Monthly Archives: July 2024

City Government, July 2024

The Citizens’ Voice at City Council Meetings (Part One)

4 Comments

Citizen input has been an elegant, effective and, yes, efficient part of City business for over 100 years and counting. So why did City Council recently move to curtail public comment in their Monday night meetings?

First in a two-part series by Laura Lance
Tuesday, July 30, 2024

On Thursday, June 20, 2024, Aiken City Council released its agenda for the June 24th meeting. City Council meeting agendas are prepared by City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh and, as required under City Code1, they are publicly posted by noon on Friday before the Monday meeting. 

On the agenda were eleven public hearings, which promised a very busy meeting. The last hearing on the agenda was a plain-faced item titled, “First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Section 2.64 of the Aiken City Code.” Unlike the other items on the agenda, this one was devoid of description.2

Many readers might skim past this nondescript title, and that is exactly what happened until Sunday afternoon, when the conspicuous lack of description drew the curiosity of one seasoned agenda reader. Digging into the agenda package, she found the description on pages 341-348. Here, she learned that this proposed ordinance was set to reduce and restrict public input, inquiry and participation in public meetings. She posted notice to the local community via social media:

ABOVE: Screenshot of Katy Lipscomb’s June 23rd social media post, which was accompanied by screenshots3 of pages 341-348 of the meeting agenda package. Click for larger view.

If not for her notice, it is unlikely that anyone would have known the importance of attending the Monday night meeting, much less been compelled to stay into the third and fourth hours of the meeting in order to give comment on this innocuous-sounding agenda item. 

A number of questions beg answers, among them:

  • Why was this important public hearing cloaked behind a vague and incomplete title?
  • Why was this item tacked onto the end of a long list of public hearings?
  • Why was the item’s description effectively hidden from view by burying it on page 341 of the agenda?
  • Who proposed this amendment?
And Why?

According to statements made by two of the six council members who spoke4 during the Monday night “First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Section 2.64 of the Aiken City Code,” the City body was driven by a need for “efficiency.” Toward this end, attendees were advised that City Council meetings are business meetings and that business should go first. There were also concerns that non-agenda comments were causing the meetings to run long.

Councilwoman Kay Brohl suggested that the non-agenda public comments had prevented those who’d come to do business with the City from the opportunity to get up and speak. Council member Ed Girardeau, speaking on the history of citizen comments, said, “There was never a time when the public was allowed to just get up and talk and say whatever they wanted to say.”

Neither of these statements is true. Part Two in this article series will crunch the numbers on Councilwoman Brohl’s statement. Part One will address both the history and the history-making dimensions of non-agenda citizen comments, which have been a part of City Council meetings going back as far as 1842 .

100 Years Ago

A modern reader might feel a creeping sense of deja vu reading the minutes and newspaper accounts of Aiken City Council meetings over the past century. In the 1920s, a City Council meeting could run for three hours, and the people’s voice was no small part of the proceedings.

In addition to comments and petitions from year-round residents, City Council received letters and telegrams from Winter Colony residents who weighed in from afar. The women of the citizen-based Civic League, some of whom hailed from the Winter Colony, were also vocal and regular participants in City government. Citizen concerns of the day included stormwater runoff, sewer infrastructure, parking issues, public restrooms, requests for street lights, planting trees, beautifying parks, and the gathering of petitions to protest the destruction of trees and parks.

Some of the benefits reaped from the citizen input brought to City Council in the 1920s are still with us today: 

  • A citizens petition requesting sidewalk improvements on the north side of South Boundary.
  • A citizen request from Aiken Graded School to use part of Sumter Street and Abbeville Avenue to make a playground and pool for the neighborhood children. Permission was granted, and this property is now part of the Smith Hazel Recreation Center and Park.
  • A successful citizens petition to prevent the destruction of the entire Richland Avenue parkway between Morgan and York Streets during the paving of US Highway One.

BELOW: The drive down Richland Avenue would be a different experience today, had citizens of 1920s Aiken not risen up with petition and protest to oppose the full-scale destruction of the iconic Richland Avenue parkways.

Those off-agenda petitions and requests of the 1920s were the direct efforts by citizens to bring Council’s attention to wants, needs, issues and concerns that might not otherwise be heard. Today, these issues and concerns are brought to City Council during the part of the meeting titled, “Nonagenda Items from the Public.”

Tomato, Tomatoh: Non-Agenda Items vs. Petitions and Requests

The term, “Nonagenda Items from the Public,” appears to be a 21st-century invention. Or possibly a 1980s invention. No one knows. The date and authorship of this ordinance remain mysteries that are stubborn to be solved. Research by numerous individuals and City offices is ongoing and has, so far, come up empty. What is known is that, at some point in the 1970s or later, an ordinance was written to create two nonagenda public comment periods. However, and for reasons unknown, the ordinance was never enforced..

Previous to the “nonagenda public comments” nomenclature, Aiken citizens came before Council during was termed the “Petitions and Requests” part of the agenda.  While the terms, petitions and requests have been fixtures in City Council meetings for over 100 years, they didn’t become a formal part of the lexicon until 1955. This is the year that Aiken adopted the Council-Manager form of government, a form of government proclaimed to the Aiken community as one that would meet the need for “effective citizen participation in city affairs” and would be “more efficient than other forms and more responsive to the will of the people.”

