Legal Fees for “Edward Woltz Business License Dispute” Top $80,000.

The City of Aiken’s business license tax dispute involving an Aiken business that is co-owned by an Aiken City Council member is now entering its fourth year. The core issue is the constitutionality of a municipality taxing property outside of its jurisdiction. The case is scheduled to be heard by the State of South Carolina’s Administrative Law Court on January 21, 2025 Since the case involves a complex, uniform business license tax Ordinance, the administrative court judge’s ruling could affect municipalities across the state.

As of October 31, 2024, the City’s legal fees for the case have exceeded $80,000.

(An Update to Ed Woltz’s Business License Citation and A Hearing on Business License Taxes). 

by Don Moniak

December 30, 2024

The case of City of Aiken vs Edward Woltz began in November 2021, when Aiken resident and businessman Ed Woltz was quietly cited by the City with a business license violation for failure to pay business license taxes on some of his rental properties that are situated both inside and outside of the City of Aiken, and for not possessing a business license for those properties. Mr. Woltz is an Aiken City Councilman who had been reelected to a second term just a few weeks prior to the citation.  His current term ends this year.

In early September 2022, an agreement was reached to dismiss the criminal case in return for Mr. Woltz paying the back taxes. A tax reassessment for 2018 through 2022 was sent to Mr. Woltz and payment of $11,477 was made, but under protest.

The Aiken law firm of McCants and Nance was then hired to represent Mr. Woltz, his wife and business partner Holly Woltz, and their rental company S&C properties in an appeal of the assessment. At that point, the case became Edward Woltz, Holley Woltz and S&C Properties vs City of Aiken. Subsequently, the Columbia law firm of Robinson, Gray, Stepp, & Laffitte, LLC was hired to represent the City.

A hearing on the case was delayed until June 8, 2023, when a day of testimony was conducted in Aiken City Council chambers. Two weeks later, Aiken City Council’s designated hearing officer Kelly Ziers issued a ruling in favor of the city.

The Zier ruling stipulated that the Woltzes and S&C Properties owed $13,086 for four years of back taxes and penalties for ten properties within Aiken city limits, and an undisclosed amount for the more than dozen properties located outside of the city that are not subject to a business license tax by any other government body. Zier also ruled that because the Woltzes operated their rental business from within the City, the City was within its rights to collect taxes on all properties, both inside and outside of the city limits.

After the adverse ruling, the Woltzes then filed an appeal on August 23, 2023 to the State of South Carolina’s Administrative Law Court.

The appeal reiterated two of the arguments advanced during the city’s hearing; that property owners with only one residential rental unit are not required to obtain a business license, and that many of the Woltz’ rental properties are located outside of the City of Aiken—thus “taxing real properties which are not located within its jurisdiction or its lawful right to do so.”

In response, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss, contending that the Administrative Law Division lacks jurisdiction because the Woltzes were challenging the constitutionality of portions of the business license tax Ordinance.

The Motion to Dismiss was denied in December 2023, with Chief Administrative Law Judge Ralph King Anderson III writing, in part, that 

This court has subject matter jurisdiction in this court…Petitioners do not argue the Ordinance is unconstitutional in all of its applications; rather, they argue it is unconstitutional as applied to their particular circumstances as owners of more than one rental property in, and outside of, the City of Aiken.” 

In other words, the administrative court ruled that it can hear challenges on the parts of the Ordinance applicable to the Woltzes case, though not the entire Ordinance since most of it does not directly pertain to the case.

Since the denial of the Motion to Dismiss, the contested case hearing date has been pushed back three times, the most recent due to Hurricane Helene. It is presently scheduled for January 21-22, 2025. 

According to invoices obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, the City of Aiken has paid more than $80,000 in legal fees to the Columbia law firm of Robinson, Gray, Stepp, & Laffitte, LLC.  between September 1, 2022 and October 1, 2024

Nearly one quarter of the fees, $15,760.20, was charged during the month of June 2023 (Figure 1), when the first hearing was held. A nearly equal amount was spent preparing and defending the City’s Motion to Dismiss at the end of 2023. At this rate, the case will likely cost the city more than $100,000 for a case involving just a fraction of that amount in disputed rental properties back taxes.

Figure 1: Portions of the June 2023 invoice, the most expensive month for the city in the appeals case.



Footnote:

* Robinson, Gray, Stepp, and Latiffe monthly invoice amounts and hours billed for the Woltz business license appeal, for period of September 1, 2022 through October 1, 2024. Data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Month FeesHours billed
September 2022$1,1,254.8
October 2022$1,8608.1
November 2022$2,1977.8
December 2022$5221.9
January 2023$3,10513.1
February 2023$1,6506.4
March 2023$3,20713.8
April 2023$4,33919.5
May 2023$2,91011.8
June 2023$15,76064.5
July 2023$1,3765.2
August 2023$6,43525.9
September 2023$1,0274.1
October 2023$4501.9
November 2023$5,43122.9
December 2023$11,27444.0
January 2024$1,2304.6
February 2024$4,76220.6
March 2024$6,18327.0
April 2024$4,76212.6
May 2024$2251.0
June 202400
July 202400
August 2024$5,89624.2
September 2024$1,2304.6
October 202400
Totals $80,311350

References.

September 2022 appeal (Pages 6-10) to Aiken City Council.

June 2023 ruling by City Council’s hearing designee Kelly Zier.

August 2023 appeal to the South Carolina Administrative Court Division.

