all the motives are,” Shacker added. “But Fairfield County is a local option sales tax county. That is distributed by and large by population, so any population growth would mean more tax revenue for them.”

    Ginyard said there are no specific plans to seek grants, though he didn’t rule out funding more town services.

    “Annexation is good for the town because it puts more people into the town. It’s a good thing for everybody,” Ginyard said. “It’s not something that’s going to boost Greg Ginyard. It’s going to boost the town.”

    By the numbers

    Because a majority of the 143 properties included on the annexation ballot are owned by residents living outside Fairfield County, they will not be eligible to have a vote as to whether their property is annexed into the town.

    Only 56 of the parcels, or 39.1 percent, are taxed at the 4 percent assessment that primary property owners pay, property records show. With few exceptions, the rest are taxed at 6 percent, which is what non-residents and residents owning second properties pay.

    One parcel on the list is owned by Whitehall AME Church, which has a zero percent assessment. Four other property owners are also assessed at zero percent – Jenkinsville Water Company, Blue Valley Masonic Lodge, Eau Claire Cooperative Health and a fourth parcel whose owner couldn’t be identified.

    It’s unclear how much of a windfall annexation would generate for the Town of Jenkinsville. Using other Fairfield County towns as a guide, the financial gain would be substantial. Jenkinsville would reap $25,251 (for properties taxed at 4 percent) and $37,877 (6 percent) in tax revenue if it adopted Ridgeway’s millage rate of 51.3 mills, according to Fairfield County tax formulas. Winnsboro’s millage rate of 38.9 mills would generate between $19,148 and $28,722.

    Challenging the vote

    Ginyard said the upcoming vote is actually the second attempt to annex the properties that are listed on the May 1 ballot. He said it has always been the intent to annex these properties since the town incorporated in 2008.

    If the vote passes, Ginyard hopes to organize a third annexation vote in the future to bring in even more properties.

    “What we’re trying to do is to grow the town,” he said. “Once that happens, that opens more doors to do things.”

    Only a handful of S.C. towns have used the 25 percent election method, Shacker said, noting Pelzer in Anderson County used it in 2015.

    Despite community objections, the Pelzer annexation vote passed 122-106, according to media reports. As a result, the town of Pelzer tripled in size, with several hundred properties added to the tax rolls.

    Regardless of how the Jenkinsville vote unfolds, the town council must first conduct a public vote to adopt the annexation election results. That vote, though, can be delayed or halted altogether by petition. For that to happen, the petition would need signatures from only 5 percent of registered voters within the town limits, according to state law.

    According to Fairfield County election records, there are 54 registered voters currently in the Town of Jenkinsville, meaning any petition contesting the annexation vote would need only three signature.

    State law says that petition must then be submitted within 30 days of the town government publishing the annexation election results. Jenkinsville would then have 30 days to publish a public notice for a second annexation election. But, for a second election, only the 54 registered voters within the Jenkinsville town limits would be voting on the annexation of the 143 properties.

    If a second election were held, stopping annexation at that point would likely face an uphill battle.

     

    Jenkinsville Annexation map

    Related: Notice of Annexation Election