The first City Council agenda in July 1955 under this new form of government included an item titled “Petitions and Requests,” described as “Consideration of requests from citizens present who desire to address the Council.”

Citizen requests were often, but not always, brought in writing. This may have been more a matter of practicality than formality as, in those days and for many years prior, matters brought by citizens were often settled on the spot by Council vote. Having a written record of the request likely streamlined the process. This appears to have been the case, for instance, with the 1928 decision to grant Aiken Graded School the use of Abbeville and Sumter Streets for a playground and pool for neighborhood children.

ABOVE: Screenshot from the August 13, 1928 Aiken City Council meeting minutes. Click for larger view.

The building of the pool was a different matter. The City had already built a pool for White people in 1921, but a pool had yet to be built to accommodate Aiken’s Black citizens. This matter would be brought to Council several times over the next 3 decades, including a  1940 City Council meeting when, according to the local newspaper, “a large group of colored citizens appeared before council to appeal for a swimming pool for the colored children of the city.” In 1954, the City finally built a pool for Aiken’s Black citizens.

ABOVE: During the summer of 1954, and in advance of the City building a new pool for White people, the City Council approved funding for the construction of a pool to accommodate Black people, which came to be named the Smith Hazel Pool. (Source: Aiken Standard & Review, August 12, 1954). Click for larger view.

Throughout the 1950s, “Petitions and Requests” was the first item on the agenda following the approval of the minutes. During the 1960s, “Petitions and Requests” appeared at different places in the agenda, disappearing entirely for some years. The agenda, itself, even disappeared from the record for some of these years, finally reappearing in 1970.

New Rules

On July 12, 1976, the topic of citizen input was addressed by ordinance in City Code in a section titled, “Appearance of Citizens,” which stated:

“Any citizen of the municipality shall be entitled to an appearance before council at any regular meeting concerning any municipal matter, with the exception of personnel matters. Persons desiring to speak, must notify the City Manager prior to the beginning of the meeting. This may be waived by the presiding officer.”

From this point on, the provision for off-agenda citizen input appears to have commenced as in decades before, during the Petitions and Requests part of the agenda. As in years prior, some citizens appeared in person, others not; some delivered their words in writing, others in speech.

Advance, written petitions and requests, which were sometimes added to the agenda, can be found in the archives of City Council agendas, whereas the records of citizens who appeared before Council with nonagenda comment, with no advance written notice, can be found in the archives of City Council meeting minutes.

The meeting minutes from a March 1983 meeting, for instance, show comments from four citizens who appeared before Council during Petitions and Requests. If there was advance, written notice of their appearance, it was not made part of the meeting record. Their requests concerned issues of stormwater, streetlights, road hazards and sewer rats:

ABOVE: Screenshots from the March 14, 1983 Aiken City Council meeting minutes describing four off-agenda citizen comments. Click to enlarge.

Regardless of the method of delivery — and regardless of the presence or absence of an ordinance stating official policy on citizen input — it appears that the City of Aiken always provided an avenue for people to bring off-agenda concerns and requests to Council. 

That is, until sometime during the 1980s, when the tradition of hearing off-agenda comments in “Petitions and Requests” devolved into a system again ruled by habit, not policy — a system where only immediate city business was on the agenda, and requests to even speak on a non-agenda item had to be made in advance. This occurred, paradoxically, during the same time frame it is believed the ordinance for “Nonagenda Items from the Public” was written into City Code but never enacted.

In 2022, the absence of this “Nonagenda items from the Public” comment period was brought to Council’s attention by a number of citizens. Afterward, and without fanfare, the item was added to the agenda for the first time, as reported in the article, Aiken City Council Reimplements Citizen Input Rules.

Today, less than two years later, City Council has made a move — in the interest of “efficiency” — to change City Code in ways that will reduce and restrict citizen input.

This seems a perplexing thing to do, since the record over the past two years shows that the inclusion of the nonagenda comment period has actually brought the City closer to realizing its once-promoted ideals of “effective citizen participation” and of a government “more responsive to the will of the people.”

NEXT: The Citizens’ Voice at City Council Meetings: Part Two

_____________________

REFERENCES:

  1. Screenshot of Section 2-65 of the City Code. Click for larger view.
  1. Screenshots from the June 24, 2024 agenda. Public hearings with proper descriptions are highlighted in yellow. The public hearing without description is highlighted in pink. Click for larger views.
  1. Screenshots of pages 341-348 in the June 24, 2024 City Council meeting agenda. Click for larger views.
  1. Starting point for statement made by six Aiken City Council members on First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Section 2.64 of the Aiken City Code.” during the June 24, 2024 City Council meeting.
City Government, July 2024, Planning & Development

Working Towards a More Generic Community: Aiken’s “Retail Strategies” Contract.

10 Comments

In March 2022 the City of Aiken entered into a $125,000 partnership with Alabama-based consulting firm Retail Strategies, with a goal of recruiting more regional and national retail brands to Aiken—including dollar and mattress stores. The company was retained despite the fact that its recruitment portfolio was dominated by companies already present in Aiken, and more national and regional brand retailers were already moving into the city, especially along the Whiskey Road and Silver Bluff Road corridors. If successful, the contract with Retail Strategies will help to continue to make Aiken a more generic community.

by Don Moniak
July 29, 2024

Does the City of Aiken need help in attracting national and regional chain retailers and restaurants? The answer, according to city officials, is yes.

