WINNSBORO – After being postponed due to the COVID-19 restrictions, municipal elections are set for July 14, for both the Town of Jenkinsville and the Town of Ridgeway.
Jenkinsville
Two town council seats and the office of mayor are up for election,
but only one candidate is running for one of the council seats, one candidate
for mayor and no one filed for the other council seat.
Current mayor Gregrey Ginyard is the only candidate for
mayor. His wife, Betty, is running for one of the council seats and no one
filed for the seat currently held by Joseph McBride.
The Jenkinsville precinct (Jenkinsville Volunteer Fire
Department at 7104 State Highway 215 S., in Jenkinsville,) will be open for
voting from 7 a.m. – 7 p.m., Tuesday, July 14.
Ridgeway
In Ridgeway, two town council seats are open for
election.
Current Councilman Donald Prioleau will be running for his
seat. Former councilwoman Belva Bush Belton is running for the seat currently
held by Angela Harrison, who is not seeking re-election.
The Ridgeway precinct (Former Ridgeway Fire Department at
170 S. Palmer Street in Ridgeway) will be open for voting from 7 a.m. – 7 p.m.,
Tuesday, July 14.
Voting Guidelines
Only citizens residing in the city limits of the two towns
and are properly registered to vote will be eligible to vote in this election.
Check voter registration information at SCVotes.org.
At 11 a.m. on Election Day, the county election commission
will begin examination of the absentee ballot return envelopes for both towns
at 315 S. Congress St in Winnsboro.
On Friday, July 17, at 10 a.m., the county election
commission will hold a hearing to determine the validity of ballots challenged
in these elections and certify the results. This hearing will be held at the
Fairfield County Voter Registration and Elections Office at 315 S. Congress
St., Winnsboro.
JENKINSVILLE – Jenkinsville will remain the same size for now.
The Fairfield County town had until noon Monday to appeal results from the June 5 referendum to the state, but an appeal was never filed, said Chris Whitmire, spokesman for the S.C. Election Commission.
“The SEC has not received any appeals related to Fairfield/Jenkinsville annexation election,” Whitmire said via email, three hours after the deadline.
If Jenkinsville attempts another annexation vote, state law mandates the town will have to wait another two years, said Debby Stidham, the county’s director of voter registration and election.
“When an annexation election is defeated either by the voters inside the municipality concerned or within the territory proposed to be annexed, or both, another annexation election within the territory proposed to be annexed shall not be initiated within a period of twenty-four months from the date upon which the voting took place,” the law reads.
The Jenkinsville annexation effort sought to absorb 143 properties into the town limits. Had the vote succeeded and accepted by town leaders, it would’ve quadrupled the town’s geographic boundaries.
A prior review by The Voice of impacted properties found that the Jenkinsville tax base would’ve mushroomed by a factor of five.
Jenkinsville Mayor Gregrey Ginyard previously has said annexation wasn’t a money grab. He said annexation was necessary to attract businesses and spur economic development.
Speaking during public input at the Fairfield County Council meeting on Monday, Fairfield County resident Jeff Schafer credited Councilwoman Bertha Goins with helping to defeat annexation.
“You saved the county and town grief with annexing of Jenkinsville,” Schafer said.
Goins spoke openly against the annexation vote at a council meeting in May, and urged voters to defeat it.
In the end, that’s what happened. Voters rejected the annexation measure by a 19-15 vote. One ballot against annexation was thrown out because a voter who lived outside the proposed annexation area voted when she shouldn’t have.
Jenkinsville filed a protest of the election results, triggering a county election commission hearing on June 18. Commissioners, however, upheld the referendum results.
Lawyers for the town argued several additional properties should’ve been excluded because contiguity was broken when one voter decided to opt out of annexation.
But commissioners noted that an “opt out” letter from the voter was never sent to the Jenkinsville town clerk.
JENKINSVILLE – Fairfield County election officials upheld the result of the Jenkinsville annexation vote by a more decisive margin than the original referendum itself.
In a unanimous vote Monday, the Fairfield County Election Commission voted to uphold the results of the June 5 special election that saw the annexation measure fail 19-15.
Commissioners agreed one vote shouldn’t have been counted, but it wasn’t enough to sway the final result.
Their decision to uphold the election was largely influenced by a miscommunication regarding a property owner who opted out, according to testimony. His property bordered other contiguous properties, which could have swayed the vote, town attorneys argued.
