Blythewood Online 691

Tag: Teacher Village

  • Court OKs Teacher Village tax credits

    WINNSBORO – Privately run residential projects like the fallow Teacher Village development qualify for the same tax credits as those normally reserved for heavy industry, according to a recent court decision.

    On July 8, in a six-page opinion, the SC Court of Appeals ruled that a proposed student housing project in Columbia is a commercial venture, thus qualifying it for tax incentives.

    Commercial projects qualify for economic development tax breaks; residential projects generally do not.

    “This appeal centers on the meaning of ‘industrial or business’ in the application of the statute. Dormitories are commercial enterprises that fall within the definition of ‘business,’” Justice James Lockemy wrote in the opinion.

    Justices Stephanie McDonald and Blake Hewitt concurred with the opinion.

    Proponents of the proposed Teacher Village, which call for building taxpayer subsidized single family rental homes in Winnsboro that cater to teachers, hope the appeals court decision will allay fears that the development would result in lawsuits.

    Dr. Sue Rex, chairwoman of the Fairfield County school district foundation that led Teacher Village efforts, said the county still faces a teacher shortage and offering affordable housing would help reduce that shortage.

    “The teacher shortage is real and it’s getting worse,” Rex said. “This pandemic is making it even worse. Some of the older teachers are just going to hang it up because they’re not going to put their health at risk.”

    In September 2019, a Charlotte investor interested in financing the Teacher Village withdrew after the county insisted the deal include an indemnification clause shielding it from any liability.

    Fairfield County Administrator Jason Taylor said the primary issue of concern has always been whether rental housing qualifies as commercial or residential. Now that the appeals court has issued a favorable ruling, he said it does allay the county’s concerns somewhat.

    “We have more confidence now that there’s a legal ruling through the courts,” he said. “It’s always a more comfortable thing to have.”

    Any future decision on whether the county revisits the Teacher Village would be up to the council, Taylor added.

    The Columbia Case

    Fairfield County was one of three local governments—Richland County and Columbia were the others—named as defendants in a 2016 lawsuit filed by the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation.

    The suit challenged the legality of Richland County using its multi county business park agreement with Fairfield County and Columbia to grant tax breaks to a student housing project in Columbia.

    “The statutory purpose of these Parks is to stimulate the growth of industrial jobs,” the 2016 suit states. “Housing projects create few jobs, and those jobs disappear once the project is built.

    “The tax breaks will not be an inducement for new business, new industry, or new jobs,” the suit continues. “They simply amount to a tax break for favored taxpayers, at the expense of other taxpayers, whose taxes would be used to make up the loss, including those taxpayers who are competitors of the favored taxpayers.”

    In February 2017, a circuit judge sided with Richland County, Fairfield County and Columbia, prompting the foundation to appeal.

    The appeals court upheld the previous ruling, saying student dormitories meet the statutory definition of business because they involve operating and leasing rooms to students, and also because they provide services, such as security, recreation and property management.

    “Dormitories engage in continuous commercial activity, are not owner-occupied, and are zoned commercially,” the appeals court opinion says.

    However, the Teacher Village differs in one important way—the property is zoned residential.

    Rex said it was actually the county that insisted the foundation rezone the Teacher Village property to residential. Winnsboro Town Council approved the rezoning in March 2019.

    Still on the Table?

    Although there’s been no visible action on the Teacher Village since September, Rex remains hopeful the development will happen.

    She said the foundation continues to meet and also to search for possible investors willing to help finance it.

    “It’s still on the table if we had an investment company that would want to do it,” Rex said. “I don’t know who that is.”

    Gorelick Brothers, the possible investor that withdrew, had wanted the county to designate the Teacher Village a multi-county business park and also sought $700,000 in tax breaks.

    In return, Gorelick Brothers would infuse capital into the project, operate the development and bring in revenue from the rent payments.

    Previously, county leaders cited the Public Interest Foundation case as a prime example of why an indemnification clause was needed.

    In the end, Gorelick Brothers balked and ultimately withdrew after an internal memo surfaced in which Gorelick explicitly stated it wouldn’t agree to an indemnification clause.

    There is no word if the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation will ask the SC Supreme Court to rule on the appellate court’s decision.

  • 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.”

  • 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.”

  • County, school district fund tuition ‘promise’

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County’s school superintendent says a newly funded program will allow Fairfield County students to attend Midlands Technical College at no cost.

    Critics, however, say the money would be better spent elsewhere.

    Last month, the Fairfield County Board of Trustees voted 6-1 to approve second reading of the district’s $45.2 million budget for 2019-2020. Board trustee Paula Hartman cast the lone dissenting vote.