On March 3, 2022, the City of Aiken’s Economic Development Department inked a three-year, $125,000 contract with Retail Strategies to develop and execute a national and regional brand retail recruitment plan on behalf of the city. The contract was signed in lieu of any competitive procurement process or approval by City Council (1).

Two months after the signing of the contract, Retail Strategies issued a news release announcing a partnership with Aiken that originated in Las Vegas:

“After conversations at ICSC Las Vegas, the nation’s largest retail real estate trade show, Aiken city leaders wanted the Retail Strategies team to represent their city to the retail community.”

The Retail Strategies news release utilized a photo of The Brew Pub, a popular, locally-owned restaurant and brewery that closed in early 2023–even though the Retail Strategies business model does not involve assisting small, locally-owned businesses whose profits generally remain in, and are reinvested in, the community. Instead, the company helps recruit National competitors whose profits are more prone to leaving the area, sometimes to the benefit of private equity firms (2), and sometimes to the detriment of locally-owned small businesses.

Who is Retail Strategies and what is their mission in Aiken? 

Retail Strategies touts itself as, “The national expert in recruiting businesses and strategically developing communities.”

The company’s mission in Aiken was to help the City “understand and identify their redevelopment and retail recruitment goals,” and develop a “tailored retail recruitment plan based on in-depth market analysis, consumer analysis and real estate assessment and proactive retail and broker outreach program.” 

Who does Retail Strategies recruit? On its “Success Stories” page, the company touts its accomplishments in five Southeastern localities: Newberry, SC; High Point, NC; Union County, SC; Albemarle, NC; and Jasper, Alabama.

Of the five, Union County, Albemarle, and Jasper are in economically stressed areas with considerably higher poverty rates and unemployment and lower income levels, and generally lacking the national chains that are already present in more affluent cities and counties like Aiken.

The cumulative list of recruits to the five localities sounds like a Who’s Who of existing national and regional chains in Aiken (Table 1). 

RetailerPresence in Aiken 
ALDIWhiskey Road 
Badcock FurnitureWest Richland Ave. 
Big LotsSilver Bluff (closing)
VerizonSouthside (1) Northside (1)
Chick-fil-AWhiskey Road
Dunkin DonutsWhiskey Road, West Richland 
Firehouse SubsWest Richland
Five Below*Whiskey Road
Harbor FreightWhiskey Road 
Hobby LobbyWhiskey Road
Huddle House**Closed all locations
Mighty DollarNot present
PetcoSilver Bluff
Planet FitnessWhiskey Road
Rose’s ExpressWest Richland
Ollie’s Bargain OutletWest Richland 
Farmer’s Home FurnitureSilver Bluff Road 
Jersey Mike’s Whiskey Road
Kay Jeweler’s Silver Bluff Road
Mattress Firm Whiskey Road (2) 
Papa John’s University Parkway
PetCoSilver Bluff Road
Petsmart Whiskey Road 
Planet Fitness Whiskey Road
Popeye’sYork Street
PublixWhiskey Road (Silver Bluff-planned)
O’Reilly Auto PartsDowntown Richland Avenue
Rose’s West Richland Avenue
StarbucksWhiskey Road, USCA
SupercutsWhiskey Road
T-MobileWhiskey Road
Taco BellWhiskey Road, West Richland
TJ MaxxSilver Bluff Road 
VerizonWhiskey Road, West Richland 
Waffle HouseWest Richland, Whiskey Road, York Street
Wendy’s West Richland, Whiskey Road
Table 1: Listing of national and regional brand businesses targeted by Retail Strategies that already have a presence in Aiken. *Five Below, a retail store specializing in products with a price point of five dollars or less, moved into the Target Shopping Center in Aiken in 2023. Retail Strategies monitored the situation but did not take credit for the company’s move into the Aiken market. ** Huddle House’s West Richland Avenue location closed, but was replaced by the locally-owned business, “The Flippin’ Egg.”

There are companies on the Retail Strategies success list that are not in the Aiken Market, including the $1.25-per-item discount chain Mighty Dollar; restaurant chains Dickey’s BBQ, East Coast Wings and Grille, Freddy’s Frozen Custards, Texas Roadhouse, Wingstop, and Highway 55 Burgers; retail clothing stores Burke’s Outlet and Shoe Carnival; and Take 5 Oil Change.  

The Aiken Results to Date

On March 25, 2024, Retail Strategies provided an update at a City Council work session on its efforts and the status of potential national and regional brands; summarized in a lightly redacted chart titled “Active Recruitment Prospects (Figure 1).

The list reads more like a monitoring effort than an update on recruitment. The actual connection between Retail Strategies and companies already seeking a presence in Aiken appeared tenuous; company reps provided City Council with no success stories similar to those in other regional markets.

This is to be expected when Whiskey Road, Silver Bluff Road, and West Richland Avenue already have high occupancy rates of national and regional retailers. And, in fact, the contract technically only mandates the company make contacts with 30 retailers, not actively recruitment 30 retailers.