Commissioners disagreed.
One official noted a letter from the property owner was sent to the town’s lawyer, and not the Jenkinsville town clerk.
“The letter should’ve been sent to the town clerk, and it was not sent to the town clerk,” election commissioner Alice Rice said. “It was sent to the lawyer instead.”
Betty Trapp, chairwoman of the election commission, said a written order of the board’s findings would be issued as soon as possible.
Trapp said the town could file an appeal in accordance with state law.
Section 7-17-60 says appeals must be filed no later than noon Monday following the date of the county board’s decision, pegging the deadline as June 25.
Had the annexation vote passed and been subsequently adopted by Jenkinsville Town Council, the town would have added 143 properties to its tax rolls, quadrupling the town’s geographical boundaries, according to Fairfield County property records.
Two witnesses were called during Monday’s protest hearing: Jenkinsville Mayor Gregrey Ginyard and Debby Stidham, director of voter registration and election for Fairfield County.
Jenkinsville’s protest cited three main arguments:
The list of eligible voters provided to the polling location included voters outside of the proposed annexation area.
A blind woman’s vote was incorrectly counted.
One property owner exercised his right to opt out, which broke continuity with several other properties.
“At minimum, the above irregularities make the actual outcome of the election uncertain and require a new election,” the protest states.
Jeff Goodwyn, a Columbia attorney representing Jenkinsville, focused primarily on the contiguity issue in his opening statement.
Goodwyn said if the property owner who opted out was excluded, it would’ve dramatically impacted the outcome because other properties would have been excluded as well.
“Without this property, the part of the annexation, it breaks the contiguous nature in the city,” he said. “Their votes were meaningless because they couldn’t possibly be in the town.”
Ginyard affirmed that position during testimony at Monday’s hearing.
“There were quite a few votes that shouldn’t have been counted,” he said. “With the vote count being 19-15, with there being eight to 10 votes in that area, that could’ve swung the election either way.”
Ginyard also testified that a blind woman who voted on a paper ballot intended to vote “Yes.” Her vote was excluded because the “X” didn’t appear in either the “Yes” or “No” boxes, Ginyard said.
Election officials, however, said there’s evidence countering that statement.
Commissioners noted the woman cast her ballot at the county election office using an electronic machine, meaning she couldn’t possibly have voted on a paper ballot.
Stidham did confirm that another voter living outside the annexation area cast a ballot, but noted that wasn’t enough to order a new election.
Stidham added that before the election, she sent a list of eligible voters to Ginyard for verification, but never received a response.
“Going by the map I received with tax map numbers, I never got any feedback,” she said. “I assumed we had those registered voters correct.”
Stidham also said the town never mentioned the voter who opted out.
“The ‘opt out’ you keep mentioning, we had no knowledge of an ‘opt out,’” she testified. “We received nothing in my office to know there was an ‘opt out’ to even remove those voters.”
Not mentioned during the hearing were reports that Ginyard was observed inside the polling location, beckoning voters to speak to him before they could register with poll workers and cast ballots.
Stidham and Fairfield County Councilwoman Bertha Goins told The Voice they witnessed Ginyard calling out to voters. Stidham said she eventually asked Ginyard to allow voters to register.
A state election commission spokesman previously said when public officials speak to voters before they register, it could be viewed as campaigning inside a polling location, a violation of state law.
“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.
JENKINSVILLE – Jenkinsville’s effort to challenge the results of a recent annexation vote (see related story on page 6) included subpoenaing a journalist with The Voice.
An attorney for the Town of Jenkinsville issued the subpoena, which sought to compel testimony from reporter Michael Smith at an election protest hearing Monday in Winnsboro.
The subpoena never specified what sort of testimony the town was seeking.
Smith, though, was never called to testify Monday, and the Fairfield County Election Commission voted 5-0 to toss the election protest.
The Voice stood ready to challenge the subpoena, however.
Jay Bender, an attorney representing the newspaper, was present for Monday’s hearing and had planned to file a motion to quash the subpoena. That step became unnecessary when Smith wasn’t called to testify.
Smith was the author of several stories in The Voice about Jenkinsville’s failed effort to annex 143 properties.
If successful, the annexation would have virtually quadrupled the town’s geographical boundaries and increase its tax base by a factor of five.
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.
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.