December 2023 Order denying City’s Motion to Dismiss the appeal.

Entire response to FOIA request.

Project Wisteria’s One New Job 


by Don Moniak
December 18, 2024


Tuesday night’s Aiken County Council meeting featured an unusual vote of 5-4, the only such vote for all of 2024. 

At issue was the Second Reading of the proposed Fee in Lieu of Taxes* agreement and an associated Industrial/Business Park designation for Project Wisteria (pages 42-91). 

Project Wisteria is a planned $23 million small data storage center to be constructed by an unidentified company and appears to be located on 14 acres along Atomic Road outside of North Augusta City limits (Figure 1). The property is currently owned by DCB (DC Blox) North Augusta, LLC; which purchased it for  $1,588,400 from Riverplace Holding Partnership in November 2024. The area is zoned Urban Development, but does have residential areas within that district.

The data center will involve a single job worth $150,000 per year. 

Figure 1: Proposed location of Project Wisteria data center.


Council members Kelly Mobley, Mike Kellems, Danny Feagan, and Ron Felder voted against the Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) agreement. Mobley and Felder openly questioned the need for a tax incentive for a project that will only create a single new job. Mobley also noted that since the facility will be located on “prime real estate,” the company has already purchased the land, and it is not in an existing county industrial park, there is little reason the County should further incentivize the project.

Council Chairman Gary Bunker and Council members PK Hightower, Phil Napier, Andrew Siders, and Sandy Haskell voted for the agreement and the Industrial/Business Park designation. Siders pointed out the “ancillary jobs” associated with servicing the facility added more value than the focus on a single job.

No other Council member put forth an argument in favor of granting the project tax incentive. 

Will Williams of the Western South Carolina Economic Partnership explained that the FILOT payments would be greater for the first five years, but did not explain the structure after that point nor the differences in revenues through the up to 40-year period of the negotiated FILOT agreement (2).

A public hearing followed by the Third Reading of the Project Wisteria FILOT Ordinance is tentatively scheduled for either Council’s January 7, 2025 or January 21, 2025 public meeting. 

Still No Live Stream Broadcast of Meetings

The spirited discussion revolving around Project Wisteria was only observed by meeting attendees because Aiken County Council does not livestream meetings for its citizens to observe County government in action. 

According to a recent report in The Nerve, Aiken County is one of 20 counties, out of 46, that does not livestream County Council meetings. 

Councilman Mobley, who was attending his last meeting as a Council member, has openly advocated for live streaming of meetings for the past year. During the Administrative Committee meeting he again expressed the need for Council to film the meetings, stating that: 

People are asking to broadcast meetings and see what is going on. People want it, we can afford it, and people will trust us more if we do it.” 

During the public comment portion of the meeting, I asked the audience of approximately 40 county citizens whether they supported live streaming of meetings. An overwhelming majority raised their hand in support.

Footnote

*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.” 

The FILOT rate for Project Sabal is listed as four percent. 

In between his terms on County Council and his election as County Council Chairman, Gary Bunker was a popular columnist for the Aiken Standard. in his columns he routinely described Fee in Lieu of Taxes as an industrial tax incentives. In 2013 he wrote that South Carolina’s tax structure: 

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) See Page 18 of the County’s $6 million grant application for the proposed, and defeated, House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant project for an example of a FILOT payment structure.

Whose Community is Aiken, Anyway?

Here we go again.

The front page article in the Aiken Standard’s December 7 and 8, 2024 edition declares: “Design board makes Aiken less attractive to developers, Realtor says.” (For added perspective, see the Aiken Standard’s May 25, 2024 editorial column, “Aiken is growing, and that growth should be monitored.”)

Should Aiken cater to developers and rely on them to define Aiken’s vision, or should developers adhere to Aiken’s requirements? Many developers doing business in Aiken are not local; they come and go. The Aiken community does not come and go. Who but the City should set equitable residential and commercial development goals, aspirations, and guidelines throughout the entirety of Aiken’s incorporated area?

Special municipalities will always attract developer interest, enabling the communities to move forward in a way of their choosing. Mediocre municipalities with questionable architectural and zoning practices give substantial leeway to developers; which makes it hard to maintain or enhance a community’s distinctiveness. Does Aiken want to take the high road or the low road?

Rather surprisingly, our community chose not to re-elect an incumbent mayor in November 2023, with the community having considered the actual consequences of doing business as usual in Aiken. It is foolhardy to believe that developer-driven commercial sprawl and the clandestine manner in which some of the City’s related application and approval process takes place, were not factors in the election.

Having worked for a developer, I know they seek to fast-track their projects as quickly and with as little interference from the public as possible. Developers aggressively seek substantial profits, and that is legal. They also seek to minimize risk, which, too, is legal if done in a way that does not violate ordinances and victimize others – especially sitting residents.

Is it a bad thing for developers not to have virtual carte blanche for their projects in Aiken? Could there be benefit in developer perception that Aiken is being selective? Is it wrong not to prefer still more gas stations with convenience stores, car washes, dollar stores, and mattress stores populating the City? While not supporting undue delay of process, if that is what is happening, could it be the Aiken Design Review Board is just doing its job?

Whose community is Aiken, anyway?


Bill Reichardt,
Aiken, SC

Ed. Notes:

— The above letter was also submitted to “The Aiken Standard.”
— The comments in question by a local commercial real estate agent were made at the December 5, 2024 Design Review Board meeting. The commentary began at the 44:30 mark of the livestreamed video.
.