Figure 1: Redacted Listing of National and Regional Brand “Prospects”


In regard to the redacted company names and road locations, the consultant explained that the rationale of the redactions was to avoid revealing company names and potential locations, which in turn could provoke speculation in local real estate. But in a small town like Aiken with only several commercial districts, the redactions seem superfluous.

Among the redactions are:

  • Two “National Grocers” projects that are already in progress. It was common knowledge at the time that Lowe’s was establishing its presence at Powderhouse and Whiskey Roads—and has since opened its first store in the area. The second grocer is Publix, which was in the pre-construction phase of a second South Aiken location adjacent to the Village at Woodside along Silver Bluff Road—commonly known information that Retail Strategies chose to unnecessarily redact. Neither development has any identifiable connection with the Retail Strategies contract.
  • A regional convenience store (C-Store) chain seeking four locations in the market. Parker’s Kitchen is commonly known to be that C-Store. It has opened one location along West Richland Avenue that was approved in May 2022; is developing a second on East Pine Log Road, and sought to build one on “the Southern end of Whiskey Road,” another commonly known fact that Retail Strategies chose to redact. Again, there is no indication that Retail Strategies recruited Parker’s Kitchen.
  • The business that was reluctant about being “away from the center of synergy” clearly had the Whiskey Road and/or Silver Bluff Road corridors in mind. 
  • The “Aiken Development Project” now appears to be Rutland Place, which is described as a “mixed use” development across from Aiken High School, and was recently approved by Aiken City Council.  

One primary recruitment contractual focus area identified by Retail Strategies is a “grocery-anchored shopping center,” ostensibly on the northeast side of town where residents have experienced a decrease in grocery options in this century. But no such prospect is listed as the company enters the last year of its contract.

Northside residents hopeful for a store to compete with KJ’s are often told that “retail follows rooftops,” a sentiment that was repeated by City officials at the March 25th meeting.

However, Retail Strategies presented a different viewpoint, that
“Retail builds on retail.” In a graphic titled “Retail Recruitment Ladder,” (Figure 2), the company presents 27 national firms; of which 21 are already in Aiken. Everyone of the 21 companies in Aiken has a store on the Southside; only four have a second store on the Northside.

In essence, the City pursued a six-figure consulting contract that, if successful, was more likely to lead to more congestion on Whiskey and Silver Bluff Roads.

In addition, subsidizing any recruitment of national or regional retailers has the potential to harm locally-owned small businesses. Putting a photo of the former Brew Pub on a news release touting the $125,000 (4). Retail Strategies contract does not change the latter dynamic of trading uniqueness for a more generic community flavor.

Figure 2: Retail Strategies “Retail Recruitment Ladder,” presented at the Aiken City Council’s March 25, 2024, work session. Emphasis added in red.

Footnotes: 

(1) The City of Aiken did not actually “select” Retail Strategies in the traditional procurement sense.  According to the City’s procurement website, there was no bidding process for national brand recruitment services. The lack of a procurement process, which is required for professional service contracts over $25,000, was confirmed in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

In the absence of a competitive procurement process, only City Council can approve contracts greater than $25,000; as it did with the City’s $250,000 contract with the Aiken Corporation for “predevelopment work” of the SRNL project. 

In addition, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh has declined to either confirm or deny whether the funding derived from the hospitality tax revenue budgeted for use by the City’s former Economic Development Department.

(2) Local National Brand businesses owned, now or in the recent past, by private equity firms include Petsmart and Petco.

(3) Retail Strategies success stories: 

Albemarle, North Carolina: 

“Dickey’s BBQ ($605,000) has created 10 jobs; East Coast Wings and Grill ($1.5 million) has created 20 jobs; Farmer’s Furniture ($2.4 million) has created 5 jobs; Highway 55 Burgers, Shakes and Fries ($1 million) has created 20 jobs; Ollie’s Bargain Outlet ($4.33 million) has created 30 jobs; PetSmart ($5.022 million) has created 29 jobs; Chick-fil-A ($2.09 million) has created 36 jobs; Verizon ($3 million) has created 10 jobs; Rose’s Express ($3.5 million) has created 25 jobs; Harbor Freight ($3 million) has created 15 jobs; Planet Fitness ($550,000) has created 10 jobs.” 

Union, SC: 

Harbor Freight, Starbucks, Wendy’s

Newberry, SC 

To date Starbucks, Firehouse Subs, Mighty Dollar, Papa John’s, Big Lots, Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Harbor Freight Tools, Burke’s Outlet, Taco Bell, and Huddle House have all opened locations in the market.

High Point, NC

Publix, ALDI, O’Reilly Auto Parts, Jersey Mike’s, Kay Jewelers, Take 5 Oil Change, Wingstop, Texas Roadhouse, and more.

Jasper Alabama, 

ALDI, Dunham’s Sports, Five Below, Harbor Freight Tools, Hobby Lobby, TJ Maxx, Huddle House, Dunkin’ Donuts, Freddy’s Frozen Custard, Mattress Firm, Petco, Planet Fitness, Shoe Carnival, Supercuts, Waffle House, Wendy’s, and Badcock Furniture 

4. How much is $125,000?

On September 11, 2023, Aiken City Council debated whether to give fire engine operators a 4% or an 8% raise. The latter involved $64,000.