    The budget does not include a tax increase.

    Included in the budget is $75,000 for the Fairfield Promise Program. On Monday night, the Fairfield County Council approved a similar appropriation.

    It approved a budget amendment to match the $75,000, yielding $150,000 for Fairfield Promise.

    Council members Douglas Pauley and Jimmy Ray Douglas voted in opposition.

    Dr. J.R. Green, district superintendent, described the Promise Program as an initiative that would allow Fairfield County students to attend Midlands Technical College-Fairfield campus at no cost.

    After qualifying students receive any federal and state financial aid, “the Promise revenue would cover the balance,” Green said.

    To qualify, students would need to be a Fairfield County student – it wouldn’t be limited to the traditional public school system – and earn a GPA of 2.5. Green said the Fairfield Promise would resemble a similar program in Greenwood County.

    “It is for any student that is a resident of Fairfield County that graduates from high school,” Green said. “We’re extremely excited about this.”

    The Greenwood program, however, doesn’t fully fund college tuition for every student in the county. It uses a sliding scale that bases scholarship awards on length of residency, according to the Greenwood Promise website.

    For example, qualifying students attending county schools from grades 9 to 12 receive 65 percent funding, while students who began in Grade 5 receive 85 percent. Students starting in grades 10 or later get nothing.

    Only students attending school in the district since kindergarten receive a 100 percent award, the website states.

    Green said the $150,000 appropriation only leaves enough money for the 2019 school year.

    “Obviously with more funding we could go back to the class of 2016 or 2015,” he said.

    District officials said the $75,000 appropriation is not an additional budget item.

    Kevin Robinson, the district’s finance director, said funds were freed up by adjusting other budget expenditures.

    Fairfield County funding, however, is less certain.

    The county funded its share via budget amendment, essentially a one-off that’s not guaranteed year-to-year.

    Pauley said he didn’t oppose the program, but thought it should be funded from municipal grant funds.

    “I’m inclined to vote in favor of it, but we need to pull the money for it from somewhere else in the budget,” Pauley said. “I believe it is important and can be a big help to our youth.”

    Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas saw the expenditure as taxpayer waste, questioning the value of Midland Technical College’s Fairfield campus.

    “That’s a waste of money. They’ve wasted money ever since they’ve been there. They’ve done nothing for the use of Fairfield County,” Douglas said. “They have tried to get nobody there to take classes and its called Midland Tech campus in Fairfield County, and they haven’t taught anything.”

    Paula Hartman, the Fairfield school board member who voted against the budget, said she didn’t oppose the Fairfield Promise expenditure per se, but did voice concerns about its viability.

    “If it’s something we don’t know we’re going to have, how are we going to budget for it?” she asked.

    Teacher Village update

    In other business, Dr. Green briefed trustees on the progress of the Teacher Village, a proposed housing project designed to lure and retain teachers by building a low-rent subdivision in Winnsboro.

    So far, the district has spent $12,500 in taxpayer money on the project, including $8,500 for surveying costs and $4,000 in legal expenses.

    Hartman questioned why the expenditures were necessary, noting that the Fairfield County School District Education Foundation created to head up the Teacher Village, had $9,100 in its own bank account.

    She also wanted to know why staff didn’t seek board approval for the expenditures.

    Green said a survey was needed to determine the boundaries of the 22 acres.

    “The district absorbed that cost,” Green said.

    As for the legal fees, Green said he previously said there would be legal fees associated with setting up the foundation. He said he provided an estimate, but not a final cost.

    “That was shared with the board,” he said.

    In November 2016, when the board voted to establish the foundation, Green told The Voice that the district would pay roughly $1,000 to register the foundation as a 501(c)(3) organization.

    It was not immediately clear why it cost $4,000 instead.

    The Teacher Village proposes building 30 homes on 22 acres the district owns off U.S. 321 Bypass, behind the district office. Teachers living there would receive taxpayer funded rent subsidies, cutting rent by about $300 a month.

    Gorelick Brothers Financial, a Charlotte, North Carolina firm that would build the development, is also seeking a $600,000 property tax waiver.

  • WTC OKs Teacher Village zoning

    WINNSBORO – A request for R-3 zoning for property for a once controversial Teacher Village, sailed just as smoothly through the second and final reading as it did the first reading.

    Winnsboro Town Council unanimously approved of the rezoning with a 5-0 vote. As during the first reading, there was no discussion except for Councilman John McMeekin assuring those attending that the Planning Commission had thoroughly researched the request before recommending it to Town Council last month.

    No one spoke in support of the rezoning and only one person spoke against it.

    “I am representing my family as adjoining land owners. We have some concerns. What can we do?” Benjamin Clowney asked the council.