Aiken County, July 2024, Savannah River Site, Taxation

The DOE/SRS Payment in Lieu of Taxes:

2 Comments

In 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) paid Aiken County $1.62 million in lieu of taxes for its 72,471-acre portion of the Savannah River Site (SRS) that is in the County.

DOE has been paying this same nominal amount since 2009.

The SRS Payment in Lieu of Taxes is considerably higher than the tax payments that would be levied if the entire property were used strictly for agricultural purposes, including timber production, but appear substantially lower relative to other large industrial enterprises in Aiken County.

For example, Bridgestone paid nearly $3.0 million in 2023, and five other companies paid at least $0.25 million.

by Don Moniak
July 24, 2024

The recent debate over the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant shed public light on the concept of “Fee in Lieu of Taxes”, wherein counties negotiate tax incentives to attract larger industries and employers. (1)

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) occupies 198,344 acres of land across three counties (Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale), of which 72,471 acres are in Aiken county. The total captial investments across the site easily exceed $100 billion.

If it were privately owned, DOE/SRS would, like Bridgestone, Kimberly Clark, Autoneum, and numerous other major local employers, be paying a negotiated Fee in Lieu of Taxes. (FILOT).

However, since federal property is exempt from taxes, the best and only deal since ~1969 for Aiken County to recoup lost revenue from the land has been to arrange for a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PiLT) with DOE.

In his June 2024 newsletter, Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) described a portion of an exchange he had with one of DOE’s highest-ranking officials:  

“With the (Department of Energy’s) Savannah River Site transitioning from an Environment Management to a National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) site, there were concerns about PiLT being impacted. During a House Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby if there would be any changes and she testified that everything would remain the same. I am also grateful to have language included in the FY25 NDAA that reaffirms NNSA’s commitment to fund PiLT.” (2) 

Congressman Wilson’s lob-ball question had a self-congratulatory air to it. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was already one of many DOE program offices involved in the PiLT program; there was no reason to believe it would not be at SRS.

In fact, DOE had already paid $1.62 million to Aiken County for Calendar Year 2023, or $22.35 per acre. On April 16, 2024, Aiken County Council approved a Resolution, as part of its Consent Agenda, to accept the 2023 Payment in Lieu of Taxes from DOE (Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Resolution to accept Payment in Lieu of Taxes for Calendar Year 2023. Click to enlarge.


The questions that were not asked by Congressman Wilson, or at least not reported, were “How much should DOE be paying,” and “Why is DOE paying the same Payment in Lieu of Taxes today that it has paid since 2009?” 

The PiLT at SRS

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PiLT) are generally defined as “payments that help local governments offset losses in property taxes due to the existence of nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries.”  The Savannah River Site (SRS) is is one of twelve Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities sites that require a Payment in Lieu of Taxes to the local communities in which they are located.

The calculation of this payment is based in large part upon acreage, estimated value, the assessment ratio, and the property tax rate; which in turn is dependent upon what the land use classification would be if the lands were privately owned. In the case of SRS, the question of whether that classification would be commercial, residential, industrial, and/or agricultural/forestry is much more challenging because of the enormity of the site.

According to a 2020 General Accounting Office report that assessed inequities and inconsistencies in the program, PiLT payments have always been calculated to “reflect the revenues communities would have received had the property remained on the tax rolls in the condition in which it was acquired.” (In the case of most of the DOE nuclear weapons production complex, “acquired” also involved the forced relocation of entire existing communities.)

The conditions in which the SRS properties were acquired (or seized, depending on one’s outlook) in the early 1950’s included the basis of “highest and best use” at the time of the acquisition, defined as the “highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable and needed in the reasonably near future” in the year before the properties were seized. Though that may all sound confusing, it all boils down to “what were the uses of the land before being acquired” and “what would be the near-future potential of the land if it had not been acquired.”

When SRS was developed in the early 1950’s, the dominant land uses were of agricultural and timberland purposes; with scattered commercial enterprises, including a veneer plant and some small sawmills. Although “reasonably near future potential” would undoubtedly have included some private industrial facilities similar to those in Augusta, whether was this factored into the early Payment in Lieu of Taxes is not evidenced.

In 2007, DOE and Aiken County adjusted the per-acre value for Aiken and Barnwell Counties, establishing a property value of $1,641 per acre and $712 per acre, respectively. The GAO reported that:

“According to county officials, the counties and DOE agreed to use a negotiated rate rather than a rate based on current assessment values partly because of the difficulty of conducting appraisals because of the large amount of land, lack of comparable properties, and the high expense of an appraisal. Because of this reliance on a negotiated, rather than assessed value, it is unclear whether these payments reflect the revenues the counties would have received had the property remained on the tax rolls in the condition in which it was acquired. Had DOE required independent review of key determinants of PILT payments, this deviation from using assessed values might have been avoided.”

The $1.6 Million Aiken County PiLT payment.

In 2023, the Aiken County Assessor’s Office (3) determined that the 72,471 acres of SRS property in the County had a market land value of $217.4 million, or $3,000 per acre; an 83-percent increase over the 2007 negotiated PiLT rate that involves a mix of agricultural and industrial taxation values.

Agricultural and forest lands taxation values vary according to soil productivity.

As a few points of reference, the owner of a 1,663-acre managed forestland a few miles southwest of SRS had a tax bill in 2023 of $2,169; or $1.31/acre. The owner of a second, more productive site closer to the Savannah River paid $2.05/acre. And the owner of a 98-acre forested parcel closer to the SRS boundary paid $113 in property taxes in 2023; or $1.15/acre. 

Northeast and downwind of SRS, Walther Farms paid $15,525 on its 3,748-acre farm along Oak Ridge Road northeast of downtown Windsor; or $4.14/acre.

Since the SRS property is composed primarily of forested lands that are largely managed for timber production, their PiLT of $22.35/acre could be viewed as quite a reasonable deal for Aiken County.

But the SRS landscape also includes dangerous nuclear facilities and some of the most toxic radiochemical waste stews in the nation; including ~34 million gallons of unstable “tank waste” composed of highly radioactive “sludge” and “low-level saltcake.” From this perspective, a $1.62 million a year payment could seem very insufficient; as it does little to pay for the advance planning for emergency contingencies in the case of a major nuclear accident at SRS; and certainly not the reduced property value, real or perceived, of nearby lands in such an event. 

For example, the $600 million SRS/Plutonium Settlement of 2020 was obtained by arguing, in part, that the risks of long-term plutonium storage posed unnecessary risks to local communities. While plutonium storage in K-Area poses substantial dangers, the hazards are relatively benign compared to the high-curie contents of the radioactive sludges in F and H area, the irradiated fuel stored in L-Area, and ongoing tritium processing operations.

Even if there was an absence of existing radiochemical hazards at SRS, the PiLT is relatively meager compared to the Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) paid by other large industrial enterprises in Aiken County (Table 1).

CompanyFILOT/PiLT
($ Million)		AcreageBuilding Footprints (Square Ft)
DOE/SRS$1.62 72,471Unavailable*
Bridgestone**$2.901,0784,200,000
Kimberly Clark$1.65***3842,600,000
MTU$0.4550320,000
Ambiopharm$0.293282,566
Autoneum$0.2524315,000
Table 1: Department of Energy Payment in Lieu of Taxes compared to five highest Fee in Lieu of Taxes payments to Aiken County for Fiscal Year 2024. FILOT data provided by Aiken County Finance Department. FILOT is primarily based on industrial developments and existing equipment depreciation; not on acreage or building footprint. The latter are provided only for a sense of scale. *The SRS industrial footprint dwarfs that of other local industries. The new Plutonium Pit Fabrication Plant and H-Canyon alone combine for nearly a million square feet. Savannah River National Laboratory has another 0.75 million square feet across 59 buildings onsite.**Bridgestone figures are for the two plants combined.
***The Kimberly Clark line item “includes the general fund portion of the FILOT for Kimberly Clark and Shaw, as well as the 1% multi-county park payments from Edgefield, Saluda, and Barnwell.” DOE/SRS building space is estimated.

 

Despite land values in Aiken County having increased substantially since 2007, the DOE/SRS Payment in Lieu of Taxes has remained flat for 16 years. No matter how the numbers are sliced, it is obvious that the Department of Energy is not paying a fair Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PiLT) relative to other industries and non-agricultural property owners.

(From Top Left to Bottom Left: The Defense Waste Processing Facility, the H-Area Industrial Complex, a schematic of K-Area Plutonium storage and disposition-to-waste facilities, and the Savannah River National Laboratory footprint (within red boundary lines).

Footnotes

(1) Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) 

The South Carolina Department of Revenue summarizes FILOT as: 

“Industries that invest at least $2.5 million in South Carolina may negotiate for a fee-in-lieu of property taxes. This can result in a savings of about 40% on property taxes otherwise due for a project. Certain large investments may be able to further reduce their liability by negotiating the assessment ratio from 10.5% down to 6%. For large investments, the assessment ratio can be reduced down to 4%. 

The county and the industry may agree to either set the millage rate for the entire agreement period or have the millage change every five years in step with the average millage rate for the area where the project is located. Any personal property subject to the fee in lieu of property taxes depreciates in accordance with South Carolina law, while the real property is either set at cost for the life of the agreement or can be appraised every five years.

A fee in lieu of property taxes is granted by, and at the discretion of, the county where the project is located. The industry must make the $2.5 million investment over a five-year period to qualify. Large investment projects have eight years to meet their increased investment requirements. During this period, all property that is placed in service pursuant to the agreement is subject to a fee instead of ad valorem property taxes. 

A county may give the industry an additional five years to complete the project and place new property in service subject to the fee. A single piece of property can be subject to the fee for up to 40 years with the county’s consent. The total project can be subject to the fee for up to 50 years with the county’s consent.” 

“Encourages retirees to settle here, who benefit from low property taxes. Their limited retirement income isn’t greatly penalized by the high income tax.  Conversely, this tax structure is hard on businesses and manufacturing. It encourages fee-in-lieu of tax agreements and special source revenue credits to get around high property tax rates on large industrial developments. In essence, the left hand must undo the damage caused by the right.” 