    “It seems like the only thing being considered is whether the proposed use meets the R-3 zoning that has been requested, not whether R-3 zoning is appropriate for the area where the subject property lies,” Clowney read from a prepared statement.

    “While the proposed use may meet R-3 zoning, I don’t believe the area is suitable for R-3,” Clowney said. “You’re talking about three or four houses to the acre. It shouldn’t be in that rural location. That is not where it belongs.”

    Mayor Gaddy thanked Clowney for his comments, but no one addressed the information he presented.

    The request is to rezone 22 acres behind the district office from C-2 Commercial to R-3 Residential. The project is expected to cost $3.6 million.

    School Superintendent Dr. J. R. Green said the District plans to give the property to the Fairfield County Education Foundation who will, in turn, turn it over to the developer who will own it and rent out the homes, but only to teachers in the district and to law enforcement and first responders, according to Sue Rex, Chair of the Education Foundation.

    The district is asking for a multi-county business park agreement and a seven-year $600,000 property tax abatement for the developer. Both require County Council approval.

  • Town OKs first vote on Teacher Village

    FCSD Board Chair William Frick discusses a zoning map with FCSD Education Foundation president Dr. Sue Rex and fellow board member Henry Miller following Town Council meeting Tuesday night. | Barbara Ball

    WINNSBORO – After the Teacher Village property request for R3 zoning flew through the Winnsboro Planning Commission faster than a speeding bullet, the feat was duplicated at the Town Council meeting Tuesday evening.

    There was no discussion at either meeting, only a motion in favor and a unanimous vote to approve.

    “This will be the first residential teacher village in the state,” Sue Rex, president of the Fairfield County Education Foundation said, addressing Council. “We are asking you to rezone this 22 acres from C-2, commercial, to R3, residential zoning. [The project] will cost $3.6 million, and the developer is putting all that money into it. The developer will then own the land and rent out the homes but only to teachers in the district,” Rex said.

    “If there are several homes not rented to teachers, they will be available to help recruit law enforcement and first responders. This will contribute to the economic stimulus of the Winnsboro community,” Rex told council members.

    To make the project a reality, however, the school district wants a multi-county business park agreement in place and a seven-year, $600,000 property tax abatement for the developer. Both require County Council approval.

    At a special meeting in November between county and school district officials, there seemed to be little common ground. Citing a litany of potential legal issues, county attorney Tommy Morgan called attention to a 2010 attorney general opinion that raised doubts as to whether the county would be protected if litigation were filed over the Teacher Village.

    “It does give some cause for concern in my mind whether the special source revenue credit agreement would be the best way to accomplish what I understand the school district is wanting to do,” Morgan said.

    Dr. J. R. Green, district superintendent, brushed off concerns about potential litigation.

    But procedural and zoning issues represent added concerns for the county.

    Former Council Chairman Billy Smith said the county hasn’t received any formal requests from the developer, only from the Fairfield County Schools’ Education Foundation, a proxy of the school district.

    Smith suggested a list of conditions he’d like met regarding the Teacher Village:

    • An agreement with the developer to indemnify Fairfield County in the Teacher Village project.
    • An agreement to cover Fairfield’s legal expenses incurred in association with the Teacher Village.
    • A legal description of the Teacher Village property.
    • The Town of Winnsboro agreeing to place the property into the multicounty park since it’s in the town.

    Town Council will have a public hearing and final vote on the rezoning of the property on March 5.

  • Planning Commission gives Village green light for Feb. 14 vote

    WINNSBORO – In a workshop held last week at the Old Armory to discuss the Fairfield County School District’s application for R-3 zoning for a Teacher Village, the Winnsboro Planning Commissions determined they had sufficient information to move forward with the request.

    Moving forward meant setting dates for a Planning Commission meeting that will include a public hearing followed by a vote on whether or not to recommend (to town council) the zoning change from C-2 to R-3, which permits three homes per acre and would allow cluster housing on 22 acres behind the district office off U.S 321 bypass.

    While there was some discussion as to whether the public would attend a public hearing on Valentine’s Day evening, the Commission decided to set both the public hearing and vote for Feb. 14, at 6 p.m.

    The preliminary site plan for the development does not subdivide the Teacher Village into individual lots. Rather, the entire development consists of one lot, planning documents show.

    R3 has less strict design standards than other residential zones, allowing for reduced spacing between buildings – 25 feet, front to front; 20 feet, front to side; and four feet, side to side – than R1 or R2 zones.

    It also only requires 20 percent of open space, as opposed to 35 percent for R1 and 25 percent for R2.

    Yard sizes are also significantly less, planning documents state.