(2) SRS remains a Department of Energy (DOE) site. Although DOE’s “semi-autonomous” National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) has replaced DOE’s Environmental Management (EM) division as the SRS “landlord,” the site retains a very substantial EM mission. More jobs still remain in EM than in the weapons program. (See: We Need the Space.) 

 The Department of Energy’s Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program, as authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-703, 42 U.S.C. §2208). DOE Directive 143.1.A details the requirements of the PiLT program at DOE nuclear facilities sites.

GAO Report 20-122 provides extensive details and background of the DOE PiLT program.

(3) While the Assessor continues to list the owner as “Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), C/O Department of Energy,” in all actuality, the AEC was abolished in 1974 and divided into the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Department of Energy now owns the Savannah River Site. 

Just one year ago, the County Assessor’s SRS Parcel Summary reported the site as being in the New Holland Fire District, and listed the land type as being “Commercial 6%.” That listing has since been corrected to read “Government Property.” 

Fire district locations are not directly reported within the Parcel Summary. To determine which fire district a property falls in, a land database user must go to the mapping function and click on “fire district” in the legends list. In this case, SRS properly is shown as being in the SRS Fire District.  


(4) Complete List of the “actual general fund portion of the FILOT payments for Fiscal Year 2024” to Aiken County in 2023; provided by Aiken County Finance Department. (FY 2024 ended on June 30, 2024)

City Government, Forests, July 2024, Parks & Recreation

1979: An Aiken Tree Story

4 Comments

by Don Moniak
July 22, 2024

There is no shortage of stories illustrating the passion that Aiken-area residents have for their forested parkways and parks.

In 1973 four residents protested a road widening project on Chesterfield Street by standing in front of the bulldozers. After a larger outcry ensued, the project was halted. The event is cited as the catalyst for the founding of Historic Aiken Foundation.

In 2014, an up-swelling of opposition to removing the Marion Oak tree resulted in an effort to preserve the tree for at least another generation. Unbeknownst to City officials, the tree was actually the largest White Oak in South Carolina; and was added to the Clemson Champion Trees of South Carolina list in the midst of the controversy.

An editorial in the Aiken Standard by the late Aiken conservationist Margaret Shealy advocated saving the tree while alerting people to “the mode of operation of the city of Aiken to chop, hack and remove one of our greatest resources – our trees.”

Instead of removing the giant oak tree, City Manager John Klimm opted to recommend retaining historic tree preservation expert Guy Mueiller to implement a preservation strategy (Figure 1) of crown reduction pruning, cabling, and soil enhancement; an action supported by city engineers (see Mr. Mueiller’s assessment of the situation in The Tale of Maid Marion ).

Even though the tree collapsed before he could implement the plan, the community came out in droves to honor the tree that had been so admired, to take a piece as a keepsake, to haul off a large enough limb to craft furniture, or collect acorns to perpetuate its progeny.

Several years ago a group of area residents tied themselves to a giant oak to object to the excessive pruning of trees on Colleton Street by South Carolina Electric and Gas; actions described by the protesters as a “slaughter,” and “butchering.” The uproar compelled the City to intervene and negotiate with SCEG.

Just one year ago the Farmer’s Market “tree massacre” of ten trees and three-quarters of the canopy on that portion of that portion of Williamsburg Street drew so much citizen outrage that the associated redevelopment project was halted, and has yet to resume. Among the trees removed was a rare variety of slash pine that was part of the city-wide Arboretum; a tree that did not qualify as “grand,” but was arguably the most significant tree on the block.

Figures 1 and 2: Partial details of the proposed Marion Oak Preservation plan and measurements for Champion Tree nomination; click to enlarge.

The Unauthorized Tree Removal of 1979

Sometime on the weekend of September 29, 1979, Aiken resident Dr. Robert Bowen had an oak tree* that occupied the right of way in front of his property on 425 Laurens St fallen and removed (*The tree’s measurements were never reported).

In a letter to City Council, then-City Attorney Henry Summerall explained the situation (Figure 3).

Because the tree was in the right of way, the oak was a city-owned tree. However, the tree was removed without authorization. Shortly after the tree was cut, Mr. Henry Summerall advised City Horticulturist Tom Rapp, who had reported the illegal tree removal, to cite Mr. Bowen for violating of Section 17-7 of Aiken Municipal Code; which at the time stated:

“It shall be unlawful for any for any person to cut, break, strip off the bark, or damage in any manner any tree or shrub planted in any street, square, or other public place in the City.”

Figure 3: October 4, 1979 Letter from City Attorney Henry Summerall to Aiken City Council; from October 8, 1979 City Council agenda packet, pages 11-12; click to enlarge.

Mr. Summerall then prepared a resolution for City Council that would approve suing Mr. Bowen for damages; writing that an example should be made from this situation to deter future unauthorized felling or otherwise damaging city trees (see Page 13).

Lawyering Up

Mr. Bowen then retained Attorney Buzz Rich, a partner in the law firm of Lybrand, Rich, to present his case.

In a letter (Figure 4) to City Attorney Summerall, Mr. Rich explained that his client had been compelled to remove the tree in order to salvage the sale of an old house the buyer was having moved to another location. When the buyer threatened to cancel the sale, Mr. Bowen had the tree cut to enable the house relocation.