    Required rights of way in an R3 zone are 6,000 square feet for the first home and 2,500 square feet for each additional dwelling unit. An R1 zone requires 6,000 square feet for all units. In an R2 zone, the minimum square footage is 10,000 square feet.

    Fairfield County educational leaders have touted the Teacher Village as vital in recruiting and retaining teachers.

    At issue during the workshop was whether the school district’s request had met the requirements for moving forward.

    For openers, Building and Zoning Director Billy Castles told Commissioners that, based on the scaled drawings submitted, the house footprints were too large for the spaces allotted.

    Later in the discussion, Vice Chair Sam Johnson concurred that the house footprints were all too large for the rectangle spaces allotted for the houses.

    “Would it have been to our benefit to have had the engineer (who drew the plans) here tonight to help with this?” Commissioner Sonja Kennedy asked.

    “It would have been,” Castles said, but explained that because the engineer is doing pro bono work for the school, he would not be attending the meeting.

    “Dr. Green sent me an email saying if I had any questions, get them to him and he would go to the engineer and get it in writing,” Castles said.

    To move past what was becoming a logjam, Sue Rex, president of the Fairfield County School District Education Foundation, reached the engineer, Josh Rabon, on the phone. After some discussion with Commissioners, he determined that the scale was apparently off and offered to re-scale the drawing and email it to them, which he did. While Castles and Rex went to Castle’s office to print out the new scaled plat, the Commissioners discussed whether they had sufficient information (with the corrected scale drawing) to move forward with a recommendation to Town Council.

    Going over the list of requirements as outlined in the town ordinance, Johnson suggested they should not quibble over details.

    “The real issue,” he said, “is whether they (District) are presenting a somewhat coherent plan that meets the intentions that are laid out for us to make a decision as to whether we can justify making a recommendation to Council to change it from C-2 to R-3. As I see it, it looks like we’re headed in the right direction. At the end of the day, it’s probably not going to look like it does as it was given to us.”

    Commissioner Oliver Johnson agreed.

    “Are these perfect architectural drawings?” Oliver Johnson asked, then answered, “No. It (ordinance) doesn’t say they have to present to us the final detailed plan, just, basically, do they have a plan that looks potentially doable.”

    Johnson said the detailed site plan will be in the permitting process, “when they start to build,” Johnson said.

    The public hearing and vote is set for Feb. 14, at the Old Armory, 301 Park Street, Winnsboro. The Planning Commission’s recommendation for or against the rezoning will go to Town Council for the first of two votes on Feb. 19.

  • R3 zoning sought for Teacher Village

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County education leaders have amended a rezoning request for the proposed “Teacher Village” from PD-R, Planned Development-Residential to strictly residential.

    The change in zoning plans was presented last week to the Winnsboro Planning Commission, a week after a previously scheduled meeting was canceled to give the Fairfield County School District more time to assemble the required planning documents.

    Now the district is requesting an R3 zone, which permits three homes per acre and would allow for cluster housing on 22 acres behind the district office off U.S. 321 Bypass.

    The planning commission took no action on the Teacher Village at a meeting last week, but did vote to accept the district’s application package.

    Speaking in public comment, Winnsboro resident Shirley Green, a member of the Fairfield County Education Foundation, said the rezoning should be approved.

    “This rezoning is a large step for the Fairfield County School District Education Foundation, and a giant step for the Town of Winnsboro to infuse our community with housing to attract teachers, first responders and their families,” Green said.

    The R3 zone is a strictly residential zone, allowing only residential uses, whereas the PD-R allows a limited amount of non-residential structures as secondary uses, according to town planning documents.

    A preliminary site plan for the development does not subdivide the Teacher Village into individual lots. Rather, the entire development consists of one lot, planning documents show.

    R3 also has less strict design standards than other residential zones, allowing for reduced spacing between buildings – 25 feet, front to front; 20 feet, front to side; and four feet, side to side – than R1 or R2 zones.

    It also only requires only 20 percent of open space, as opposed to 35 percent for R1 and 25 percent for R2.

    Yard sizes are also significantly less, planning documents state.

    Required rights of way in an R3 zone are 6,000 square feet for the first home and 2,500 square feet for each additional dwelling unit. An R1 zone requires 6,000 square feet for all units. In an R3 zone, the minimum square footage is 10,000.

    Fairfield County educated leaders have touted the Teacher Village as vital in recruiting and retaining teachers.

    Billy Castles, Director of the Town of Winnsboro Building and Zoning Department, has set a workshop for the Planning Commissioners to discuss the preliminary site plan at 4 p.m., Thursday, Jan. 24, at the Old Armory, 307 Park Street, Winnsboro.