In his concluding paragraph, Mr. Rich wrote:

“This has been a most unfortunate occurrence for all parties concerned, and I hope that this will settle the matter with no ill feelings toward anyone. I personally deplore the destruction of any of our beautiful trees and shrubbery in Aiken, however, I understand the position which Doctor Bowen found himself to be in, and I trust that you will also so understand.”

Mr. Summerall’s memo to Council admitted that the tree removal “was a necessity in order to get the house removed at a particular time;” Dr. Bowen was willing to pay for a new tree “if the expenses incurred are reasonable;” and no legal action would be taken “unless it becomes necessary.” The end result of the code violation was never reported).

Screenshot
Screenshot

Figure 4: Portion of letter from Attorney Arthur “Buzz” Rich to City Attorney Henry Summerall. For complete letter see Pages 22-23 of the November 9, 1979 City Council agenda. Mr. Summerall’s memo is on Page 21.

Postscript:

Information regarding another house relocation that was actually prevented on the basis that tree removal or removals were necessary can be found in The Chairman’s Bias and Aiken’s Cousin Problem.

Aiken County, Aiken County Government, July 2024, taxation

The One-Percent Sales Tax Referendum Public Hearing

2 Comments

And other Aiken County Council meetings details.

by Don Moniak
July 16, 2024

Tonight’s  Aiken County Council Regular Meeting will feature the first and only Public Hearing “To Reimpose and Continue a One Percent Sales and Use Tax, Subject to a Referendum, Within Aiken County.” The tax is in support of the Capital Projects Sales Tax program.

At issue is whether to approve moving forward with a tax and spend referendum that will be placed before County voters on November’s General Election ballot.

The funds are being sought for “designing, engineering, constructing or improving highways, roads, sidewalks, streets and/or bridges; designing, engineering, constructing or improving public facilities for recreation, public safety and/or government services; designing, engineering, constructing or improving drainage systems; purchasing equipment, vehicles and computer systems to support the performance of government services.”

One notable allocation in the final $260 million referendum package is $28 million for improvements to the City of the Aiken’s sewer and water systems. Thus, County residents are being asked to foot improvement costs that should be borne by the city’s water and sewer customers.

Other water providers such as Breezy Hill PSA and Valley PSA do not have the option of subsidizing their operations and infrastructure with county sales tax funds. Their customers foot the bills.

This Public Hearing is also the first time that citizen input has been formally authorized at a CPST-related public meeting at the County level.

Instead of first soliciting citizen input at Town Halls or non-decisional public hearings, Aiken County Council* opted to allow County staff to set priorities and generate a project list. Several Ad Hoc Committee public meetings were held, but public comment periods were absent from the agendas.

The Capital Project Sales Tax Commission then held four meetings one-hour meetings to review the referendum package. Public comments periods were again conspicuously absent from the agendas.  

Only after a final list was compiled and approved were people authorized to comment. 

(Complete information on the Public Hearing and the full list of CPST projects is in the Regular Meeting Agenda Packet of Supporting Documents, pages 8-21. Previous Aiken Chronicles reports on the CPST issue are More Than Pennies and CPST Requests.

Aiken County citizens are allowed to speak for up to five minutes at Public Hearings, and up to three minutes on non agenda issues during the “informal meeting of the whole” at the end of meetings.)

Other County Council Business

On the Work Session Agenda (6 pm) is a “Presentation from Horse Creek Valley” involving the proposed private construction and debris Class 2 landfill off Dixie Clay Road south of Bath. The landfill is currently undergoing the SC Department of Environmental Services’ (SCDES, formerly DHEC) permitting process. 

Following that is the Monthly Financial Report.

From 5 to 6 p.m. Council will hold three Committee hearings where new issues are discussed and approvals are sought for various resolutions that are on the larger “consent agenda” to be approved during the regular meeting.

On the Development Committee Agenda (5 pm) are discussions on the Whiskey Road drainage project, nuisance cleanup costs, new fire station assistance, five resolutions for placement on the “consent agenda,” and monthly reports from the Planning and Engineering Departments.

Notable on the consent agenda is approval of an additional $36K for the quarter-million dollar stormwater detention pond repair project in Gregg’s Mill subdivision. 

The Monthly Reports  include status updates pertaining to: 

  • Building permits: there has been a ten percent increase in building permit revenue to date compared to last year. 
  • New subdivisions: 71 new subdivisions are in various stages of development across the unincorporated portions of the County.  Twelve of the projects are reported to have expired performance bonds, several are reported as idle, and one (Turner Development’s Weeping Willow project) has a stop-work order on it. 
  • Capital Project Sales Tax projects over the past ten years. 

On the Administrative Committee Agenda is a single item, the monthly Vacancy Report. Notable vacancies include fourteen Dispatcher, three EMS Crew Chief,  fourteen Detention Officer, and 10 Sheriff’s Deputy positions; all of which are chronic shortages. 

On the Judicial and Public Safety Committee Agenda is a resolution to sell surplus equipment and the standard Monthly Public Safety Reports, that break down incidents by Fire Protection District and provide summaries of Emergency Response/Ambulance data. 

Footnote

* Aiken City Council took the same approach. Staff presented a list, Council discussed the list, and the list was presented to the public for comment. There were no public hearings or other input sessions at the early stages.